26625 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tue, Feb 27, 2018 - 5:35pm (Reply to #19950)
Mr. Fix
Offline
-
NY
Joined: Jun 8, 2012
10728
64130

Mr. Green Lantern...

Good afternoon Green Lantern…

Obviously,

Our discussions would not work on Main Street, for two reasons: Off-topic, and incomprehensible to most. 

However, we do have this forum, and even if people just lurk, it does appear to be a reasonably popular forum.

Now, I realize, that I might have missed it, because I've also realized that I have this deeply rooted belief, that there is no such thing as a "lucid, highly logical statement from a gun grabbing moron, so I will concede that you might have posted one, and I might have missed it.

We both know how the mind can play tricks on someone who doesn't believe in the existence of something.

So humor me, and enlighten me, and give me a "lucid, highly logical” appeal for gun confiscation, or, even more restrictions then the ones we already have.

You have peaked my curiosity as a well studied, and well-informed, and amazingly articulate person, that you would think that such a thing exists.

That being said, it could also explain why you're the only one capable of seeing it.

And, I'll admit it, I was looking forward to smashing the shit out of it.

Now, let's start with defining natural law, starting with a really, really simple concept that a four-year-old can easily comprehend.

I know this to be true, from personal experience, because my daughter understood it with no problem whatsoever:

“DO NO HARM, and TAKE NO SHIT!”

It's a good starting point, and yes, there may be some nuances that need to be looked into. The subtleties of natural law can always be explored, but you do need a fairly definitive starting point.

Obviously, you and I have explored many subtleties.

In my personal experience, I have observed that people who have not been previously indoctrinated in standard issue mind fucks handed down for eons through parents, Government indoctrination centers, or religious mind and body fucking centers, can almost always easily grasp these principles. Governments label such principles as terroristic, and most good people will avoid looking at them,

Religions label them as satanic, daemonic, or evil, and again, most good people will avoid looking at them.

So almost everyone chooses to remain completely ignorant, ironically, because they think they are doing the right thing.

In that context, I disagree with your assertion that most men aren't capable of comprehending these simple truths.

Very, very few have ever been exposed to them.

I also agree with you that people can study these things their entire lives, and still find themselves in situations where right actions are not an easy decision.

But at least they are starting with, and working from principals. Most people, just take the easy way out, each and every time.

Most people don't have principals to work from.

Unless of course, they've been government, or religiously trained, and then, they have exactly the wrong principles to work with.

This is what is required for a person to truly believe that no one except the government should have a gun, and that only authority figures should have a monopoly on violence. You've got to be under some heavy duty fucking mind control to believe that kind of shit.

You also have to be completely, and absolutely ignorant of natural law. Only then can a human being be so damn stupid.

Obviously, religions, and governments, have a vested interest in making sure they stay that way.

I disagree with this: "Dogma is ascerting any truth is absolute.”

Truth is absolute, and knowable. 

It matters not if an entire planet believes a lie, that doesn't change what is true.

What does change, is what we have been taught to believe is true.

Here, I'll give you an example.

“Do no harm” correlates to the sacred feminine, "Take no shit" correlates to the sacred masculine.

I went there once with you, and you showed me a picture of some she-devil bitch with 8 arms and legs.

Obviously, we've been reading from different books on the topic.

Integrating these two basic concepts, And applying them to one's life, is obviously easier said than done. But it is a starting point.

Now, for guns.

You described my position well with this: 

"Total FREEDOM on guns. Who gets them, what weapon they choose, and no limits on where to carry.” 

If self-defense is a natural right, (And it is), that is the only acceptable position, and yes, it is an absolute.

Now for your example,

The one with the mentally disturbed, on heavy pharmaceuticals, with a history of pedophilia, do I Think he should have absolute freedom to own anything he wants?

Surprise surprise, my answer is yes. It applies equally to everyone. 

Now let's follow up with your hypothetical, and imagine if you will, that this man is a priest, and a religious teacher, with a proclivity for little girls.

Should he be allowed a congregation to prey upon? It doesn't matter whether or not it's allowed, it is, and it happens all the time.

So what's the remedy?

The first cute little girl that he attacks pulls out a gun, and blows his fucking balls off.

And for extra added measure, since I believe that little children should have proper supervision, guidance and stewardship from competent parents, after the little girl blows his balls off, her dad can blow his head off.

Problem solved.

You say people can't comprehend natural law because of consciousness, and it's easy for them to be controlled.

Again, I disagree.

People can't comprehend what they have never been taught. It is their ignorance that makes them so easily controlled.

Of course, if you believe in a really, stupid ideology that has something to do with imaginary authority figures, you become incredibly easy to control. This also goes a long way towards making the truth incomprehensible.

If you believe that human beings were designed by their Creator to be self-governing, then control is a mere illusion.

Different people will draw the line on the "take no shit" part of this law differently. Some people for example, will challenge an armed and dangerous psychopath with a gun and a badge, on a secluded country road. This would be quite stupid.

I myself, chose to challenge him in a court room, in front of a hundred witnesses. It's amazing how these Satanic bastards collapse like a house of cards when there are witnesses. 

Yes, they like to kill witnesses, but they rarely resort to genocide in full public view.

They are cowards at heart, and know that they have no truth whatsoever to stand upon.

Everyone told me don't challenge them, just pay the damn fine.

Fuck all of you, I was right, and I could prove it in a very public manner. It's how I applied "take no shit”.

They displayed their lethal force, I only countered with truth.

Truth is absolute, and a very powerful thing.

In the microcosm, in the hands of an individual, these principles are powerful tools for living life.

I would be quite idealistic just think I could change the world with them. I can’t.

Yes, Mark Passoi set out to change the world with truth, and for 10 years, he gave it his very best shot.

I think I eased his frustration somewhat, when I explained to him that his work has made enormous differences in individual lives.

In the macrocosm, I will agree with him, humanity is now even dumber than it was when he began.

At least, he's been a huge benefit to me, my daughter, and our lives in general.

He's also give me some great fuel to engage you with.

Our conversations may not change your life, but they have had a positive effect on mine.

Just thought you'd like to know that you are appreciated.

"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear."
Tue, Feb 27, 2018 - 8:07pm (Reply to #19961)
Offline
Joined: Jun 15, 2011
8170
47854

Mr. Fix]</p><p>Our

Mr. Fix wrote:

Our discussions would not work on Main Street, for two reasons: Off-topic, and incomprehensible to most. 

I think it is polite and appropriate to Turd to keep Main Street discussion relevant to the topics he posts about. Agreed-off topic

The topic incomprehensible to most. Let's look at that postulate for a moment.

Let's assume that's the case. I'm not sure and it's hard to know. my guess is people usually chime in on topics, they are interested in, and topics they are interested in are usually topics they understand or familiar with. Also, people tend to stay away from topics they are worried that a skunk is going to spray them. Seems Abguy has a different opinion on this, and actually, I don't understand his opinion, but you and I seem to be in agreement. A worthy topic discuss especially on a politically oriented forum since so many of our founders and so much of history refers to this subject. And of course, you post natural law theorists as well as I do. They think it's important to and some of them base their entire offerings on this principle. So you and I have two agreements. So far, so good. 

So assuming, we are both correct, that a discussion on natural law is difficult for people to comprehend (I think a good % of DOTS, or at least some understand it) but more importantly most of humanity doesn't understand the principles or even aware of them. Which brings us to my first postulate for you and I to vote on. 

Asking people to behave in accordance with higher principles they don't understand or acknowledge is just silly? 

Just stay with the question. Forget about why. They are brainwashed. The elite doesn't want them to know etc, etc, You just said most of the people on main street would find it incomprehensible and yet they have access to our discussion. That's not a 1/2 glass full statement. That's problematic. And it has huge implications on how society organizes. You state it's true but you want to ignore it when determining codes of conduct. 

Asking people to behave in accordance with higher principles they don't understand or acknowledge is just silly.

Are you going to do business or walk into a neighborhood at dark if you knew the people involved could give a shit about the golden rule? Even the ten commandments is a step up from no code at all.

Mr. Fix wrote:

Now, I realize, that I might have missed it, because I've also realized that I have this deeply rooted belief, that there is no such thing as a "lucid, highly logical statement from a gun grabbing moron, so I will concede that you might have posted one, and I might have missed it.

We both know how the mind can play tricks on someone who doesn't believe in the existence of something.

So humor me, and enlighten me, and give me a "lucid, highly logical” appeal for gun confiscation, or, even more restrictions then the ones we already have.

You have peaked my curiosity as a well studied, and well-informed, and amazingly articulate person, that you would think that such a thing exists.

That being said, it could also explain why you're the only one capable of seeing it.

And, I'll admit it, I was looking forward to smashing the shit out of it.

It was going good. You acknowledged a state of equanimity, willingness to see something that maybe you couldn't see and then moved into a state of bias. "You're the only one capable of seeing it" I don't believe that to be true at ALL. I know it's not true because there are other people saying the same thing. Some of their logic I'v borrowed for this discussion. And then you acknowledged that there is probably no point of view that you cannot see because you have the expectation of destroying it.

So this speaks to your mind set.

So now, I will happily share with you aspects to this argument you might not see or you might see and consider ridiculous.

But first, I have another question on the table. Makes no sense to move forward since I've asked this question twice or 3 times. Let's call it a preliminary piece of business.

According to statistics I just looked up, there are 321.1 million people in the United States. 

And According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,220,300 adults were incarcerated in US federal and state prisons, and county jails in 2013 – about 0.91% of adults (1 in 110) in the U.S. resident population. Additionally, 4,751,400 adults in 2013 (1 in 51) were on probation or on parole.

So let's say that there are roughly 319 million people more or less out free. Are both you and AncientMoney asserting that all 319 million people have the absolute divine right to bear arms. Any kind of arms? Ar15, automatic weapons, shoulder fired missles, grenade because you believe that represents the understanding of the founders understanding of natural law? 

I can't move forward discussing something where I am unclear in your beliefs. It's fine to quote the founders but I need to understand how those quotes register in your head.

Both you and Ancient money ascert the absolute right of all free 319 citizens, including children, folks on medications, individuals with violent criminal records to purchase, and carry any weapon. No holds bar.

Is my understanding correct? 

Mr. Fix wrote:

“DO NO HARM, and TAKE NO SHIT!”

I will counter offer Maybury's two laws because he really thought them out and gets kind of anrway if you don't quote them exactly as he wrote them because than you start changing meaning.

Do no harm doesn't work. Because I smashed the shit out of a water bug earlier today. That was clearly harmful. My friend tells me that alot of Hindu's revere all life and won't kill roaches or rats. I know people that actually like rats. Maybe my hang up. If a rat, ever comes into my house, they are a gonner.

Of course, I will do harm to an individual that encroaches on my person or property or family or friends.

Your version of natural law leaves too much wiggle room because people can interpret TAKE NO SHIT in many different ways. You don't want to be shooting a person who cuts the line in the supermarket, even if you want to.

These two rules can be expressed in 17 words: do all you have agreed to do and, do not encroach on other persons or their property. The first rule is the basis of contract law, and the second, the basis of tort law and some criminal law." ... These are the two laws taught by all religions.

AGain, these two laws are NOT natural law. They only describe the behaviors necessary to be in accordance with higher law. I might express natural law as

"I am the divine will. It has ever been my will for you to have spiritual freedom. So I put a law into existence which will help teach you to be divine. Observe these principles, and you will begin to have freedom in your own life. Destroy these principles, and you're going to have problems in your life that you created. And I'm going to make it so you never realize from where your problems come from until you are awakened enough to see that this principles are divine will in action" 

Maybury's laws only describe how you should behave, he never gets into why these laws exist and how they fit into the divine plan. So I thought I'd handle that.

Ok, three questions on the table.

Asking people to behave in accordance with higher principles they don't understand or acknowledge is just silly? 

You are asserting that there should be absolutely no laws, no restrictions at all to every free person in the population on all guns, or any weapon capable of producing mass causalities? 

For discussion purposes, we can both accept, AncientMoney too, Richard Maybury's law as the operating principles so we both are discussing the something?  I get the jist of what you are saying, but I think we have to be more impeccable and respectful of these principles especially if it's true that most people do not understand them. That gives you a responsibility to be impeccable with your logic and your choice of words. Spelling doesn't count. 

Mr. Fix wrote:

I would be quite idealistic just think I could change the world with them. I can’t.

It's really important point to make. Most of the world will never accept these ideas. And thus, or maybe, we need to adjust the way we organize human beings according to this reality. Some of the founders quotes, especially Ben Franklin makes it clear he wanted to distance himself from the average man. He was an elite for his time. And thus some of the principles we are espouse are meant as mob checks. I would have done the samething.

I told this story a few times already. That the Hindu Priestcraft created the Laws of Manu to control people that didn't want to behave. That's why the Cow is Sacred. To prevent the people from eating all the cows. They made the cow divine. Whose gonna eat something that's so Godly?

Tue, Feb 27, 2018 - 8:11pm
SilverSurfers
Offline
-
Laguna Beach, CA
Joined: Sep 25, 2012
3372
6594

Two Video Interviews

Video unavailable
Video unavailable
Tue, Feb 27, 2018 - 8:55pm (Reply to #19957)
Anonymous

Removed comment

Removed comment.

Tue, Feb 27, 2018 - 8:58pm (Reply to #19960)
Anonymous

Removed comment

Removed comment.

Tue, Feb 27, 2018 - 9:11pm (Reply to #19958)
Anonymous

Removed comment

Removed comment.

Tue, Feb 27, 2018 - 9:16pm
Mr. Fix
Offline
-
NY
Joined: Jun 8, 2012
10728
64130

Greeny

That's a lot of questions, and I do see the foibles in my oversimplification's,

I will endeavor to be far more specific and articulate with my responses.

It's quarter after nine here in New York, give me an our so, and I will assemble a reply worthy of all your questions.

Yes, you've pointed out some vagaries that I made, wide open to misinterpretations.

Clarifications are in order, but brevity is not one of my talents.

This may take a while.

"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear."
Tue, Feb 27, 2018 - 9:22pm
Anonymous

Removed comment

Removed comment.

Tue, Feb 27, 2018 - 9:22pm
Offline
Joined: Jun 15, 2011
8170
47854

I have a virtual gold coin

I have a virtual gold coin (virtual=made up=imaginary) for anybody interested enough that's following Fix's and mine conversation who can anticipate and finish my argument before I make it. I know there are a whole LOTS of you reading this that have strong opinions on the subject.

We've had this conversation now numerous times in different guises. If you're following it, you already know Fix's destination. His model and paradigm are obvious because he has stated them before. I have too. Mine is a little more complex, it seems.

When you play chess, you anticipate 3 moves ahead of the person you're playing otherwise, move aside. It's not your game. 

Since I've read dozens' of arguements on guns and gun control, over and over and over and over again, I can anticipate the arguements. Save me the pain of walking them through the baby steps.

Your job as a DOT connector is to know what I am thinking before I say it. 

If you can't anticipate my arguement, and unaware such an arguement exists, although it's been laid out, it definitely not a subject you should be participating in other then say I belief, I belief. I belief.

I have clearly deliniated two belief systems. One that most of you belief in. I know. I've read your stuff.

An absolute belief in ALL GUNS, ALL THE TIME, BY ALL PEOPLE. IT's POLARITY ARGUEMENT. NO GUNS< FOR NO PEOPLE EXCEPT THE POWER HOLDERS.

Hint: I believe in neither. I am pro-constitution, pro-natural law, pro second amendment and in this case a realist, NOT an idealist.

Finish my arguement. Fix and Ancient Money have already showed all their cards and are trying to convince me that they understand reality and the reality of guns. I'm listening and open. All you have to do is see my arguement from the end and put an end to my misery of having the same discussion over and over and over again. You don't even have to accept my point of view as being true. I know most won't and I've seen this discussion before and most don't understand it. They go back to arguing the Constitution and avoid the tricky questions. But surely at least one of you see's where I am going and can put a quick end to this?

Then we can get back to real topics that make a difference in the world. The implementation of fRee energy, ET DNA manipulation and I can share with you my recipe for Greek Tzatziki. How great would that be??? Because under natural law any man who eats Chicken Shish Kabob without Tzatziki sauce should be hung in public. This is written in ancient babylonian texts.

Tue, Feb 27, 2018 - 9:41pm (Reply to #19967)
Offline
Joined: Jun 15, 2011
8170
47854

Mr. Fix wrote: That's a lot

Mr. Fix wrote:

That's a lot of questions, and I do see the foibles in my oversimplification's,

I will endeavor to be far more specific and articulate with my responses.

It's quarter after nine here in New York, give me an our so, and I will assemble a reply worthy of all your questions.

Yes, you've pointed out some vagaries that I made, wide open to misinterpretations.

Clarifications are in order, but brevity is not one of my talents.

This may take a while.

I'm in no rush Mr. Fix. I'm at my computer transcribing more music so I can publish and have somebody put it on Scribd. Take two days or a week. At your leisure.

It's only 3 questions. A definition we can agree on so we are discussing the same thing. How can we expect humanity to follow a law they don't understand? And give me a 2 or 3 line summary of your stance on guns and weapons in society? You hold the absolute point of view? or something in the middle.

Having the same discussion as guns as everybody else without asking new questions is boring. Let's put some hot peppers on this sucker and it examine it differently then the mass mind. New York style baby!!

And for entertainment purposes, I've invited others to finish my argument.

Ancient Money, you have skin in the game too. 

In the meantime, some of you might be hungry at this time of night. Isn't Israeli food really Arabic food? What can you find on the menu at a Israeli Restaurant that they invented? Hummus,(HOO MOS) Baba Ganoush, Taihini, that's all Arabic. And isn't tzazki really Turkish? Aren't all the Greek Mezo's stolen? Even Feta cheese is from the Byzantine empire.

You see what I mean ? It's all scam. Lies, lies, lies

You all know who invented the tv and the telephone and the Tesla coil. But NOT one of you know who invented the lollipop. SHAME!!!

Tue, Feb 27, 2018 - 9:57pm
Anonymous

Removed comment

Removed comment.

Tue, Feb 27, 2018 - 10:56pm (Reply to #19961)
full n by
Offline
-
orrington, ME
Joined: Feb 19, 2014
50
145

Absolutly on the mark

Dear Mr Fix Absolutely on the mark with your comments .So much BS blowing in the wind .. Refreshing Thanks from a lucker.

Tue, Feb 27, 2018 - 10:57pm (Reply to #19961)
full n by
Offline
-
orrington, ME
Joined: Feb 19, 2014
50
145

Absolutly on the mark

Dear Mr Fix Absolutely on the mark with your comments .So much BS blowing in the wind .. Refreshing Thanks from a lucker.

Wed, Feb 28, 2018 - 1:18am (Reply to #19962)
Mr. Fix
Offline
-
NY
Joined: Jun 8, 2012
10728
64130

Green Lanterns reply...

I agree with the beginning of your reply concerning why this would not be an appropriate conversation on Main Street, in fact when it gets into material that might be considered just a tad offensive to those with strong religious beliefs, I just assume leave them alone.

"Do no harm”. Some of our discussions, and in particular, some of my assertions, I know offend the owner of this website. He has respectfully requested that I respect the guidelines pertaining to the topics on Main Street, and I am okay with that.

He's also asked me not to write nasty things about the Pope, or his chosen flavor of worship to an imaginary sky daddy, and I declined.

For people who read this forum regularly, and I can only assume that the website owner takes at least a mild interest in it, they know what to expect by now.

On Main Street, it's not just breaking the rules, it would be interfering with his business model, which is theft, or at least vandalism, and although the truth doesn't change, the audience does.

Here, I don't mind offending people, because that is their choice. Here, people can choose to be as offended as they wish.

You mentioned Abguy4, and I thought his last post was brilliant, and he made a lot of points for me, particularly addressing concepts like human nature, and evaluating whether or not people are capable of abiding by natural laws.

I may agree with more of his assertions than you do, but then again, you think we are more on the same page then you and him.

Funny,

I'm not seeing it that way. 

Let's take another look at one of his posts: #20096

Abguy4’s truly brilliant observation, is that you are assessing what humanity is capable of, by literally looking at a bunch of inmates in a maximum-security prison being tortured by those who enslave them. 

Do you agree that this is a prison planet, and has been for all of recorded history? Put another way, recorded history is a record of human enslavement.

Why do you think I call the Bible a handbook on human enslavement? It reinforces the narrative, and maintains humanities "slave think” mentality.

Even historical references to people or civilizations that did not live as slaves have been rewritten by our slave masters, and have painted them as "pagans”, “Heathens","Uncivilized", or," sinners”, for no better reason, then that they did not conform to the will of a megalomaniacal psychopathic and genocidal overlord. 

On a prison planet, subservience to authority is mandatory. No exceptions. Genocide is the very routine solution to any civilization that doesn't comply with the dictates of our planets authority figures. 

Multy-generational enslavement has been normalized on planet earth, and you are determining that a colony of fully indoctrinated slaves can't abide by natural laws.

That, I actually agree with, but human beings were not designed to be slaves, they were enslaved.

Freedom, just like slavery, is a state of mind. Now I get that slaves have a lower level of consciousness than free men, but that indoctrination literally starts minutes after birth, if not seconds. Just watching childbirth might clue you into how soon it begins. From the ridiculously bright lights, to your first spanking, most of us came into this world screaming their heads off in agony.

I don't have to tell you the power of the formative years in a human beings life. Who we are, and how we think about things, becomes relatively permanent long before we are teenagers. Our system, by design, makes sure that most adult people only fantasize about freedom, but never give it much serious thought by then.

Later on, with the full Monte of academic and religious indoctrination, most human beings are incapable of charting their own course through life.

We are taught to place value on things like the opinion of others, respect for people who deserve no such thing, and values that are completely inconsistent with liberty. This is not human nature, this is programming.

With different programming, we would be capable of so much more.

Abguy4 has asked me why we would ever choose to be born into the families, and situations we supposedly chose.

I told him, it is so that we would recognize very early on that we were surrounded by complete bullshit, in every direction.

It taught us to ask questions, even if only to ourselves, and to never accept a bunch of bullshit, just because it came from an authority figure.

That one itty-bitty little distinction has radically changed the course of our lives.

My wife went to a Catholic school that didn't have demonic cunts pounding little children into submission. They were nice to her, as they told her lies.

Like many, she did not recognize the evil she was in the mists of. Shall we say, that can create a different path.

Human beings and computers have one thing in common, garbage in, garbage out. 

You have taught me quite well overtime, that people raised as slaves, will never be able to comprehend the principles that lead to freedom.

100 million Americans own guns, supposedly, but with complete ignorance is natural laws, they don't even know what they are for.

That is why guns have not guaranteed our freedom, because too many people think subservience is virtuous.

You can't fix stupid. But in this case, this kind of stupidity has been intentionally bestowed upon us.

This is why the work that Mark Passio has done although all true, and brilliant, only works with children, and people that are wide-awake.

His work just bounces off a slave like a rubber ball.

Enough about that,

It's probably about time I start addressing the numerous questions you posed for me.

Note: in changing pages, and rebooting my computer, I noticed your additional post, so in an attempt at brevity, I will focus on your three questions.

Somehow, it seemed like more when I read it the first time. 

Question one:

Asking people to behave in accordance with higher principles they don't understand or acknowledge is just silly? 

In civil law, "Ignorance of the law is not a defense".

Your question is not silly, but compared to civil law, where literally thousands of pages of regulations are written by the day, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, that no one ever reads anymore, with fines, , or imprisonment as penalties, I do find it mildly ironic that many who follow natural laws can find themselves put into a cage.

In your analogy of having somebody cut in front of me, in line at the supermarket, should I whip out my AR 15 and blow his head off?

Obviously, the answer is no. I do have experience with this. Most mornings, I begin at the Home Depot. Sometimes, the lines are long, and when they cross the aisle, it is customary to stand at one side of the aisle, until you can get all the way across with all of the crap that you are buying.

It is very often the case that somebody cuts in line at that point.

I usually walk right up to the person, look them straight in the eyes, and tell them that the end of the line is down the aisle that I am pointing to.

I have yet to have somebody not leave, and go to the back of the line. I suppose informing them where the line is, works every time.

I suppose it also helps that there are plenty of angry men standing right behind me who were also in line, that would come to my aid if that was a problem.

To use a gun for self defense, or in the act of "Don't take any shit”, means to me, that the vast majority of disagreements can be settled in a civilized manner, and that the use of a firearm it Is only required when one's life or liberty is threatened. Sometimes particularly in the case of armed thugs with badges, it helps to have a long-term plan. For practical reasons, I don't respond with deadly force to an idiot in a goofy costume with a gun. He's too stupid to reason with, so I opt for delayed gratification, and prepare for my day in court.

I fully recognize that people abiding by natural law is a rarity, but ironically, those with a genuine legal education like those found in those funky black robes have some knowledge of multiple legal constructs, and with proper preparation, it is not hard to navigate there.

So in short, don't waste your time on idiots, save the good stuff for someone who can comprehend it.

Sometimes I consider the plausibility of a Mad Max scenario, where there are no politicians, no lawyers, no judges, and no pigs.

I still wouldn't waste my time with idiots. I think it's important for a person to surround themselves with like-minded individuals. There is safety in numbers.

Let's move on to your second question:

You are asserting that there should be absolutely no laws, no restrictions at all to every free person in the population on all guns, or any weapon capable of producing mass causalities? 

Correct.

Now, back to Mad Max…

Do you think Mutually Assured Destruction only applies to superpowers? "As above so below", it works equally well one on one.

Or as you say, never bring a knife to a gunfight.

One on one, small groups, families, communities, cities, or nations, the principle is the same. You have the right to defend yourself with whatever means necessary. I consider that inalienable, and absolute.

Just like prepping for anything, you really can't over stock, but you can easily under stock. Do I have enough food? Do I have enough money? Do I have enough gold or silver? Do I have enough tools? Do I have enough skills? Do I have enough guns? Do I have enough bullets for them?

These are personal evaluations, that anybody living in our times needs to look at. The credibility of our government is being undermined at virtually every level, and there are at least a few scenarios where it could collapse, either intentionally, or not.

At that point, it could easily become every man for himself. As I've said, I have no intentions of taking on an army.

I would have to build one of my own first, and under certain circumstances, that might be required.

But I've already told you that I consider every single gun law to be unconstitutional, and in violation of natural laws. Some people even postulate how ridiculous it would be to allow an individual to own his very own nuclear warhead. I don't think it's ridiculous at all.

There's nothing that screams “Don't fuck with me" like having your own nuclear warhead. I would consider it a welcome addition to personal defensive capabilities.

But, seeing that that is somewhat beyond my own personal budget, I will make do with what I can afford. That is everyone's natural born right.

Besides, if I want to really dream big, I think I would be looking at directed energy weapons. They look easier to assemble with items I can acquire, and would greatly reduce collateral damage. 

In my opinion, intentional collateral damage would have karmic consequences. I'm just not the kind of guy who would blow up an entire city to vanquish a threat to my own person. If it's really personal, I tend to keep it that way.

That being said, if somebody dropped a bunker buster on the local pig pen, I would not shed a tear.

Some things just make the world a better place to live in. That would be one of them.

I hope I have elaborated enough on that one for you.

Before I get to the last question, I'm going to have to read Mayberry's law a few times.

What I think you are asserting that Mayberry wrote, I will paste here:

These two rules can be expressed in 17 words: do all you have agreed to do and, do not encroach on other persons or their property. The first rule is the basis of contract law, and the second, the basis of tort law and some criminal law." ... These are the two laws taught by all religions.

AGain, these two laws are NOT natural law. They only describe the behaviors necessary to be in accordance with higher law. I might express natural law as 

"I am the divine will. It has ever been my will for you to have spiritual freedom. So I put a law into existence which will help teach you to be divine. Observe these principles, and you will begin to have freedom in your own life. Destroy these principles, and you're going to have problems in your life that you created. And I'm going to make it so you never realize from where your problems come from until you are awakened enough to see that this principles are divine will in action” 

I do see some disagreements here, and I will do my best to articulate them clearly, to the best of my ability.

Let's start with the last question as you asked :

For discussion purposes, we can both accept, AncientMoney too, Richard Maybury's law as the operating principles so we both are discussing the same thing? 

I hope I fixed your typo correctly, I think I did……^^^^^^^^^.

 To start with, I disagree with your assertion that those two laws are not natural laws. Doing what you agree to do is just basic integrity, and to do otherwise, would be harming someone else. A person has every reason to expect that you are being honest with them when you agree to do something, and I never agree to do anything I don't expect to do.

Mark Passio lays out seven natural law transgressions in his presentations, but even he can break it all down to basic theft, as in taking something that is not yours. So to the best of my understanding, Mayberry has summarized natural law.

If these two laws were actually taught by all religions, the world would be a much better place. That particular line of Mayberry's, I disagree with. Religions have a shit load of convoluted laws, and at least three that I can think of, teach that it's perfectly alright to treat others who worship a different imaginary sky daddy as subhuman, and unworthy.

For example, if you have "chosen ones”, which is just institutionalized racism, and a "promised land”, it's okay to commit genocide to secure it. That qualifies as an encroachment on people, and property to me.

For another example, there's a religion that is widely touted as "The religion of peace” which authorizes its followers to remove the heads of infidels who don't worship their imaginary sky daddy. Since I probably wouldn't live long without my head, (that's why I have one), removing it would be a violation of natural law. My head is also my property, so removing it is also theft.

Are you starting to see why I disagree with Mayberry?

I could go with the third Abrahamic religion, but their teachings just make them victims of the other two, with subservience to both an imaginary sky daddy, and "lawful earthly authorities”, which makes them good for little more than slaves, and cannon fodder. They seem to have the most difficult time comprehending an inalienable right to self-defense.

That being said, they do make far better neighbors than the other two.

Now for your interpretation of natural law: now I am beginning to understand

Wow Green Lantern, I didn't even realize you had a deity! Are you imagining that the universe is anthropomorphic?

That's okay, I can work around that. Your deity provides us with principles to abide by, and consequences if we don’t.

We view these principles as universal laws, and operating principles, roughly analogous to "how it all works”.

I know that you are at least basically cognizant hermetic principles, and if you have to have a deity, then it is everything that is, across all of space and time. "The All”.

A thorough study of the principle of "cause and effect”, eliminates the notion from your particular deity that goes

"And I'm going to make it so you never realize from where your problems come from until you are awakened enough to see that this principles are divine will in action” .

NOW I am beginning to understand why we differ so often on causality.

Now considering that in my youth, I had plenty of problems that I never realized I was causing myself, I do understand the concept of a hidden causality. But, once I realized I was the common denominator in all of them, and assumed that somehow, someway I was responsible for all of it, I started seeking the answers to exactly how it was that I was contributing to my own problems. When you start asking the right questions, you start finding the answers.

Identifying causality is a key part of my trade, and by general consensus, I am far, far better at it than most.

I also almost always find myself at odds with others looking at exactly the same problem.

The difference is, I can fix it, and they can’t. It is very common for me to identify the cause of a problem, after many, many other professionals have failed, often in a spectacular and extraordinarily expensive manor. 

I have learned that most people can't see beyond a symptom, and can't even comprehend that it might have an underlying cause.

I don't know if that makes me weird, different, or just an anomaly, but it is quite noticeable.

Understanding causality, also makes predictions as to what will happen as a result, or the effect of the cause, applicable in many different disciplines.

A lot of this came to me intuitively as a child, and has only recently been explained in my study of hermetic philosophy.

At least now, I have a greater understanding of why things happen the way they do.

You have that understanding as well,

So I guess in the end, it all comes out pretty much about the same. Unlike some, who have been taught that there is only one way to get there, and then, never even come close to arriving,

We both seem to know that there are many, many paths, probably as many as there are individuals.

And we have both traveled a very long way.

I hope some of these clarifications have served to enhance your understanding of where I am coming from.

It took a little longer than my original estimate.

Oh well, I tried. wink

"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear."
Wed, Feb 28, 2018 - 3:16am
gold way p
Offline
-
north olmsted, OH
Joined: Apr 18, 2014
144
632

Guns

Often wondered what the situation would have to be to motivate me to use a gun. I would have to be convinced my life was in danger, but since I am a women, it would have to be either them or me with them more then likely overpowering me unless I was prepared. Living in fear of this sucks the life out of me, but still I have a gun. I don't like to think about having to use it, and since my heart attack, and the fact that I live alone the better option is advancing spiritually so I don't care whether I live or die and don't live in fear. The enemy of us all is hidden and wants us to live in fear. I do not. My only choice is to seek out like minded kind loving people who do not live in a violent state, but are informed, know what the scum of the earth is capable of and is actively engaged in. They choose as I do to interact with the powerful unseen forces of nature, love and peace. I cannot engage with AI, ET, or any common POS, and hope and pray my path leads in an entirely different direction since I choose to be the master of my fate and the captain of my soul. 

Wed, Feb 28, 2018 - 6:20am (Reply to #19975)
Anonymous

Removed comment

Removed comment.

Wed, Feb 28, 2018 - 8:21am
Offline
Joined: Jun 15, 2011
8170
47854

You mentioned Abguy4, and I

You mentioned Abguy4, and I thought his last post was brilliant, and he made a lot of points for me, particularly addressing concepts like human nature, and evaluating whether or not people are capable of abiding by natural laws.

I may agree with more of his assertions than you do, but then again, you think we are more on the same page then you and him.

Funny,

I'm not seeing it that way. 

Let's take another look at one of his posts: #20096

Abguy4’s truly brilliant observation, is that you are assessing what humanity is capable of, by literally looking at a bunch of inmates in a maximum-security prison being tortured by those who enslave them. 

This is Plato's Cave. Read it a bunch of times. The movie "The Matrix" was based of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. 

Humanity is a prison planet. I said it is a planet of restriction. It is the Saturian Principle. In Christianity it is Sin. In eastern religions it's your karma. The burdens you come into this world with. Your wounds, your burdens. My father beat me and my mother didn't love me. This exists on an individual level, a family level and a national level and a world level. The bad guys are part of a bigger plan. I'll just leave it that. IF IT WASN'T MEANT TO BE SO, IT WOULDN'T BE So.

My response is SO WHAT?

We shouldn't talk about it because it's a prison planet? We shouldn't talk about the keys to freedom?? Yeah, I'm dumb as dirt. Explain that one to me. 

Nobody has an interest in the Founding principles because this is prison planet and most people can't understand it? 

YOu are correct ignorance of the law is no excuse. Isn't that a CALL to muse about and discuss it?

His analogy sounds like this to me, because something is Unrealized and incomprehensible why bother discussing it? 

Apply that analogy to gold. The assertion on main street since the beginning is that since we are in the throes of a global financial melt down and owning gold is the #1 way to insure you against this inevitable event, we are the awakened and the rest are the sheeple becaues they are not aware of problems that exist and have not taken action to protect themselves financially.

That doesn't stop gold bugs from talking about gold. Why should the same dynamic stop people interested in discussing politics avoid the central dynamic, the laws that dictate reality?

Why should we not evaluate a candidate according to his ideology? Shouldn't we be looking at his policies according to principles that would afford citizens more freedom?

If that exercise is absent what do we have? Feelings and emotions. No true measurement of efficacy. 

Ok, it's a prison planet. I'll grant you the nomenclature you like. But we're here. The awakened. To discuss the things awakened people talk about. Gold, silver, financial realities, hidden agenda's.

How does the fact that we are a prison planet justify not discussing the hidden laws which effects reality? 

Should AM stop providng market commentary because he is using tools outside the comprehension of most financial layman? 

You will explain the logic to me. ?

1 post, I'll respond to one concept. I'll take Ruffian's comment to heart. Long posts loose people. I'll address your other points later, after we finish this one. 

Wed, Feb 28, 2018 - 8:27am (Reply to #19976)
Offline
Joined: Jun 15, 2011
8170
47854

Ruffian wrote:Seriously, you

Ruffian wrote:

Seriously, you should not use a gun. The slightest hesitation and it will taken off you or you will get hit first. 

More women than men have an issue with this. Which is why they get harmed more often by their own weapon. 

I've never killed a human but I have injured animals and damned groundhogs. If I ever get this coon Ima have a party. I've missed him every time I've had him in sight. I shoulda turned my dog on him. But I didn't want him blooded at the time. 

Ruffian just got the answer. Maybe inadvertently, but she did. She hit on the nature of personal reality and why there is no common resolution to this problem. MY initial assertion. 

Gold way gave her the answer also. I felt the answer coming through in her post. They just spoke from the heart. It's intuitive. 

They both supported the answer that Scott Adams has been talking about, he's pro-gun. Reality is individual. There is no answer to this conundrum. People miss the personal reality to this argument in a land where the Constitutional republic is gone. Donald Trump can not Constitutionally pass these executive orders. Why aren't we talking about that? He constitutionally can't eliminate bump stocks? There are 100's of unconstitutional things being done on a daily basis in DC. 

Talking about your Constitutional Gun rights when there isn't obedience to the Constitution. I'll say more on this later. 

Wed, Feb 28, 2018 - 10:18am
Offline
Joined: Jun 15, 2011
8170
47854

Fix, I'm gonna lay one more

Fix, I'm gonna lay one more on you.

As you read this I want you to notice the thought forms forming in your head. It might go like this Greenie has lost it, he is a commie, a liberal, he's just fucking with me. If any of those thoughts should appear, don't say I didn't warn you.

You do not possess a divine right to own a gun.

Breathe.

We now have a bigger problem. You and I have a difference of what natural law is all about. We'll iron that out sometime in the undefined future. It's why I say, it's best to talk about it.

I'll remind you. I'm pro-Constitution, Pro 2nd amendment, Ron Paul libertarian (in somethings) and I don't want the government taking away your guns. Ancient Money's and Fix's. Nope.

The Chinese discovered gun powder in 850 AD. (let's forget ancient history where they had flying sauces and nuclear bombs for a second). Chinese re-discovered gun powder in 850. That's recent history man. 

The first gun invented was by an Arab. in 1364. The blurp I'm reading says the first gun automatic gun used was in 1892. Whatever....That's yesterday. 

Now I went back and checked the Hammurabi codes, the first laws known to man, and the codes of Moses. Guess what? No meantion of an inalienable right to hold a gun.

You think that guns are an inalienable right that was discovered by the founders in 1787. That's only a relative truth. It's not absolute and is not granted to you by a "GOD" 

You think I've flipped because you've repeated the same postulates a million times, you think it is obvious as your breath. 

You haven't opened the hood of natural law.

Music, natural law, and cycles are all the Law of Vibration.

All of them. No law of Vibration. No discussion of Music, natural law, and cycles but it's a prison planet, let's not discuss any of them. 

The observation of what actions to take to be in harmony with the law of vibration whether it be making good music, making a good trade or behaviors that guarantee freedom, and propspertiy ARE not the law. They are man observing the actions which are most harmonious with these invisible forces. They are forces. Words are put on them by man. It is why laws have to be revisited. The founders said that too. They have to be revisited because our understanding of these eternal, immutable principles change with time.

Why would a higher power give you the divine right to have a gun when he saw fit not to let man discover it until the 1300's? That's a divine joke.

Natural Law which is the Law of Vibrations did not write a note to James Madison and say, hey give them guns. It didn't. Guarantee it. The memo like this, there is an invisible working force in the universe, at this time in history you need to write a law that guarantee's the principles embedded in this law that is relevant for the times.

The natural right is one of freedom from encroachment. Natural law doesn't say how you should defend that right.

In my universe, everybody knows how to use tractor and retractor forces hidden within them. The guy Bostwick, forgot his name, killed a man in the airport who went to attack him by collapsing the wave function, the erasure technique, without a weapon. Everybody knows this story.

Doing everything you have agreed to do gets cancelled depending on the behavior of the other party. That's why they had to write common law, because man was unable to understand the living principles. Maybury's laws are description of a higher force relative to the consciousness of the day. I can cancel my agreed upon terms if the nature of the party changes or circumstances change.

During 9-11, I booked a large resort hotel in Ireland. The plane was grounded. I called the hotel in Ireland and told them, I have to cancel, I don't want you to hold me accountable for the entire booking. They said no. Too late to cancel. I told them we just experience an act of war, many people died, and all airplanes were grounded. Essentially a military state. Do you not have a tv? I agreed to use your hotel for our meeting under normal conditions, I'm asking you to consider the mitigating circumstances. You've expereienced a loss and we are experiencing many losses. CAncel the hotel and if you charge me for the entire cost of the meeting, you'll loose our business forever. Consider the mitigating unforseen circumstances that neither you foresaw or we did when we signed the contract. This situation anihilates Maybury's law. It's true, but it's a mere guideline and approximation of the working of divine law. Not an absolute.

You guys are repeating postulates as if it unveilss the absolute dynamic of gun rights which stems from the underlying principles of natural law, the law of vibration. You've had gun control conversations, but you've never had this conversation before. 

I support the 2nd amendment. But I do not embrace dogma. I take the clock apart because I want to know what makes it tick. Telling time isn't understanding a clock. 

Welcome to DOTS 2018. the bar has been raised. 

Wed, Feb 28, 2018 - 12:26pm (Reply to #19979)
Mr. Fix
Offline
-
NY
Joined: Jun 8, 2012
10728
64130

Green Lantern, my favorite commie lame brain.

 Top of the morning to my favorite commie.

Only kidding, if you hadn't brought it up, it wouldn't have crossed my mind.

Yeah, we do have significantly different perspectives on natural law, as I have noted Buddhist philosophy for example, does not recognize a natural right to self-defense against violence against your person.

Ultimately, this isn't a gun rights issue, it's a self-defense issue.

Not for nothing, but within your commie manifesto, you used one line that seems remarkably inconsistent with the rest of it.

"The natural right is one of freedom from encroachment. Natural law doesn't say how you should defend that right.”

Okay, let's start with our natural law right of freedom from encroachment.

If this particular natural law is to be upheld, then does it not follow an inherent right to secure that means to prevent encroachment?

I liked your history lesson, but guns aren't really a significant part of it. Let's do a hypothetical walk down memory lane, where human evolution as put forth by academia has some moniker of validity.

Instead of going back a mere thousand years, why don't we make it interesting, and start talking millions.

You were born onto a planet, but unlike the civilization that exists today, human beings were not the top of the food chain.

Euphemistically speaking, lions, tigers, and bears, (Oh my!) ruled the proverbial kingdom of the earth, competed with you for sustenance, and were a constant threat to bring the end of your physical existence if such an encounter should occur.

Okay, you could climb a tree, and live in relative safety, free from the burden of having to deal with lions, tigers, and bears.

But eventually, you get hungry. You've already eaten everything on the tree that is consumable, and if you would like to continue your physical existence, at some point, you are going to have to come down from the tree, and deal with the reality of lions tigers and bears.

Or, you could just die, and the lions, tigers and bears can feast on your carcass. It's your choice.

Being a primate of somewhat above average intelligence, you start to look for a viable means of defending yourself from certain death.

Being stuck in a tree, with no food, your options are somewhat limited, but, there are still options.

Hypothetically speaking, the tree has a branch on it that looks reasonably sturdy and firm and straight.

With extraordinary effort, you break off this branch, and find that it has a reasonably sharp and pointed end on it.

You theorize that this sharp pointy end might be useful if properly applied to your dilemma pertaining to the tigers, lions and bears.

So you formulate a plan, as you break off those little unnecessary twigs, Strip some of the loose bark, and fashion a rather sturdy pole with a pointy tip.

Does natural law to give you that right? Okay, you decide to shelf that particular conundrum to the back of your mind, and proceed with an option that seems to be available to you.

You climb down from the tree, and are immediately confronted with a man eating lion who considers you nothing more than a delicious lunch.

Following up on your previous plan, you thrust your pointy stick as deeply and as hard as possible into the chest of that lion as he pounces upon you.

Here's where cause and effect come into play, by placing your pointy stick deep within the attacking lion, you find to your astonishment that the lions attack has ceased.

As a matter fact, you now have a great big pile of fresh meat to supplement your daily nutritional requirements, and you proceed to enjoy your well-earned gourmet lunch.

Now, you can contemplate the deep philosophical nuances of whether or not you have a right to own a pointy stick.

Let's for the sake of argument, accept the notion that after deeply contemplating the morality of pointy stick ownership, you have concluded that it is useful and good. It has provided you sustenance, and repelled certain death.

Now, let's fast-forward a few million years.

Once again, you find yourself in a jungle. This jungle is made out of concrete. Predators still roam free, but they are no longer lions, tigers, or bears.

The means of force that can be applied against you have changed as well. The difference between being at the bottom of, or on top of the food chain, is how well you can defend yourself , maintaining your right against encroachment.

You noticed that many of the threats against your well-being involve weapons such as baseball bats, knives, whips, chains, and oh yeah, something new on the scene, these funky little items called guns, that can shoot a projectile great distance, negating the threat of a violent attack.

Was it your right to own a pointy stick? Is it your right to own a gun?

Is the survival of you and your family important to you?

Yeah, I suppose it's a personal decision, just as some people would not be able to use a pointy stick to maintain life and prosperity, some people probably wouldn't be able to use a gun to serve the exact same purpose in an environment that might require it.

Ironically, this is of little difference then not being sufficiently trained at collapsing the wave function, and employing the "erasure technique". We all have our own skill sets, and should probably only attempt what we are skilled at in those rare circumstances where it might become necessary.

Now, for example, if confronted with an aggressive encroachment on my personal property, I could choose a pointy stick, a Mossberg shotgun, or attempt the "erasure technique". My pointy stick might be inadequate, my skill set determines that I have not mastered the erasure technique, which leaves me my Mossberg as a reasonably reliable means of defense.

I consider it my right to maintain my ability to defend myself in a manner that I am reasonably well trained in.

Is there a right to self-preservation? Is there a right to self-defense? Is there a right to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that does not encroach on others right to Liberty and pursuit of happiness?

The way I understand it, yes, there is. 

 Over many millions of years, the circumstances have changed as to what might be required as self-defense in a world infested with threats of violence, and certain death, but has your right to defend yourself against them changed?

A gun is nothing more than a modern pointy stick. A tool that can be applied to maintain your liberty, life, and pursuit of happiness, against forces that would deny them to you.

A pointy stick, or an AK 47, in principle, serve an identical purpose.

Ownership of them are natural law rights. cheeky

I'm going to have to look into this thing that you call an "erasure technique".

It sounds useful. devil

"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear."

Notice: If you do not see your new comment immediately, do not be alarmed. We are currently refreshing new comments approximately every 2 minutes to better manage performance while working on other issues. Thank you for your patience.

randomness