Death Cult in America

I'm sure the authorities will move swiftly to shut down the thousands of secretive lairs where such dark rituals thrive. After that, there is more work to be done.

Comments

[Jean Bart]

On the gay marraige front:

Civil Unions now supported by majority in U.S.; support for constitutional ban softens; tough shit Andrew - live by your "majority rules" doctrine. *LOL*

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4496265/

[Jean Bart]

Also, Log Cabin Republicans say to Bush: "Piss Off":

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4491610/

[db]

Sir Real:

I wish I had a lawyer that could successfully argue the case for "the right to have a daddy" in front of whatever strange being may control the universe...I'm gonna sue the gods for making my father's blood vessels too weak, leading to the aneurysm that killed him.

There is no "right" to have living, loving parents. Nature sees to that. There is, however, a right to conduct one's life in the manner of one's own choosing. The killer in this case infringed upon the victim's rights in the most profound of ways. In our society we see it as fitting that one who infringes upon another's rights should be deprived of his own in proportion to his crime.

Summarily subjecting entire classes of people to infringements upon their natural rights (in this case, self defense) is not a solution to the problem of accidents, no matter how stupid or avoidable, of this nature.

I'd argue that older people should actually have their right to the tools of self-defense guarded even more closely, since they're typically unlikely to be able to use Kung Fu in an effective manner.

[Critic]

Well put, db. Add women to that list. The "weaker" sex benefits greatly from the equalizing effects of having a gun, yet they are often in the emotional forefront of gun criminalization.

[Sir Real]

db-

You seem confused- some "strange being" didn't kill him- a senile old man pointed a loaded gun at his head and pulled the trigger.

Frankly, while people have a right to self-defense, the right to "bare arms" only appears in the Consititution in the form of a well-regulated militia- unless the masons are now a militia.

Again, how is this magical "right" to bear arms any different from the "privilige" of driving?

[Mayor Tom Daley]

ewige blumencraft!

[Don]

It appears that Sir Real, not db, is confused.

Excellent post db.

[CTD]

Sir Real - it's good to see that you're backing off from your assertion that there's a "right to have a daddy"!

The difference between the right to bear arms and the privilige[sic] of driving is that the former is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (the stated reason being that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state).

You should read the Constitution yourself, though. I can't always be around to help you.

[Mo]

Critic,
Interesting you should say that. A friend of mine was telling me that her sister got some creepy death threat from someone that knows about her, but she doesn't know who the guy is or what to do. Of course, the police were 0 help.

I told her to get a gun and take self defense courses (so as not to freeze up when the time comes) and got a look of complete confusion and bewilderment (I live in SoCal). I had to explain that a gun would level the playing field and is our right to defend ourselves. I didn't get a lecture on the "dangers" of guns, but I got a few eye rolls. She'll probably just get pepper spray, silly girl.

[joe]

You can't kill youself with pepper spray. Well, not without trying really, really hard.

[db]

Sir Real:

If the killer in this case had been a thirty-year-old-man rather than a "senile old" one, I'm certain that your argument would change, but that your pre-decided conclusion would remain the same. Indeed, the killer made the extremely stupid decision to do what he did, and there are several people suffering the consequences, not the least of which are the children of the victim.

I repeat that depriving entire classes of people of a natural right is no solution to accidents or deliberate, malicious or stupid actions by individuals.

From your original premise of denying the right to self defense to weaker members of society, you have now revealed the true goal of your argument, namely that guns are bad and should be banned.

Now you say that "people have a [natural] right to self-defense," but in the same sentence you justify stripping them of the tools by which the right is exercised. One could make a similar argument that one has no right to own a word processor, since the Constitution only guarantees free speech, not the right to own the tools by which it is accomplished (it does list freedom of the press, but doesn't say that the press have to be allowed to have their tools of publication). Perhaps I should sign up for karate lessons before passing on that knowledge is made illegal too.

[Mo]

True joe, but waving a pepper spray canister won't keep a guy back like waving a Magnum will. Pepper spray is better than nothing and definitely better than a gun in the hands of someone that doesn't know how to use it.

[Jean Bart]

db,

"...you justify stripping them of the tools by which the right is exercised."

Well, one of the tools at least. Maybe he likes knives or sabres? 🙂

[joe]

Yeah, db. The Constitution protects the right to "keep and bear" the tools themselves (for somebody - no need to get into that right now).

I've often been told by guns rights supporters that self defense is merely a sideshow, and not the real reason why gun ownership is protected.

[db]

joe:

Self defense does not merely include defense against a narrowly-defined danger such as street crime.

I know where you're going with this, and it's a very smart one for firearms ownership rights opponents to make--get the gun rights advocates to admit that they really only want guns because, deep down, they are paranoid, conspiracy-theory-believing, anti-government nuts who want to fight, fight, fight, until their cold dead hands are truly the only thing keeping their guns from the tyranny of the State.

Smart, that is, unless you're arguing from a standpoint of logic, not just trying to set up a straw man to knock down.

[joe]

I'm sorry you find your position so inconvenient to defend, db. But I'm 90% certain that I did not hallucinate the "Gun rights are about checking government power, not self defense or hunting" argument.

Oh, and I'm not so much opposed to firearm ownership as to sloppy arguments and intellectual dishonesty.

[Rick C]

"Pepper spray is better than nothing and definitely better than a gun in the hands of someone that doesn't know how to use it. "

Uh, isn't that why in a previous post you suggested getting a gun and *learning how to use it*?

[KentInDC]

Sir Real and CTD,
Of course the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, but not to drive. However, the State only controls my driving on their roads, just as they control my bringing guns into their buildings. Owners of private roads - or just landowners in general - can allow anyone to drive on their property without interference from the State. Why should I not similarly be allowed to bear arms on private property if the owner is agreeable?

Another analogy: A driver's license from any state is honored by all other states. Why should my concealed carry permit not be honored in all states?

[Mo]

Yes Rick, some offline thinking was involved in the post. Part of the reason she didn't want to get it was that she didn't want to do the associated learning. Of course, handling pepper spray without training means that she could freeze and be no safer, but at least she can't get disarmed and shot. To me the preferred route is gun safety class and a gun.

[Phil]

the right to "bare arms" only appears in the Consititution in the form of a well-regulated militia- unless the masons are now a militia.

They are. So are you. So am I, and joe, and db, and all other American men and women of voting age on this thread, unless they are members of the Armed Forces or the National Guard. Perhaps you ought to familiarize yourself with the laws regarding who comprises the militia. Or, you can just keep saying dumb shit. Your choice.

[the Gnomes of Z]

Yo, Daley, that's "Ewige Blumenkraft". Get it straight or we'll have the dead vote you out of office.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Does anyone know if there is such a thing as an initiation ritual among animals?

[the inquiring zoologist]

Do fraternities count?

[Commonwealth 325]

The authorities, more likely than not, are also Masons, like our president. I'm not too worried, but maybe I should burn my dues card, just to be safe.

Seriously, this is like nothing I've ever heard about in any lodge.

[Jean Bart]

Commonwealth 325,

This is nothing in comparison to the activities that go on in the military; especially amongst "elite" units.

[Ruthless]

Has anyone else heard of a lodge called Monkeys?
How about Possum Lodge?
I guess the newsworthiness of this is that it at the Masons.

[db]

From what I've heard from some Masons, this is unlike any situation they've ever seen.

No, the Masons have little to worry about, it's just another (bad, anecdotal) argument for gun control. The idiot who was planning to use the pistols in the initiation should have damn well known better than to use a gun as a toy. Moron.

[joe]

Does Louis Farrakhan know about this?

[Senescent]

Don't blame me, I voted for Wirt.

[WLC]

Ruthless,

I can see Harold telling his uncle Red now "I told ya the gun was loaded--huaa!"

Last time I get a gun from Dalton's Everything Store.

[joe]

Speaking of death cults...

"Urban Planner Stuck in Traffic of Own Design"

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?i=1&n=2

[dj of raleigh]

Two deaths in over 200 years does not a DEATH CULT make.

[Sir Real]

I'm confused- what was the purpose of having a gun loaded with real bullets, anyway? The article didn't mention them loading the gun in front of him or anything, so why bring live ammo into the ritual if you have no intention of using it?

Of course, perhaps the truly relevant part is Mr. Eid's advanced age (76). Driving is privilige that can be taken away when people show they're no longer capable of handling it- it appears Mr. Eid is no longer capable of handling a gun.

Of course, I'm sure the rights of a septagenarian to play with pistols supersede the rights of those five children to have a Daddy, on this board at least.

[Mike McNamara]

Must be the Curse of Baphomet rearing its ugly head yet again.

(That's two -- count 'em two -- links to Chick Tracts this week.)

[Jennifer]

I've never understood the point of these stupid low-scale sadomasochistic initiation rituals. What, if I let you humiliate me and play mind games with me, then and only then will you be my friend? No thanks.

I would make a sarcastic comment here to demonstrate my feeling of superiority, but instead I'll just say it's very sad, the lengths people will go to out of a desperate desire to Belong.

Jean Bart mentioned the military, but at least the military has a purpose behind such behavior, trying to "mold" someone from man to killing machine.

[Jean Bart]

Jennifer,

Actually, its more to create esprit de corps than it is to mold someone into a killing machine. You do the latter in other ways - that is by combat training.

[steve]

Oh I long for the days of walking on burning coals, singing sappy children's songs in front of my peers, parading around scantily clad in public, chewing on raw onions, stealing statues from administration buildings, wearing ridiculous head gear, and asking the really pretty girl for a date to the prom.

Now those are appropriate ways to show fealty to the group and the proper way to build esprit de corps!

[Cook Sioux]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 212.253.2.204
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 02:22:19
Art is vision, not expression.