.:HSTuners::

Robert · 10-05-2006, 09:31 PM

U.S. Constitution: Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The idea that ownership of guns is intimately tied to political freedom is a cornerstone of political thought in the United States. It informs and shapes many a debate, from the question of gun control to the existence of militias, from individual rights to the central power of the federal government. It is not our intention to enter into this debate in this article.

We wish to look at a different aspect of the debate by following the logic inherent in the idea that the keeping and bearing of arms is closely linked to freedom, in the specific situation facing the citizens and residents of the United States today.

It is clear to lucid observers of the American political scene that the Bush administration is waging a war against the U.S. Constitution. Bush himself has referred to it as a "just a piece of paper", a curious position for the man given the task of defending that same Constitution. The presidential oath of office, which appears in Article 2 of the Constitution , states:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Clearly, it is the last thing on Bush's mind.

Last week's enshrining of the "right to torture" as the right of the central government in assuring its security is but one more step on this path, a path that has seen individual rights and liberties fall one by one in the face of the need for "greater security" and the "necessity of protecting our freedoms". Many observers have pointed out the inherent contradiction in sacrificing rights and liberties in order to preserve those same rights and liberties, so we will not go into that here.

In the five years since 9/11, then, the Bush administration has carried out the greatest attack on rights and liberties in the history of the republic -- without disarming the population.

Isn't this curious? Shouldn't that fact tell us something? Might not the entire debate over the right to bear arms be a diversion, a smokescreen, encouraging U.S. citizens to reduce liberty to the right to bear arms? To lull them into a false sense of security: "I have my gun, therefore I am free"? What liberty is left when one's only defence against false arrest, unlawful detention, and torture is to force a stand off at gunpoint when they come to take you away?

Most Americans have been so brainwashed and emptied of the ability to think critically that they are willingly going to the slaughter, still metaphorical at present, but for how long? While they have their TV's, iPod's, SUV's, and fast food, they believe they are free. They send their sons and daughters to far-off lands to die for what they are told by pathological liars is a noble cause. As one reader of the Signs page wrote to us recently:

"Only those who are willing to be led to slaughter will be slaughtered without a fight."

Therefore it is in the interests of the government and those behind it calling the shots to mould a citizenry that will go willingly to slaughter. They are obviously doing this very successfully.

If we look at the attacks Bush & Co are making on the Constitution, these are happening in spite of the fact that many Americans bear arms. People are being controlled in other ways, ways that go around the use of arms: the media, the education system, the fear of Arabs and "Islamic terrorists" whipped up after 9/11, the control of Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive by the Israel Lobby. It may even extend to the foods people are encouraged to eat that give them junk calories and not nutrition, to the omnipresence of microwaves and cell phone towers.

We repeat, when we look at all that has changed in the USA since 9/11, we see it has been done without disarming Americans.

But people have been disarmed of their capacity to think.

By the time it gets to guns, it is too late, those freedoms have already been lost, so that concentrating on the right to bear arms is looking in the wrong place. That is what I mean when I say it may lead to a false sense of security. People could think that because they are still armed, they, and their freedoms, are still safe even though those freedoms have already been lost.

It looks as if the freedoms of Americans will be lost in spite of an armed population because first, the tyrants have figured out a way of turning the majority of people into sheep, and second, those left will be isolated and unable to make a difference, even with guns.

I take very seriously the attacks on the Constitution. I am shocked that more Americans do not, that they do not see what is happening to their country and that they do not do more to take it back. Before it comes down to a question of guns. It seems to be a case of what we call 'wishful thinking'.

Wishful Thinking

Our goal at Signs of the Times is to present a description of reality that is as close as we can get to the facts, to what is really happening. We publish articles from many points of view, in the context of our commentary and the research of the Quantum Future Group. Obviously, we are still limited in what we see and know, but with each month and year, our understanding deepens.

Such an approach is the opposite of what we term 'wishful thinking', that is, seeing the world as one would like it to be rather than as it is. "How one would like it to be" is influenced by many things, from our education, the way we were raised in our families, the propaganda in the media, the social reinforcement coming from the continual repetition of this propaganda by our friends, colleagues, and family, our need to feel secure, etc. Wishful thinking is the easy way, the path of least resistence. One doesn't need to think; one simply accepts what one hears and parrots it back.

'Wishful thinking' is influenced by those ideas we hold strongly and dear, such as "The US is the pinnacle of freedom in the world".

More cruelly, these different factors become layers in our ability to cut through our filters and blinders. We may believe that we are "thinking through" a problem or issue, but we are blind to other filters and beliefs that exist in layers deeper down.

'Wishful thinking' also latches onto the visible forms of things and ignores the possibility that the forms may stay stable while the content of those forms change. Look at the form of the U.S. government for example. It is divided into the Legislative, the Judiciary, and the Executive. On paper, it looks the same as the government formed at the close of the 18th century by the founding fathers of the U.S. However, the actual workings of that government have completely changed. Think of George W. Bush's "signing statements", the influence of lobbyists, as well as the changes discussed above since 9/11. Is the Judiciary still independent when it can be used to install a man as president who was not voted in by the electorate?

Look as well at the nature of society those 217 years ago when George Washington became president. When civilians or members of militias had arms at home, they were muskets, rifles, pistols, swords, and bayonets. And when they confronted the opposing army, their opponents were armed with pretty much the same things. Add a few cannons into the mixture, and you have people and arms on both sides, meeting face to face on a battlefield.

What is the situation today? The U.S. army and police forces have access to arms that no civilian will ever have, without going onto the illegal arms market. They have remotely controlled weapons that can attack at great distances. What will happen if there is ever a confrontation between the forces of the government and the civil population? Will it be an even match?

Today, when the police confront an armed man, it is an excuse for them to shoot.

Furthermore, given that the majority of the civilian population is being willingly led to slaughter, what kind of organized populace would ever be able to confront the government? How free are a people engaged in the type of battle we see in Iraq or in Palestine?

Clearly, the situation today has changed from that in 1776 or 1789.

But 'wishful thinking' is highly resistant to fact and proof, preferring the comfort of belief to the ambiguities and instability of a constant putting into question of one's thoughts and ideas.

In the case of the right to bear arms, we can see 'wishful thinking'. It manifests as the idea that "as long as I have my gun, I am free". As we have shown above, this idea is dangerous to those very freedoms. It encourages passivity in the immediate because guns are the means of last resort. If guns come into play in the U.S., it will most likely be because the country has been pushed into a civil war.

And who will that benefit?

The pathocrats, the pathological figures in power, holding real power, whose goal is the death of billions of people of conscience. That includes people of conscience in the United States of America.

For those of you who have guns, please understand. We wish only to encourage you to think through the logic we are describing in this article so that you will not be manoeuvered into a battle of force you cannot win. If it comes to guns, we are convinced that it will already be too late to protect your freedoms, not to mention your families.

Do not be lulled and taken in by the idea that your guns alone will protect you. Knowledge will protect you: the knowledge of the true nature of the enemy, the psychopath and other pathological types; the knowledge of how they operate, of how they manipulate; the knowledge of the true reasons for war in the Middle East; the knowledge of why Bush and Co. are waging a war on the Constitution, and knowledge, as well, of the rest of the world and the justness of its anger towards the government of your country.

Extricating ourselves from the flames of the world and the plans of the pathoicrats will take great care and an understanding of complexity. Reliance upon and faith in simple solutions and simple slogans will only ensure the loss of our freedoms and the victory of tyranny.

Article found here http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/3...nd _Amendment

*ChrisCantSkate* · 10-06-2006, 08:56 AM

lots of reading, im not doing it all. i read the first few paragraphs. i see pro's and cons to this. maybe get rid of handguns, but we as a nation are supposta be armed so we can help and be called to arms if ever needed(where we'd be equiped with better guns than you can buy in the store) and also to overhrow the gov't if the time ever came.(which sounds good and all... but seriously i doubt it could be done)

Robert · 10-06-2006, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisCantSkate

lots of reading, im not doing it all. i read the first few paragraphs. i see pro's and cons to this. maybe get rid of handguns, but we as a nation are supposta be armed so we can help and be called to arms if ever needed(where we'd be equiped with better guns than you can buy in the store) and also to overhrow the gov't if the time ever came.(which sounds good and all... but seriously i doubt it could be done)

I think it could be done done with the help of the military. Remember there are 270 million Americans. There are not 10 Million service men/women. SO actually maybe it would be possible. I highly doubt with a few million people marched on gov't that they would be able to attack them out right. I suspect the military/gov't would actually start to attack us individually, the divide and concor style.

Our lives are isolating us more then ever before and leave us open to situations where we can be attack individually when we attempt to organize.

Who really cares if the person writting the website above disappears? Who would do something about it? However if there was a phsycial group of people being attacked it would be more visable.

It is in the same lines of wiretaps. Society feels wronged if they actually come into your house to bug your phones, however voted to allow it to happen remotely. Very strange.

VR4_Craver · 10-06-2006, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert

It is in the same lines of wiretaps. Society feels wronged if they actually come into your house to bug your phones, however voted to allow it to happen remotely. Very strange.

I think its all about a privacy thing or thinking that it should be "someone else" who is getting the tap. But when people march in with the listening hardware it makes people realize that to someone else...they are someone else.

10-05-2006, 09:31 PM	#1
Robert R-Tard Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 612	Wishful Thinking and the Second Amendment U.S. Constitution: Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The idea that ownership of guns is intimately tied to political freedom is a cornerstone of political thought in the United States. It informs and shapes many a debate, from the question of gun control to the existence of militias, from individual rights to the central power of the federal government. It is not our intention to enter into this debate in this article. We wish to look at a different aspect of the debate by following the logic inherent in the idea that the keeping and bearing of arms is closely linked to freedom, in the specific situation facing the citizens and residents of the United States today. It is clear to lucid observers of the American political scene that the Bush administration is waging a war against the U.S. Constitution. Bush himself has referred to it as a "just a piece of paper", a curious position for the man given the task of defending that same Constitution. The presidential oath of office, which appears in Article 2 of the Constitution , states: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Clearly, it is the last thing on Bush's mind. Last week's enshrining of the "right to torture" as the right of the central government in assuring its security is but one more step on this path, a path that has seen individual rights and liberties fall one by one in the face of the need for "greater security" and the "necessity of protecting our freedoms". Many observers have pointed out the inherent contradiction in sacrificing rights and liberties in order to preserve those same rights and liberties, so we will not go into that here. In the five years since 9/11, then, the Bush administration has carried out the greatest attack on rights and liberties in the history of the republic -- without disarming the population. Isn't this curious? Shouldn't that fact tell us something? Might not the entire debate over the right to bear arms be a diversion, a smokescreen, encouraging U.S. citizens to reduce liberty to the right to bear arms? To lull them into a false sense of security: "I have my gun, therefore I am free"? What liberty is left when one's only defence against false arrest, unlawful detention, and torture is to force a stand off at gunpoint when they come to take you away? Most Americans have been so brainwashed and emptied of the ability to think critically that they are willingly going to the slaughter, still metaphorical at present, but for how long? While they have their TV's, iPod's, SUV's, and fast food, they believe they are free. They send their sons and daughters to far-off lands to die for what they are told by pathological liars is a noble cause. As one reader of the Signs page wrote to us recently: "Only those who are willing to be led to slaughter will be slaughtered without a fight." Therefore it is in the interests of the government and those behind it calling the shots to mould a citizenry that will go willingly to slaughter. They are obviously doing this very successfully. If we look at the attacks Bush & Co are making on the Constitution, these are happening in spite of the fact that many Americans bear arms. People are being controlled in other ways, ways that go around the use of arms: the media, the education system, the fear of Arabs and "Islamic terrorists" whipped up after 9/11, the control of Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive by the Israel Lobby. It may even extend to the foods people are encouraged to eat that give them junk calories and not nutrition, to the omnipresence of microwaves and cell phone towers. We repeat, when we look at all that has changed in the USA since 9/11, we see it has been done without disarming Americans. But people have been disarmed of their capacity to think. By the time it gets to guns, it is too late, those freedoms have already been lost, so that concentrating on the right to bear arms is looking in the wrong place. That is what I mean when I say it may lead to a false sense of security. People could think that because they are still armed, they, and their freedoms, are still safe even though those freedoms have already been lost. It looks as if the freedoms of Americans will be lost in spite of an armed population because first, the tyrants have figured out a way of turning the majority of people into sheep, and second, those left will be isolated and unable to make a difference, even with guns. I take very seriously the attacks on the Constitution. I am shocked that more Americans do not, that they do not see what is happening to their country and that they do not do more to take it back. Before it comes down to a question of guns. It seems to be a case of what we call 'wishful thinking'. Wishful Thinking Our goal at Signs of the Times is to present a description of reality that is as close as we can get to the facts, to what is really happening. We publish articles from many points of view, in the context of our commentary and the research of the Quantum Future Group. Obviously, we are still limited in what we see and know, but with each month and year, our understanding deepens. Such an approach is the opposite of what we term 'wishful thinking', that is, seeing the world as one would like it to be rather than as it is. "How one would like it to be" is influenced by many things, from our education, the way we were raised in our families, the propaganda in the media, the social reinforcement coming from the continual repetition of this propaganda by our friends, colleagues, and family, our need to feel secure, etc. Wishful thinking is the easy way, the path of least resistence. One doesn't need to think; one simply accepts what one hears and parrots it back. 'Wishful thinking' is influenced by those ideas we hold strongly and dear, such as "The US is the pinnacle of freedom in the world". More cruelly, these different factors become layers in our ability to cut through our filters and blinders. We may believe that we are "thinking through" a problem or issue, but we are blind to other filters and beliefs that exist in layers deeper down. 'Wishful thinking' also latches onto the visible forms of things and ignores the possibility that the forms may stay stable while the content of those forms change. Look at the form of the U.S. government for example. It is divided into the Legislative, the Judiciary, and the Executive. On paper, it looks the same as the government formed at the close of the 18th century by the founding fathers of the U.S. However, the actual workings of that government have completely changed. Think of George W. Bush's "signing statements", the influence of lobbyists, as well as the changes discussed above since 9/11. Is the Judiciary still independent when it can be used to install a man as president who was not voted in by the electorate? Look as well at the nature of society those 217 years ago when George Washington became president. When civilians or members of militias had arms at home, they were muskets, rifles, pistols, swords, and bayonets. And when they confronted the opposing army, their opponents were armed with pretty much the same things. Add a few cannons into the mixture, and you have people and arms on both sides, meeting face to face on a battlefield. What is the situation today? The U.S. army and police forces have access to arms that no civilian will ever have, without going onto the illegal arms market. They have remotely controlled weapons that can attack at great distances. What will happen if there is ever a confrontation between the forces of the government and the civil population? Will it be an even match? Today, when the police confront an armed man, it is an excuse for them to shoot. Furthermore, given that the majority of the civilian population is being willingly led to slaughter, what kind of organized populace would ever be able to confront the government? How free are a people engaged in the type of battle we see in Iraq or in Palestine? Clearly, the situation today has changed from that in 1776 or 1789. But 'wishful thinking' is highly resistant to fact and proof, preferring the comfort of belief to the ambiguities and instability of a constant putting into question of one's thoughts and ideas. In the case of the right to bear arms, we can see 'wishful thinking'. It manifests as the idea that "as long as I have my gun, I am free". As we have shown above, this idea is dangerous to those very freedoms. It encourages passivity in the immediate because guns are the means of last resort. If guns come into play in the U.S., it will most likely be because the country has been pushed into a civil war. And who will that benefit? The pathocrats, the pathological figures in power, holding real power, whose goal is the death of billions of people of conscience. That includes people of conscience in the United States of America. For those of you who have guns, please understand. We wish only to encourage you to think through the logic we are describing in this article so that you will not be manoeuvered into a battle of force you cannot win. If it comes to guns, we are convinced that it will already be too late to protect your freedoms, not to mention your families. Do not be lulled and taken in by the idea that your guns alone will protect you. Knowledge will protect you: the knowledge of the true nature of the enemy, the psychopath and other pathological types; the knowledge of how they operate, of how they manipulate; the knowledge of the true reasons for war in the Middle East; the knowledge of why Bush and Co. are waging a war on the Constitution, and knowledge, as well, of the rest of the world and the justness of its anger towards the government of your country. Extricating ourselves from the flames of the world and the plans of the pathoicrats will take great care and an understanding of complexity. Reliance upon and faith in simple solutions and simple slogans will only ensure the loss of our freedoms and the victory of tyranny. Article found here http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/3...nd _Amendment

10-06-2006, 08:56 AM	#2
ChrisCantSkate Thought Police Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: orlando florida Age: 40 Posts: 9,662	lots of reading, im not doing it all. i read the first few paragraphs. i see pro's and cons to this. maybe get rid of handguns, but we as a nation are supposta be armed so we can help and be called to arms if ever needed(where we'd be equiped with better guns than you can buy in the store) and also to overhrow the gov't if the time ever came.(which sounds good and all... but seriously i doubt it could be done) __________________ Black Vtec Prelude-h22a power'd Many dreams come true, and some have silver linings. I live for my dreams and a pocket full of gold.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode