Leaving the community

Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the meaning
in
order to further their agenda, I speak up.


But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. jeesh "paranoia WILL
destroy ya" grin. I'm just trying to approach the issue, logically.
Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in their decision
it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right was to assure
that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the government. Goodness,
Jeff!

Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original views
of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words
is
a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.

I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who have
tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot' Act). I
haven't altered any original views, at all.

But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
government that they were working SO hard to put into place? Jeff?
Really??? Isn't a more likely explanation that they recognized that their
new country didn't have a lot of money to fund purchasing weapons for a
formal army and that they wanted to insure that its' citizens had weaponry
so that they could be called up to fight in the event the new country was
attacked? .. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed"

--
If their intent was just that citizens had the right to bear arms, they
wouldn't have the line that comes before it. What is unreasonable about
that?

--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
om...
Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the
meaning
in
order to further their agenda, I speak up.


But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. jeesh "paranoia
WILL
destroy ya" grin. I'm just trying to approach the issue, logically.
Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in their
decision
it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right was to assure
that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the government. Goodness,
Jeff!

Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original
views
of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words
is
a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.

I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who
have
tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot' Act). I
haven't altered any original views, at all.

But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
government that they were working SO hard to put into place?

Do you remember this little event in US history called the Revolution? Of
course the founding fathers would want to afford the citizens the
opportunity to overthrow the government if need be. THEY HAD JUST DONE IT
AND WERE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO KNOW IT MIGHT NEED TO HAPPEN AGAIN! Consider
what was happening in other countries around that time. Sheesh, talk about
rational.

Cecil Chapman wrote:

Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the meaning
in
order to further their agenda, I speak up.



But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. jeesh "paranoia WILL
destroy ya" grin. I'm just trying to approach the issue, logically.
Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in their decision
it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right was to assure
that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the government. Goodness,
Jeff!

No need to restate what is commonly known by anyone at all literate
about the Constitution and those who wrote it.


Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original views
of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words
is
a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.


I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who have
tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot' Act). I
haven't altered any original views, at all.

You seem to be trying to interpret the Constitution in ways that the
authors never intended, and that is just as bad as trying to change it
outright.


But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
government that they were working SO hard to put into place? Jeff?
Really??? Isn't a more likely explanation that they recognized that their
new country didn't have a lot of money to fund purchasing weapons for a
formal army and that they wanted to insure that its' citizens had weaponry
so that they could be called up to fight in the event the new country was
attacked? .. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed"

Yes, that is exactly what the founders had in mind. Can't you do a
little research on your own? The comments on the second amendment by
various folks involved with authoring the Constitution are easy to find,
assuming you really want to know the answer.


Matt

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
om...
Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the meaning
in
order to further their agenda, I speak up.


But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. jeesh "paranoia
WILL destroy ya" grin. I'm just trying to approach the issue,
logically. Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in
their decision it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right
was to assure that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the
government. Goodness, Jeff!

Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original
views
of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words
is
a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.

I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who
have tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot'
Act). I haven't altered any original views, at all.

But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
government that they were working SO hard to put into place? Jeff?
Really??? Isn't a more likely explanation that they recognized that their
new country didn't have a lot of money to fund purchasing weapons for a
formal army and that they wanted to insure that its' citizens had weaponry
so that they could be called up to fight in the event the new country was
attacked? .. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of
a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed"


You need to get a clue.


--
If their intent was just that citizens had the right to bear arms, they
wouldn't have the line that comes before it. What is unreasonable about
that?

--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

You need to get a clue.

Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your paranoid
thoughts.

Get better soon!

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...
You need to get a clue.

Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your paranoid
thoughts.


And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my posts
that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken beliefs in
my reasons for owning firearms.

Time and again we see that people with firearms have saved lives and stopped
more criminals from hurting innocent people. Unfortunately the media in the
US chooses to ignore those parts of the reports. For example, if there had
been an armed teacher in the Columbine school or a person on the train with
Colin Ferguson who knew something about handguns then there would be fewer
dead innocents. Unfortunately idiot 'liberals' (a contradition of the use
of the term, as libere means freedom) choose to disarm the law abiding
public, ensuring that ciminals have an easy time of it.

Get better soon!

And to you, I say, "Wake up soon."


--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...
You need to get a clue.

Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your
paranoid
thoughts.


And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my posts
that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken beliefs
in
my reasons for owning firearms.

http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html

1. Neurosis
The definition of neurosis in this system is taken from Pavlov: it is the
stress induced when a single stimulus evokes two or more responses.

Neurosis will be better understood if we examine its probable origin. Then
two primal neuroses have been defined: the Fundamental Human Neurosis and
the Fundamental Female Neurosis.

The Fundamental Human Neurosis derives from the knowledge of impending
death. Every organism strives to survive: even a humble fly avoids death
because any creature which does not partake in "the eternal struggle for
life" fails to pass on its genes, loses its competition with others and its
characters disappear forever from the gene pool. Thus any creature which
does not so partake has long become extinct. Similarly, humans do not
generally contemplate death with happy expectation. This conflict, that we
do not wish to die, while at the same time being conscious of its
inevitability, is the Fundamental Human Neurosis. It accounts for the
evolution of religion, which resolves it.

The origin of the Fundamental Female Neurosis is (predictably, since females
are much more sexual than males) sex. The female, at least occasionally,
wants sex, yet her basic evolution strategy relies on raising its value.
(Recall that in this system sex is any non-monetary activity: any
non-business relationship is sex, and 'sex,' 'physical sex' and
'relationships' are all equivalent since their only ultimate purpose is
procreation.) Physical sex is the only amenity which females can provide
which males cannot: hence all female procedures reduce to raising the value,
i.e. the costs, of sex. Even though the female may desire sex, she denies it
to the male to make it into a scarce resource. Thus its value is raised and
her status increases.





2a. Freudian Projection
The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox
psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own
unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called
Freudian Projection.

a.. "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other
people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is
especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own
impulses and traits."


b.. "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or
emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels
subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not
acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect
others of being homosexual."


c.. "Attributing one's own undesirabe traits to other people or agencies,
e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."


d.. "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having
himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The
would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."


e.. "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An
individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may
then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."


f.. "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We
project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for
having thoughts that we really have."
2b. (General) Projection
Here projection is assuming that others act or perceive similarly -
according to this definition it is not necessary for a projected trait to be
undesirable or unconscious. Projection is probably inherent in social
animals and the single most important psychological mechanism. The following
are given as examples:

1.. Individual A assumes that B sees the colour red as he does, until
informed that B is colour-blind;


2.. Someone who never lies is easy to deceive because he projects his
truthfulness onto others, assuming that others are honest also;


3.. ‘It takes one to know one’;


4.. An inept con-man fears that others are trying to cheat him, signals
his fear and alerts others;


5.. (Freudian) An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but
who is unwilling to perceive himself as a protagonist, convinces himself
that his opponent feels and would act the same way.
Each of these examples involves an assumption that others exhibit an own
trait, but various "defence mechanisms" exist. Counter-strategies for Case 2
include (a) being conscious of a tendency to project and compensating with
increased scepticism, testing scientifically, and (b) lying as much as
everyone else. Case 3 could occur if an individual is honest about own
characteristics and inhibits his tendency to project, in which case he may
accurately recognize his own traits in another without error. Case 4 is an
interesting scenario left open for discussion.

In Case 5, offensive acts may occur when the projector (which may be an
individual or a group), erroneously believing that their adversary is about
to likewise, pre-empts the opponent - making the player of this so-called
defence mechanism into a protagonist. This illustrates just one of several
problems with the orthodox notion of projection. I hope to have demonstrated
that the conventional definition of projection, here dubbed Freudian
Projection, merely describes a specific instance of a more general, and
important, human mechanism. Projection, combined with features such as
denial of latent desires, accounts for a great deal of human behaviour and
attitudes.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...
You need to get a clue.

Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your
paranoid
thoughts.


And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my posts
that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken beliefs
in
my reasons for owning firearms.

http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html



WTF is this all about?
or as the canadans say, "aboot?"




1. Neurosis
The definition of neurosis in this system is taken from Pavlov: it is the
stress induced when a single stimulus evokes two or more responses.

Neurosis will be better understood if we examine its probable origin. Then
two primal neuroses have been defined: the Fundamental Human Neurosis and
the Fundamental Female Neurosis.

The Fundamental Human Neurosis derives from the knowledge of impending
death. Every organism strives to survive: even a humble fly avoids death
because any creature which does not partake in "the eternal struggle for
life" fails to pass on its genes, loses its competition with others and
its
characters disappear forever from the gene pool. Thus any creature which
does not so partake has long become extinct. Similarly, humans do not
generally contemplate death with happy expectation. This conflict, that we
do not wish to die, while at the same time being conscious of its
inevitability, is the Fundamental Human Neurosis. It accounts for the
evolution of religion, which resolves it.

The origin of the Fundamental Female Neurosis is (predictably, since
females
are much more sexual than males) sex. The female, at least occasionally,
wants sex, yet her basic evolution strategy relies on raising its value.
(Recall that in this system sex is any non-monetary activity: any
non-business relationship is sex, and 'sex,' 'physical sex' and
'relationships' are all equivalent since their only ultimate purpose is
procreation.) Physical sex is the only amenity which females can provide
which males cannot: hence all female procedures reduce to raising the
value,
i.e. the costs, of sex. Even though the female may desire sex, she denies
it
to the male to make it into a scarce resource. Thus its value is raised
and
her status increases.





2a. Freudian Projection
The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox
psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own
unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called
Freudian Projection.

a.. "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other
people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is
especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own
impulses and traits."


b.. "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or
emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels
subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not
acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to
suspect
others of being homosexual."


c.. "Attributing one's own undesirabe traits to other people or agencies,
e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."


d.. "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having
himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The
would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."


e.. "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An
individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies
may
then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."


f.. "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We
project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for
having thoughts that we really have."
2b. (General) Projection
Here projection is assuming that others act or perceive similarly -
according to this definition it is not necessary for a projected trait to
be
undesirable or unconscious. Projection is probably inherent in social
animals and the single most important psychological mechanism. The
following
are given as examples:

1.. Individual A assumes that B sees the colour red as he does, until
informed that B is colour-blind;


2.. Someone who never lies is easy to deceive because he projects his
truthfulness onto others, assuming that others are honest also;


3.. 'It takes one to know one';


4.. An inept con-man fears that others are trying to cheat him, signals
his fear and alerts others;


5.. (Freudian) An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but
who is unwilling to perceive himself as a protagonist, convinces himself
that his opponent feels and would act the same way.
Each of these examples involves an assumption that others exhibit an own
trait, but various "defence mechanisms" exist. Counter-strategies for Case
2
include (a) being conscious of a tendency to project and compensating with
increased scepticism, testing scientifically, and (b) lying as much as
everyone else. Case 3 could occur if an individual is honest about own
characteristics and inhibits his tendency to project, in which case he may
accurately recognize his own traits in another without error. Case 4 is an
interesting scenario left open for discussion.

In Case 5, offensive acts may occur when the projector (which may be an
individual or a group), erroneously believing that their adversary is
about
to likewise, pre-empts the opponent - making the player of this so-called
defence mechanism into a protagonist. This illustrates just one of several
problems with the orthodox notion of projection. I hope to have
demonstrated
that the conventional definition of projection, here dubbed Freudian
Projection, merely describes a specific instance of a more general, and
important, human mechanism. Projection, combined with features such as
denial of latent desires, accounts for a great deal of human behaviour and
attitudes.

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...
You need to get a clue.

Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your
paranoid
thoughts.


And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my
posts
that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken
beliefs
in
my reasons for owning firearms.

http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html



WTF is this all about?
or as the canadans say, "aboot?"


Ummm...about psychology?

On 11/6/04 10:35 PM, in article
, "Cecil Chapman"
wrote:

Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the meaning
in
order to further their agenda, I speak up.


But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. jeesh "paranoia WILL
destroy ya" grin. I'm just trying to approach the issue, logically.
Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in their decision
it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right was to assure
that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the government. Goodness,
Jeff!

I wasn't really accusing *you* of having an agenda. You did not try to
change the meaning of the words in the 2nd Amendment. But you were defending
the position of the poster that was doing so. Argue the 2nd Amendment all
you wish. I merely stand as a watchdog to the original intent.


Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original views
of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words
is
a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.

I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who have
tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot' Act). I
haven't altered any original views, at all.

But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
government that they were working SO hard to put into place? Jeff?
Really??? Isn't a more likely explanation that they recognized that their
new country didn't have a lot of money to fund purchasing weapons for a
formal army and that they wanted to insure that its' citizens had weaponry
so that they could be called up to fight in the event the new country was
attacked? .. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed"

I have issues just as you do with the Patriot Act. But that isn't the issue
under discussion.

As for your question, rationally yes, I do believe that is one of the
reasons. They stated as much in the Declaration of Independence: "When in
the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve
the political bands which have connected them with another..."
They were able to recognize that governments, even the one that they had
just created, might take a horrible change for the worse, and then: "...it
is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness."

They were not so foolish that they did not realize that abolishing and
instituting a new government would involve at least a few exchanges of
gunfire.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com