THIS MAKES ME SAD

[WalkerInTheWoods]

This is getting off the original topic, but I do need to say something here. I respect your opinion astralc, but I do not share it. I strongly feel that people have a right to own a gun if they wish to do so. I strongly feel that people kill people, not guns. People were killing others long before guns were thought of. All that laws restricting guns do is keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals will get a gun if they want to reguardless of the law which he cares nothing about. So if just criminals have guns then the citizens are lacking in personal defense. Is this a good idea? If someone has broken into your house I do not think they are going to wait around for the police to show up before they shoot you, rape your wife, do god knows what with your children and then take your valuables. Lets look at the event that you presented. If the people at this tourist centre had guns, then as soon as this lunatic started shooting the other people could have took him out before he had killed more than a few people.

[Cylentpanthur]

I too, want to add one personal point on this topic (or off-topic as the case may be). I believe it is a parent's responsibility if their child gets ahold of a gun and shoots someone. Keeping them under lock and key and telling the kids "Don't touch" is the wrong approach. Families that own a gun should be required to take their children out and teach them how to use it properly, and then be shown what happens when something is shot. Shoot a soda can or something, and show them the damage that is done. Children don't understand "don't" but they understand what they see. If a child knows how to use a gun and the damage it can do, it no longer becomes a curiosity and a toy. Many lives will be saved.

MEOW http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile_sleepy.gif" border=0>

[koshka]

O my gosh -- what rich and and tasty posts!

First, speaking to the subject of this (the more we look at it -- bizarre) pledge phenomenon.  My research shows that it began back in 1892 as an agenda backed by the most popular American magazine of the time.  The push for the pledge was supposedly organized to celebrate the fourth centennial of Columbus' discovery of the New World.  (Take note of the name "Columbus" and the term "New World" for later discussion.)  The public focus was schools.  Most American schools did not fly a national flag, which really is more of a fixture and requirement for military and national government reservations.  Lots of hoopla about this at the time.  

The original words of the pledge said: "I pledge allegiance to MY flag...."  The long-range plan was for ALL school kids in EVERY nation to repeat the same pledge, essentially, simply changing the quaint local name of the nation state.  Hey, it just struck me that the International Boy Scouts includes a flag pledge of allegiance as part of their ceremonial tradition (in the US at least).  Hmm.  Do these elements remind anyone else of the Nazi movement?  Probably just a coincidence.  The Swastika is a hypnotic mandala which was affixed to everything.  Red, white, and blue bunting became more ubiquitous in the Commonwealth and America and France.  The modern Olympic movement began back about that time, true?  The "Flag-Bearing Ceremony" is perhaps the most well known spectacle of "The Games" except for...the lighting of the "Eternal Flame" which symbolically supercedes the flags.  Most nations in fact dip their national flags as a gesture of respect (submission) to the illuminating flame of the Olympian games (gods).

And this is the same "eternal flame" as appears on the grave of JFK and Princess Diana.  The same (sacrificial -- "illumined" -- Luciferic) flame carved above the entrance to the tunnel where Diana met her death by collision with the thirteenth pillar therein.  That location in Paris being built on the site of the ancient Diana (sacrifice) cult.  Dast those coincidences.

The shooting incident in Australia has become well known as a classic example of a very possible mind control operation.  Remember Mel Gibson's character in "Conspiracy Theory?"  The shooter had been under the "care" of a Tavistock affiliated doctor.

One Tavistock mind control doctrine has been referred to as the Hegelian Process, or "Problem -- Reaction -- Solution" (Thesis -- Antithesis -- Synthesis).  Say you wish to bring about a preposterous-sounding notion such as disarming the rugged, independent-minded Australian.  Head on, this would seem ludicrous on the face.  Create a Manchurian Candidate (who is actually anything but a random madman).  Engineer an atrocity (which is not actually random either, and often augmented by other team perpetrators).  The public is shocked and outraged -- scared witless.  "What can be done?"
"SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!"  The government stammers at first (as we're accustomed to governments behaving).  A bold, fantastic initiative emerges: ban all guns.  "YES YES YES!" cry the people with EXASPERATION at the accustomed denseness and sloth of "democratic" government.  Done.  Good work that, mate.  Problem -- Reaction -- Solution.

Columbine High School in Colorado is another one of these engineered atrocities.  Even the name "Columbine,"  related to "Columbus" (derived from "columba" meaning "dove") is an occult symbol of death.  Interesting that schools were targeted back in 1892 during the Columbian Centennial.  

 

[Patty]

To paraphrase: It is a parent's responsibility to keep their kids and guns separated.

this seems naive to me. Many parents haven't the slightest idea of what parenthood is (myself included) until they go through it. Each age presents new challenges.  Many parents have children they didn't plan. They didn't want to be parents in the first place. And there certainly isn't any sort of effort in place to motivate parents to police their kids actions re: guns. For example, the columbine shooters parents are not in jail (and I am not saying they should be.)

Where does one draw the line? Should be people be allowed to keep submachine guns in the house? After all, it is the people that kill people, not the weapons.

Re:  A criminal will get his hand on a weapon......

Well, in the case of school shootings, if the only easily accesible weapon was a knife, most likely no one would have died (at the most perhaps one or two people) and the boys would have gotten some help before they actually ended the lives of many fellow students. The difference is that a gun can take out people, many people, at a distance.  Any weapon that can do that is qualitatively 'different' and more dangerous.  One needs only to look at the percapita gunshot deaths in Canada (or presumably Australia) compared to the US to see that gun laws save lives.

quote:
Canada-US Comparaison
Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. In Canada, handguns have been licensed and registered since the 1930's, ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns. Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of gun clubs or collectors. Very few (about 50 in the country) have been given permits to carry handguns for "self-protection." This is only possible if an applicant can prove that their life is in danger and the police cannot protect them.

As a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 76 million. While there are other factors affecting murder, suicide and unintentional injury rates, a comparison of data in Canada and the United States suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is roughly equivalent (1.8 times) to that of Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 14.5 times the Canadian rate. The costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries have been compared and estimated to be $495 (US) per resident in the United States compared to $195 per resident in Canada

For more info, go to:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm

 



Patty

[astralc]

Patty, Koshka, cainam_nazier, fallnangel77, Cylentpanthur

I appreciate your points, but I still stand by my convictions, no guns = no school shootings. Come on girls, we need more Patty's, this male phalic thing is getting out of conrol.

Sure we should all teach our kids how to handle things safely, but how many parents even know what their teenage sons get up to?? Not many.

How many yong males commit suicide by shooting, I think it is next highest to hanging, & that is in Australia. With guns so available, shooting suicides might be higher than the rope in the US.

I spent the past 12 months trying to help our teenagers at school deal with a shooting suicide we had - inside the school itself. It was not a nice experience believe me. So anyone who advocates free availability of guns on the open market, must be crazy.

Do you want an idiot like Martin Bryant living next door to you? A nutter who is allowed, by the laws of his country, to have an arsenal by his bedside waiting for him to flip out and shoot you, or your son or daughter? I don't.

Astralc

"What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
www.shoal.net.au/~astralc
"The marriage of the ancient arts of astrology, taoism, tantra and the modern science of psychology."

[cainam_nazier]

But had I been there I would have shot him.


David Rogalski
cainam_nazier@hotmail.com
I am he who walks in the light but is masked by the shadows.

[koshka]

Testing testing --

I had just hit the submit button on a very eloquent reply...
and my computer immediately went black -- at that exact moment.

[koshka]

I'm going to try shorter messages, but there are many points.  The accusation that a concern for gun rights is phallic-obsessive seems quite unfair.  Two women shooters were the situational militia a few weeks back who terminated the homocidal career of that maniac in New York.  The Second Ammendment to the US Constitution has been called the first E.R.A. for women.  Rosie O'Donnell and Sharon Stone (Stone was executive producer of the violent western fantasy "The Quick and the Dead") both support a ban on guns, yet employ armed bodyguards for thenselves.  Don't they trust the police to protect them?  O yes, our courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to protect us.

[astralc]

cainam_nazier

If I had a gun in my pocket I would have shot Martin Bryant too, but my argument is that no body should have access to guns without first proving that they have a darn good reason for it.

The Martin Bryants of this world, and the two kids at Columbine HS, should never have free access to weapons, ever. And our society should have laws to protect us from those who wish it to be otherwise. To think that 'Moses' Charlton Heston, head of the Gun Lobby in the US, has such a sway over the US people that he can make everyone in the USA fear for their and their childrens lives because all you have to do to get a gun is pay the money at the counter.

As for Sharon Stone's The Quick & The Dead, the movie was a flop as it should have been!

Astralc

"What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
www.shoal.net.au/~astralc
"The marriage of the ancient arts of astrology, taoism, tantra and the modern science of psychology."

[koshka]

Yes, "The Quick and the Dead" was a silly movie.  It is an example of some gun grabbers' hypocrisy.  The rich limousine liberals of the world apparently have a "darn good reason" -- at least their bodyguards do, they're paid to GUARD the BODY with professional tools of the trade.

Kennesaw, Georgia passed a city ordinance back in the eighties requiring each household to have a firearm.  Their crime rate now is nearly zilch.  No one who wishes not to comply is questioned.  Their economy is booming from the people and businesses fleeing Atlanta and other urban gardens of restricted gun peace.  Virgin, Utah recently passed a similar ordinance (see www.virginutah.com).

[koshka]

I recently watched a documentary about "The Rape of Nanking."  An unusual bit of historical information struck me.  Now, the Chinese garrison at Nanking surrendered to the Japanese, all soldiers and arms.  The Chinese were immediately slaughtered and the understanding was spread among the Japanese that they were to have their ferocious way with every living thing in the city.  After a time many young soldiers began suffering from a strange malnutrition -- strange because there was plenty food.  The soldiers would eat but it was impossible to keep anything down.  The Japanese referred to it as "soldiers' starvation."  These soldiers were so profoundly effected by the horrific atrocities they were constantly witnessing and participating in, that many died of the strange "starvation."  

I had to study films and reports of the New Mexico Prison riots.  It was unbelievable savagery -- and without guns -- just screwdrivers, blowtorches, broomhandles  and such.  Our pleasant valley home is just 12 miles north of Carson City, location of the large state prison complex.  If those prisoners ever erupt from there, they're likely to follow the interstate north to Reno.  Well, maybe they'll just succumb early to "soldiers' starvation" after victimizing my neighbors.  "Darn good reasons" are many times only clear AFTER the rape.

[koshka]

Have people heard of "MK Ultra?"  The US Congress established that it does exist.  Try an Internet search.  Look into TRACE FORMATION OF AMERICA by Cathy O'Brien.  These monsters' fingerprints are all over such killers as Berkowitz ("Son of Sam"), the virtual twins Chapman and Hinkley, as well as Sirhan Sirhan...and the guy in Brisbane...and the guy in Scotland...and Tim McVey whose personal psychiatrist was the top mind control doc, Dr. Jollian "Jolly" West.

The sheriff at the Columbine event refused to let anyone leave the high school building for 3 HOURS.  Kids witnessed masked military types prowling the halls and rooms, shooting people.  The hours of video tapes recording the events inside are not allowed to be released.  Neither are the 18 independent video surveillance tapes present around the Murrah Building in Oklahoma city.

[PeacefulWarrior]

I'm sorry, but the info in that last post sounds a bit crazy.  One can carry the conspiracy thing a little too far.  I think everyone agrees (including an acquaintance of mine who was a student at Columbine and was there the day of the shootings) that Columbine was a tragedy brought on by two very twisted and demonic teens.

fides quaerens intellectum

[koshka]

PeacefulWarrior

That's interesting that your friend was at the high school that day.  What happened?  Hopefully your friend is allright.

[astralc]

koshka

nice info re:Kennesaw, Georgia, I wonder how long things will stay sane? Where there is a firearm, there is always someone to pull the trigger I say! But if it works, and I do doubt it, then we should all do it. I will await longterm findings first, keep us informed, koshka.

'Soldier illness', poor bastards, I am sure not all of the Japanese soldiers helped in the terrible attrocities at Nanking, to the sensitive soul it must have been bad, but for the poor citizens, much much worse.

PeacefulWarrior - good post, yeah, keep it simple and straight down the line, mate!

Anyway, back to my line, no one should have guns without strict control. I wouldn't want one of those mexican prisoners climbing down my street either, so why build prisons near townships? We do screw things up well us humans.

Astralc



"What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
www.shoal.net.au/~astralc
"The marriage of the ancient arts of astrology, taoism, tantra and the modern science of psychology."

[koshka]

My family and I shall be out of town for two weeks.  I'll be interested to hear more first-hand about Columbine, etc.

It's official: England/Wales has the highest per cap crime rate of the western countries.  Switzerland (where every man is furnished a military firearm by the government) is sitting about 16 or 17, with the wicked, gun-totin' USA next in line at 15 or 16.  Yes, thank you: there IS another side to these issues.

FEMA is on-line to complete "temporary cities" (concentration camps) to hold many thousands or millions of people by the first of 2003.  The prisons WILL be the townships.  The Second Ammendment was recognised (not established -- it's always inallienable) to deal with an intolerable government of oppression.  "The roots of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots" (Thomas Jefferson -- who would have been VERY concerned if slaves could possess guns).

[koshka]

Remember the 1950's classic sci-fi film "The Day the Earth Stood Still"?  Klaatu (Michael Rene) tells the people of the Earth that no aggression will be tolerated to exist any further between the nations of Earth because humans have attained nuclear weapons and the rudiments of space travel.  Earth, therefore, has become a potential threat to other worlds.  A race of robots ("Gort") has been created to enforce this peace, and absolute power has been given to them.  The same idea was presented in "Dr. Strangelove," a computer system would launch total war automatically -- no human intervention.  A gun ban would have to be enforced by "Gort."

[PeacefulWarrior]

Court rules Pledge of Allegiance 'unconstitutional'
June 26, 2002 Posted: 5:28 PM EDT (2128 GMT)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag cannot be recited in public schools because the phrase "under God" endorses religion.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that reciting the phrase was a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state and amounted to government endorsing religion.

If it stands, the ruling means schoolchildren -- at least in the nine Western states covered by the court -- cannot recite the pledge, according to The Associated Press.

"The recitation that ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgement that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase 'one nation under God' in the context of the pledge is normative," the court said in its decision.

"To recite the pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism."

The phrase was added in 1954 through legislation signed by President Eisenhower. The appeals court noted that Eisenhower wrote then that "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.  


 EXTRA INFORMATION  
History of the Pledge    


 
   LEGAL RESOURCES  

Latest Legal News


Law Library


FindLaw Consumer Center  Select a topicBankruptcyDiscriminationDivorceEstate PlanningLandlord-TenantPersonal InjuryTaxes  

 


Although no child is forced to say the pledge, the judges said any child whose personal or religious beliefs prevented him from reciting the pledge was left with the "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting."

The case had been filed against the United States, the U.S. Congress, California, and two school districts and its officials by Andrew Newdow, an atheist whose daughter attends public school in California.

The government said that the phrase "under God" had minimal religious content.

But the appeals court said that teachers having classrooms reciting the pledge did not pass the coercion test. The court also said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see it as an attempt to "enforce a `religious orthodoxy' of monotheism."

The three-judge panel was not unanimous in the ruling.

Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, who agreed with some elements of the decision but disagreed with the overall opinion, said phrases such as "under God" or "In God We Trust" have "no tendency to establish religion in this country," except in the eyes of those who "most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity."

"My reading of the stelliscript suggests that upon Newdow's theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings. 'God Bless America' and 'America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware!" wrote Fernandez.

The 9th Circuit is the most liberal and the most overturned appeals court in the country.



fides quaerens intellectum