GUN banned no more.

posted on July 16th, 2008, 12:18 am

I eat babes for dinner I must be evil. well evil is morality and I don't swing that way.

ahhhhh ahhhh Welcome to the Landmark side.

Thats right and my life as bean so much more foiling and rewording ever sets I have not looked back.

any thing unknown scars people but there is relay not resin to be scared the system we use to do what morality dose pulse more works wonders for me.

I mite be wrong to you but not to me.

When you lear Good and Bad arn't to only way to way ones actions you will have a free and unconstrained life from gilt.

Landmark dose not talk about nor indorse any religion. my personal guess if yes nothing.

I hope you are right I have not died so I cant say.

morality is not the only way to tell you what you should or should not do.

posted on July 16th, 2008, 12:30 am

ok so... heres my two cents.

i was very disappointed about the supreame cort diecsion that alows people th own guns, veryy dissapointed. 5 to 4 in favor, can you believe that?
i just cant believe that 4 people think that the constution should be thrown out the window. its just disgusting. i suppose i am glad that the 2nd amendment still takes hold, but i mean common 4 supreame cort justuices dont believe in the constution?

here are some lettered points with some tl/drs at the end.

a). guns are good. I.E. a gun it a tool, like a hammer or a pitch fork. what i mean bu that is a gun can be used for good or evil you can use it to defend your self or to hunt or plain simply for fun as a sport or you can go murder people and hold people up. then again you can use a hammer to build a shed or destroy someones skull. its all about what the person wants to do with that too and if he will use it responsabily (oh gush i so spelled that wrong).
tl/dr
If guns kill people, Then pens mispell words.

b). if you are reasoning in that jumbeled up leftarded head that our forfathers never thought that automtic guns or 30rnd magazines would exist and thus the 2nd amendment should be dis regarded. then maby you have thought into this too much. i believe our forefathers intended for people to be able to wield the same power that our millatery holds. i dont think our forefathers could have imaagined that we would have what we have now. but do you think they intended to leave our people defenceless? and i say defenceless from who ever would threten me whether it be a forgin invader or my own government.

tl/dr
go read that one.

and c). ewm do you enjoy your 1st amendment?
do we all enjoy our first amendment? i know i do. did you ever think our forefathers could have imagined nazis or racil bigots? maby we should out law the 1st amendment so we dont have to here about a neo nazi rally in (insert states name here) or have to hear about some guy who brags about how he hates black women.
oh, wait thats silly, they cant take away our 1st amendment frome us, because we have the 2nd amendment. thank god that our fore fathers were smart enough to forsee that our gonverment would eventualy try to be in total controll. we can defend our rights with our rights.
the 2nd amendment is the peoples fall back line. if we are in troble we can awalys defend ourselves
tl/dr people should not fear there gonvernments, governments should fear there people.

now please forgive me for my horrid spelling and my bad grammer i dont care so much about awnsering a troll to go back and painstakingly spell check.

posted on July 16th, 2008, 1:42 am

I eat babes for dinner I must be evil. well evil is morality and I don't swing that way.

Ewm, grow the hell up.  That has to be the most immature straw man I've seen you use, and I've seen you use a hell of a lot of straw men.

I don't presume to morally judge you, Ewm.  I've never met you in person.  However, I can morally judge what it is you say, and it scares the hell out of me. 

In psychology, we call people who don't experience guilt "psychopaths".

posted on July 16th, 2008, 2:05 am

? I must have missed some thing I am confused.

I get that, It scares you. spatters scare me. We all have thing we are alfred of but Landmark some thing to be scared of, lol Its a program that helps people see past there fears and you are fared of it..

Good thing this is not sociology then. O i expertness gilt up I view it logically but not by morality.

Go to a interduction and see for your self or and check out the video clip on there site in my sig.

posted on July 16th, 2008, 3:18 am

It's interesting... you treat landmark like a religion; you worship it, and attempt to convert others.

Not that that's wrong in and of itself.

Anyway, Ewm, I'm not sure if you get this, but 'not feeling any guilt' is synonymous with 'not caring about others'.  If you say you care about others, not only are you capable of feeling guilt, but you also have an understanding that actions can be 'right' or 'wrong', hence, morality.

posted on July 16th, 2008, 11:00 am

I just said its not reijuse at all and no I don't!!

Seriously question way did you say that what where you hoping to aliases out of me?

No relay you are operating out of morality is all that exists. When you expand your plate you will have a even better life there more out there if you are opened to it.

If I don't care about others why and I offering this?  I don't work for Landmark nor do I get any thing for it.

posted on July 16th, 2008, 11:39 pm

Cairo1, you do realize that the Supreme Court decision was to determine which way to interpret the second amendment. So basically what I gather from your post is that you are angry at those four supreme justices because they have an alternate view from yours and the other five. From there I can ascertain that although you throw accusations that anyone who disagrees with advocating gun use for citizens is disrespecting the U.S. Constitution, you are the only person disrespecting that document. After all, you want to restrict the justices' freedom to express their own opinions, which is the first amendment. With that logic you should be appalled at yourself. As has been brought up before, the second amendment is not an example of literalist interpretation. Even if we were to interpret it in the way several of the forefathers who wrote that sentence did, the supreme court verdict does not agree with that thought: "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."

As I stated before, that is hardly clear. We DO NOT HAVE a militia. We have a standing army (and the National Guard, as already described, is not a militia, as it is funded and operated by the federal government or state governments), which we did not have when the document was written. The founders made sure that their words could be interpreted in a myriad of ways, so that progress could be made. In fact, if you carefully read the explanations that our so-called "fore-fathers" wrote about the freedom to carry weapons; it was to protect against the tyranny of the government... and no one ever mentioned defense against other individual citizens.

Redshirt, how can you claim to talk about morality as an authority when you clearly are open to killing--committing murder--another human (or at the very minimum, causing them grievous bodily harm). Of course, you state that it will be for self defense... or protecting your property... or for home invasion... or... but we've already discussed that. Obviously you yourself do not believe in right and wrong in terms of black and white. Surely you wouldn't kill your own mother; so the fact that you posit conditions to kill someone (and yes, it could even be your mother, if she was trying to rob you) shows that your own belief system is gray.

[Redshirt]

posted on July 17th, 2008, 2:35 am

Last edited by Redshirt on July 17th, 2008, 2:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

I just said its not reijuse at all and no I don't!!

Seriously question way did you say that what where you hoping to aliases out of me?

No relay you are operating out of morality is all that exists. When you expand your plate you will have a even better life there more out there if you are opened to it.

What?

I'm sorry, Ewm, but most of that is hardly English, and the part that is recognizable doesn't make much sense.  All I can tell is that you're saying that I'm a close-minded fool who can have a better life if I just learn to see more of life.

This is quite standard drivel, really.  You think I'm missing something because I don't agree with you.  This could be, but it could just as well be you who's the hopelessly lost one.  You never quite know on these things.

If I don't care about others why and I offering this?  I don't work for Landmark nor do I get any thing for it.

This not only demonstrates how you treat Landmark like many people treat their church, it also shows that you do, in fact, make judgments based on morality.

--edit--

Just realized that the last paragraph of DN's tl;dr post was directed at me.

Redshirt, how can you claim to talk about morality as an authority when you clearly are open to killing--committing murder--another human (or at the very minimum, causing them grievous bodily harm). Of course, you state that it will be for self defense... or protecting your property... or for home invasion... or... but we've already discussed that. Obviously you yourself do not believe in right and wrong in terms of black and white. Surely you wouldn't kill your own mother; so the fact that you posit conditions to kill someone (and yes, it could even be your mother, if she was trying to rob you) shows that your own belief system is gray.

Here's my view on murder, DN.  When you prepare to take the life of another, you relinquish control over yours.  Taking one's life from them is wrong, but if you've given up control of that very life already, it's hardly being taken from you.

Are you suggesting, DN, that at some point in the past I claimed to be a 'moral authority', whatever the hell that may be?  Are you also suggesting that this 'moral authority' is an unthinking machine that loses the very touch of humanity?  So far as I know, I never claimed to be such nor presented myself as such.  I claim to have a valid opinion of the subject being discussed, yes, but it's rather silly to suggest that I think I have absolute authority over the subject at hand.

And you are aware that the term 'gray' encompasses every shade between absolute black and absolute white, correct?  Please, be more specific in the future.  All you've done is claim something that should be self-evident: I'm not an unthinking machine.

posted on July 17th, 2008, 3:14 am

Well you often post the opposite to what I just said so you are missing things.

Landmark is a educational institution I don't go to church and the comparison is not accrete. I treat landmark for bend what most people treat things they love. If you could see the magic of transformation you would be to.

I do some time cache my self thinking in the world of morality but then I see it and stop.

posted on July 17th, 2008, 11:15 pm

Well you often post the opposite to what I just said so you are missing things.

So... because I disagree with you, I'm missing things?  Or did you just say that I'm missing things because I'm not characterizing you correctly?

If you mean the second one, then it's not entirely fair to blame me; I'm doing the best I can to understand your dyslexic postings.

Landmark is a educational institution I don't go to church and the comparison is not accrete. I treat landmark for bend what most people treat things they love. If you could see the magic of transformation you would be to.

*sigh*

I'm not saying landmark is like a church, I'm comparing your attitude towards it.  So, yes, the comparison is accurate. 

You think it helps people, so you tell people about it.  That is exactly how many, if not most, people think of their church.  In fact, you pretty much prove my point when you tell me about the "magic of transformation", and say that I would be a good person if I understood Landmark.

I do some time cache my self thinking in the world of morality but then I see it and stop.

Does anyone not find this scary?

How about this; Ewm, let me ask you a question: when you make a choice, do you consider whats best for other people as strongly (or stronger) than you consider what's best for you?

posted on July 18th, 2008, 1:08 am

Well haw about a few posts ago when I said Landmark is not releguse in any way then you said a few post latter Landmark is like a religion...

Well its not just me you seem to say things that contradict people with out seeming to knotes you had if you where doing this on peruse thats ones thing but if you can keep up with the debate that's a other.

O I see you did not make that very clear. Cups are round so are car wheels theirs a other... You could not have picked a more misleading comparison. Menny people have bean told that Landmark Education haw a religion with is not true. The one that has a religion is Scientology witch we have nothing to do with or wont to.

---

What scares you about it?

I consider impact on people and if I am farthing the -Blank- that is being chosen. It depends on the chose to say what I and how I consider it. I am dedicating my life to helping to bring the magic of transformation to all people. I could not do this is I did not have a huge regrade for peoples life's and the people them selves.

posted on July 18th, 2008, 3:01 am

Well haw about a few posts ago when I said Landmark is not releguse in any way then you said a few post latter Landmark is like a religion...

No no no no no no, and no.  You've completely missed it, Ewm.  I'm not talking about Landmark at all.  I'm talking about you, and how you see them.  It's your attitude that I'm analyzing, not Landmark education.

Landmark has nothing to do with this.

Well its not just me you seem to say things that contradict people with out seeming to knotes you had if you where doing this on peruse thats ones thing but if you can keep up with the debate that's a other.

I'll need a few examples so I know what you mean.

O I see you did not make that very clear. Cups are round so are car wheels theirs a other... You could not have picked a more misleading comparison. Menny people have bean told that Landmark Education haw a religion with is not true. The one that has a religion is Scientology witch we have nothing to do with or wont to.

As I said before, you missed it.  Landmark is beside the point.  It's your behavior and speech regarding Landmark that I was commenting on, not the nature of Landmark itself.

---

What scares you about it?

It scares me that the absence of morality and focus on self often lead to a lack of consideration for other people.  The lack of guilt suggests antisocial personality disorder (aka sociopathy).

However, i think that you do indeed have morals, and you're simply in denial.

I consider impact on people and if I am farthing the -Blank- that is being chosen. It depends on the chose to say what I and how I consider it. I am dedicating my life to helping to bring the magic of transformation to all people. I could not do this is I did not have a huge regrade for peoples life's and the people them selves.

Ewm, when you say you dedicate your life to bringing the magic of transformation to all people, you echo the sentiments of religious people everywhere; the only difference is the transformation you represent.

Regarding the rest of your paragraph, what you describe is neat thing called morality.  Morality is a specific code of conduct you hold yourself to, and you have one.  Stop denying it and embrace it.

posted on July 19th, 2008, 4:29 pm

Got it. Its just that people all ready have mixed up ideas about what Landmark is including a convicted con artiest how makes money by selling books about how its some kind of business cult or some thing lol. So my making the even a vega mention of religion can mix mixed up people even more.

With the guns debate people have said things like guns don't help they hurt instead of talking about why you think that is not the case you seem o ignore it and then you say some thing like guns help not hart witch seems like you did not read the last posts.

agin the comparison you used was confusing and misleading.

posted on July 19th, 2008, 9:16 pm

You are bloody confusing and misleading Ewm - that post was the clearest piece of writing you have ever wrote which leads me to conclude - YOU'RE A FRAUD! You can read and write perfectly well by now i'm sure, my sister is dyslexic and she has worked hard to write as well as she does now and its perfect, not without struggle but can be acheived.

Guns are bad yes but guns are also useful. Its like your birth - its already happened and theres no changing it. Guns are already here and too many bad guys have them as well as good guys. Sure there is a good argument over how easy guns can be obtained in parts of America, legally and illegally. This thread also has many good points why guns serve a better purpose and are evil personified. You should, like me, take in all these good points and say thank you to all the intelligent people of this forum for their input to your topic and go hassle your senator. Or shoot him and prove your point.

posted on July 19th, 2008, 10:06 pm

lol I am a fraud hmm maybe I just had more time then usual to post it and fix errors. and now you are a expert on dyslexia then hummm.

Guns are like berth interesting. maybe there no changing it for you but not for me.

and this all comes from the guy how has on his sig global worming is not real. You will have to lean the hard way it seems about global worming too..