Re: Senator's "My American Story" Is a Result of Awakened-Bo Dark-Matter Body

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 6/3/2021 2:38 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:04 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:


>> It doesn't say that anywherein the constitution,and these
days a soldier can have weapons other than assault rifles.


/> He can have a grenade.  He can't have a machine gun...a machine
gun is assigned to a two man crew; same with a sniper rifle./


I don't know where you got that "/one man must carry it not //2 /" 
definition of "/arms/", you seem to have pulled it out of thin air, it 
certainly doesn't say anything like that in the constitution.


It's not nearly as thin as the air that says it's a musket.  It's the 
obvious functional interpretation.


And besides, the SADM nuclear landmine was specifically designed to be 
carried and activated by just one man.


>> Anuclearbomb had been developed in the1950s that was small
enough to be carried by one man, it was called the W54 warhead
and weighed 56 pounds and had the explosive force of 1000 tons
of TNT. It was supposed to be deployed as a sort of nuclear
landmine. So does the second amendment allow Walmarts to sell
nuclear bombs next to the shotguns in its stores?

Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM)



/> See what you did there.  You tried for a reductio ad absurdum,
by missing the point ''Functionally, "arms" meant *what a soldier
carried*''  They had cannon and warships in 1787 too..but they
weren't called "arms".
/


In 1787 the people that made cannons and warships were called arms 
manufacturers and that hasn't changed.It may be absurd but that's the 
world we live in because nuclear weapons are called "arms'', remember 
the SALT talks from the 1970s, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks? 
They were about the reduction in the number of nuclear weapons 
manufactured by the US and USSR.


But they certainly didn't mean that in order to have well regulated 
militia people had the right to keep and bear frigates.  The use of 
"arms" to mean any weapon is clearly a derivative extension of what a 
combatant originally wielded with his arm.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/05d14db2-55d7-4879-f3c2-5e25c8c165ba%40verizon.net.

Re: Senator's "My American Story" Is a Result of Awakened-Bo Dark-Matter Body

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:04 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>> It doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution, and these days a
>> soldier can have weapons other than assault rifles.
>
>
> * > He can have a grenade.  He can't have a machine gun...a machine gun is
> assigned to a two man crew; same with a sniper rifle.*
>

I don't know where you got that "*one man must carry it not **2 *"
definition of "*arms*", you seem to have pulled it out of thin air, it
certainly doesn't say anything like that in the constitution.  And besides,
the SADM nuclear landmine was specifically designed to be carried and
activated by just one man.

>> A nuclear bomb had been developed in the 1950s that was small enough to
>> be carried by one man, it was called the W54 warhead and weighed 56 pounds
>> and had the explosive force of 1000 tons of TNT. It was supposed to be
>> deployed as a sort of nuclear landmine. So does the second amendment
>> allow Walmarts to sell nuclear bombs next to the shotguns in its stores?
>>
>> Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM)
>> 
>
>
>
> * > See what you did there.  You tried for a reductio ad absurdum, by
> missing the point ''Functionally, "arms" meant what a soldier carried''
> They had cannon and warships in 1787 too...but they weren't called "arms".*
>

In 1787 the people that made cannons and warships were called arms
manufacturers and that hasn't changed. It may be absurd but that's the world
we live in because nuclear weapons are called "arms'', remember the SALT
talks from the 1970s, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks? They were about
the reduction in the number of nuclear weapons manufactured by the US and
USSR.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis


> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1RkHr4zQXmGCeZyqQZxDEwjm13tTFtC21BeQ1pUx2BWw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Senator's "My American Story" Is a Result of Awakened-Bo Dark-Matter Body

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 6/3/2021 1:07 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 3:01 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:


/> It's much more sensible to define "arms" in terms of function
than mechanical design.  After all "arms" meant swords and pikes
and bows and arrows too. /


The function of arms is to kill people, a sword can do that, so can a 
musket, and so can an H bomb.


/> Functionally, "arms" meant what a soldier carried...these days
an assault rifle. /


It doesn't say that anywherein the constitution,and these days a 
soldier can have weapons other than assault rifles.


He can have a grenade.  He can't have a machine gun...a machine gun is 
assigned to a two man crew; same with a sniper rifle.


Anuclearbomb had been developed in the1950s that was small enough to 
be carried by one man, it was called the W54 warhead and weighed 56 
pounds and had the explosive force of 1000 tons of TNT. It was 
supposed to be deployed as a sort of nuclear landmine. So does the 
second amendment allow Walmarts to sell nuclear bombs next to the 
shotguns in its stores?


Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) 



See what you did there.  You tried for a reductio ad absurdum, by 
missing the point ''Functionally, "arms" meant *what a soldier 
carried*''  They had cannon and warships in 1787 too...but they weren't 
called "arms".



/>The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was as a substitute for a
standing army the government would be able to call up men with
arms to form a militia.  Being very suspicious of centralized
power, the founders wanted to make sure the government could not
forbid private arms.
/


After considering the events of January 6 it seems to me that the 
founders would've been wiser to be suspicious of private armies.


I agree with that.  But historically their attitude is understandable.

The militias were not defending the capital on that day they were 
attacking it, and were part of the mindless fascist mob that beat 
police with flag poles and defecated in the rotunda of that historic 
building as Senators and Representatives feared for their lives while 
they officially declared Joe Biden would be the next president. 
Fortunately the mob's coup d'état attempt failed, no thanks to the 
Second Amendment or to militias.


You can't have expected them to foresee that.  And note that being armed 
in that case meant clubs and bear spray.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3292c47a-5b13-24d5-efb5-c8dc222775a2%40verizon.net.

Re: Senator's "My American Story" Is a Result of Awakened-Bo Dark-Matter Body

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 3:01 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

* > It's much more sensible to define "arms" in terms of function than
> mechanical design.  After all "arms" meant swords and pikes and bows and
> arrows too. *
>

The function of arms is to kill people, a sword can do that, so can a
musket, and so can an H bomb.


> *> Functionally, "arms" meant what a soldier carried...these days an
> assault rifle. *
>

It doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution, and these days a soldier
can have weapons other than assault rifles. A nuclear bomb had been
developed in the 1950s that was small enough to be carried by one man, it
was called the W54 warhead and weighed 56 pounds and had the explosive
force of 1000 tons of TNT. It was supposed to be deployed as a sort of nuclear
landmine. So does the second amendment allow Walmarts to sell nuclear bombs
next to the shotguns in its stores?

Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM)



>
> * >The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was as a substitute for a standing
> army the government would be able to call up men with arms to form a
> militia.  Being very suspicious of centralized power, the founders wanted
> to make sure the government could not forbid private arms.*
>

After considering the events of January 6 it seems to me that the founders
would've been wiser to be suspicious of private armies. The militias were
not defending the capital on that day they were attacking it, and were part
of the mindless fascist mob that beat police with flag poles and defecated
in the rotunda of that historic building as Senators and Representatives
feared for their lives while they officially declared Joe Biden would be
the next president. Fortunately the mob's coup d'état attempt failed, no
thanks to the Second Amendment or to militias.
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0JQP0bSCfyQBhm_gh1voYzpMB5WMiiyuMdwc%3DgLgsr5A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Senator's "My American Story" Is a Result of Awakened-Bo Dark-Matter Body

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

It's much more sensible to define "arms" in terms of function than 
mechanical design.  After all "arms" meant swords and pikes and bows and 
arrows too.  Functionally, "arms" meant what a soldier carried...these 
days an assault rifle.  The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was as a 
substitute for a standing army the government would be able to call up 
men with arms to form a militia.  Being very suspicious of centralized 
power, the founders wanted to make sure the government could not forbid 
private arms.


I think the best idea for gun control, suggested by a lawyer friend, is 
to the treat them like cars.  Require registration and liability 
insurance.  Let the insurance companies figure out who's a risk.


Brent

On 6/3/2021 7:08 AM, John Clark wrote:
Right wingers love talking about the "original intent'' of the 
founders of the constitution, so what  did they mean by the word 
''arms"? Usually it's difficult to know what was going through 
somebody else's mind, especially if they've been dead for 200 years, 
but in this case it's easy; when they used the word "arms" they were 
thinking of muzzle loading muskets and single shot flintlock pistols, 
they most certainly were NOT thinking about AK-47s and Glock  
automatics with 17 round magazines. So the Second Amendment says 
anybody can buy a muzzle loading musket or a flintlock pistol, but if 
you want something a little more powerful you're going to need a 
license and to get a licence you're going to have to have a need for 
such a devastating weapon and demonstrate some degree of competence 
and responsibility in its use.


John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2S%3D%3Dv1AhyUFcojZy_NX-q0XpxtLc3Ly%2BDngnSq2y2H5Q%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9f6e8a2c-d1a3-908d-ba9c-3480124d354d%40verizon.net.

Re: Senator's "My American Story" Is a Result of Awakened-Bo Dark-Matter Body

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 6/3/2021 4:32 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:



On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 12:53:21 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:


On 5/30/2021 7:15 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

This is manifested in denial arguments seen around the world. The
second Amendment was drafted in order to allow militias to put
down slave rebellions.



I think that's nonsense.  The U.S. had just been formed by taking
up arms, without an army, to revolt against the British Empire. 
They didn't want the expense and difficulty of maintaining a
standing army. So it is perfectly rational, slaves or not, that
they would have written the 2nd Amendment as a personal freedom
and as an alternative to a national army.  Without it there would
still have been no obstacle to putting down slave rebellions.  It
did nothing to enhance states and local governments power to do
so.  And note that the two times that national militias were
actually formed to put down rebellions, The Whisky Rebellion and
Shays Rebellion, they had nothing to do with slavery.

Brent


Letters by Patrick Henry  and Hamilton suggest otherwise. Besides the 
militia was only a nuisance to the British and the start of the 
revolution. It was the Continental Army Washington formed, a 
professional army, that won the war. The Shays Rebellion was put down 
by Washington by the army he formed.


But in the absence of a standing army, having armed citizens is what 
allowed Washington to just "form an army".


And you didn't respond at all to my point that there was no need for 
anything in the federal constitution to permit states to form militias, 
arm citizens, or take any action to put down slave rebellions.  Slave 
rebellions were illegal. A state had an obvious right to enforce laws.  
So the 2nd Amendment could not have any effect of enhancing the ability 
to put down slave rebellions.  It's just revisionist history of gun 
control advocates who want to tie gun ownership to slavery.


Brent


LC
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f7872173-e8f9-4118-80d9-97391b5d53d5n%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/173b0d75-1920-59e3-a7f3-57487404c5e4%40verizon.net.

Re: Senator's "My American Story" Is a Result of Awakened-Bo Dark-Matter Body

[John Clark]

Right wingers love talking about the "original intent'' of the founders of
the constitution, so what  did they mean by the word ''arms"? Usually it's
difficult to know what was going through somebody else's mind, especially
if they've been dead for 200 years, but in this case it's easy; when they
used the word "arms" they were thinking of muzzle loading muskets and
single shot flintlock pistols, they most certainly were NOT thinking about
AK-47s and Glock  automatics with 17 round magazines. So the Second
Amendment says anybody can buy a muzzle loading musket or a flintlock
pistol, but if you want something a little more powerful you're going to
need a license and to get a licence you're going to have to have a need for
such a devastating weapon and demonstrate some degree of competence and
responsibility in its use.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis


>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2S%3D%3Dv1AhyUFcojZy_NX-q0XpxtLc3Ly%2BDngnSq2y2H5Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Senator's "My American Story" Is a Result of Awakened-Bo Dark-Matter Body

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 12:53:21 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

>
> On 5/30/2021 7:15 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> This is manifested in denial arguments seen around the world. The second 
> Amendment was drafted in order to allow militias to put down slave 
> rebellions.
>
>
> I think that's nonsense.  The U.S. had just been formed by taking up arms, 
> without an army, to revolt against the British Empire.  They didn't want 
> the expense and difficulty of maintaining a standing army. So it is 
> perfectly rational, slaves or not, that they would have written the 2nd 
> Amendment as a personal freedom and as an alternative to a national army.  
> Without it there would still have been no obstacle to putting down slave 
> rebellions.  It did nothing to enhance states and local governments power 
> to do so.  And note that the two times that national militias were actually 
> formed to put down rebellions, The Whisky Rebellion and Shays Rebellion, 
> they had nothing to do with slavery.
>
> Brent
>

Letters by Patrick Henry  and Hamilton suggest otherwise. Besides the 
militia was only a nuisance to the British and the start of the revolution. 
It was the Continental Army Washington formed, a professional army, that 
won the war. The Shays Rebellion was put down by Washington by the army he 
formed.

LC  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f7872173-e8f9-4118-80d9-97391b5d53d5n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem

[Lawrence Crowell]

It is Penrose's thesis that consciousness is a sort of Godel trick. Back in 
the 1980s as an undergraduate I would have agreed with this, when I started 
reading about this. I read Hofstadter's book "Godel, Escher, Bach" and 
began pondering these things. I have however come to think there were 
problems with this. It is clear humans are not consistent Turing machines 
or computers. Computers are infernally consistent, and can compute 
numerical sequences, but they do not make an inductive leap in saying the 
set of natural numbers has infinite cardinality. Humans can rather easily 
see the set is infinite and however make mistakes. 

LC

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 11:47:26 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 8:38 AM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
>> > Godel's theorems are our friend. It is even a friend in physics. With 
>> physics I think it is a "sieve" that conforms physical principle to have 
>> horizon conditions, whether uncertainty principles or event horizons in GR, 
>> that conform physical reality to fit within the Church-Turing thesis.
>>
>
> Some claim Godel proved that the human mind is more than just a Turing 
> Machine, but I disagree. Godel found a way to use numbers to write a 
> sentence that talks about itself, it says "I am not provable in this formal 
> system", and the operations of a particular Turing Machine are analogous to 
> a formal system; however a human being can look at that sentence and see 
> that it is true even though the machine itself could never produce it, 
> therefore the human mind can do something the Turing machine can't. 
> However, what Godel proved is that an operating system powerful enough to 
> perform arithmetic THAT IS CONSISTENT cannot be complete, and he says no 
> operating system can prove its own consistency. But when human beings are 
> not doing formal logic exercises but just living everyday lives their 
> operating system is most certainly not consistent, they can have two 
> logically contradictory opinions at the same time, a brief glance at 
> politics shows it is very common. And humans can be absolutely positively 
> 100% certain about something, (that is to say they have proven it to their 
> own satisfaction), and still be dead wrong. Godel's biography illustrates 
> this point, he refused to eat and died of starvation because he was 
> absolutely positively 100% certain that his food was being poisoned.
>
> So we are inconsistent Turing machines.  And even today we could easily 
> make a machine that could answer any question, provided you don't mind if 
> it sometimes gave an answer that was wrong or even idiotic.
>
> John K Clark
>  
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3121aa56-24ca-459e-a196-a31a960d356bn%40googlegroups.com.