Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I can't imagine that a member of a super-secret group would post his status on Newgrounds.

At 6/9/08 12:07 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: I can't imagine that a member of a super-secret group would post his status on Newgrounds.

I'm the leader of the zionist movement, i will bring you your christian apocalypse if every christian in america sends me 1 dollar. Just PM me and i'll let you know where to send it.

At 6/9/08 12:23 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: I'm the leader of the zionist movement, i will bring you your christian apocalypse if every christian in america sends me 1 dollar. Just PM me and i'll let you know where to send it.

no youre not, Jesus is

At 6/7/08 02:18 AM, l3urntFaceMan wrote:

At 6/6/08 12:43 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

If you wish for me to back up my claims I will be more than happy to do so.

Or maybe nobody could have a gun and the death toll would be zero.

That is a common misconception. Using the UK, since gun bans stabbing deaths have increased dramatically. People will find a way to kill other people. Guns make it easier, yes, but they also allow for people who would normally be helpless to defend themselves.

So why don't things like this happen in the UK?

Japan has strict gun control (a result of a Japanese exchange student being shot in the US, apparently), and one of the lowest gun death tolls in the whole world, less than a dozen. On the other hand, Japan have had three cases of people going nuts with knives in public places this year.

So, why hasn't this happened in the UK? After all, if people will find a way to kill other people, surely we would have had one case of this happening by now?

As for stabbings, there seems to be a glut of them locally in May-June every year, and then it cools off. I've never quite got there: why would our local gangs only really stab each other for a few weeks, then the numbers drop off suddenly?

I also gleefully point out that there hasn't been a gang-related stabbing around here since GTA IV came out. However, there was one in the queue to buy the game, or to put it another way two hours before it was released. Way to puncture that particular theory!

Guns aren't just for hillbillys and idiots or something. All those who are trained, comfortable and aware should be able to carry. You hopefully will never need to use your firearm but if the time comes there probably won't be a policeman or someone else to save you.

It's just a mild shame that not all gun owners are trained, comfortable(?) and aware, which is where the problem stems from.

Also, ***IRONY ALERT*** a policeman was accidentally shot and killed in a training exercise today in Manchester. Was he dressed like a Brazilian electrician, perchance?

At 6/9/08 11:48 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: So why don't things like this happen in the UK?

Things like that are rare period.

Japan has strict gun control (a result of a Japanese exchange student being shot in the US, apparently), and one of the lowest gun death tolls in the whole world, less than a dozen. On the other hand, Japan have had three cases of people going nuts with knives in public places this year.

Time to ban the knives I suppose.

So, why hasn't this happened in the UK? After all, if people will find a way to kill other people, surely we would have had one case of this happening by now?

Shrug, cause it hasnt. The same reason why, when you still had guns, you didnt have people going crazy with public gun massacres. Different culture.

At 6/9/08 01:32 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 6/9/08 11:48 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: So why don't things like this happen in the UK?

Things like that are rare period.

Three within six months = rare?

Japan has strict gun control (a result of a Japanese exchange student being shot in the US, apparently), and one of the lowest gun death tolls in the whole world, less than a dozen. On the other hand, Japan have had three cases of people going nuts with knives in public places this year.

Time to ban the knives I suppose.

Time to pay attention...yeah, right, like you'd do that anytime soon.

So, why hasn't this happened in the UK? After all, if people will find a way to kill other people, surely we would have had one case of this happening by now?

Shrug, cause it hasnt. The same reason why, when you still had guns, you didnt have people going crazy with public gun massacres. Different culture.

Actually, we did have people going crazy with gun massacres - Hungerford in 1988 and Dunblane in 1996 being the obvious examples.

Next!

At 6/9/08 01:36 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Three within six months = rare?

Yea, that's a little odd. But overall, it's rare...

Time to pay attention...yeah, right, like you'd do that anytime soon.

What the hell kinda stupid retort is that? At least mine was hyperbole...

Actually, we did have people going crazy with gun massacres - Hungerford in 1988 and Dunblane in 1996 being the obvious examples.

Sigh, I forget that I have to spell things out for you. Gun violence in England was low before the gun ban. Violence in general was rock bottom low. Because of a serial killer (the Hungerford incident was not a mass shooting, but instead a series of murders, usually in isolated areas), assault weapons were banned. Crime did not go down as a result, as it was the first incident of it's kind. Gun control advocates pat themselves on the back that it hasn't happened since, though it'd never happened before. Then there was Dunblane. Handguns were banned afterwards. While nothing like that has happened since, nothing like it had happened before.

My point was that such things are virtually unknown to England. 2 times EVER is amazing. And that's due to something in your culture.

I sure hope someone here bans all firearms: that way I can go into a person's house, steal any and all valuables, have my way with them, and there wouldn't be a goddamn thing they could do about it.

At 6/9/08 03:19 PM, ByronicHero wrote: I sure hope someone here bans all firearms: that way I can go into a person's house, steal any and all valuables, have my way with them, and there wouldn't be a goddamn thing they could do about it.

what if the homeowner is armed with some other weapon?

At 6/9/08 03:25 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 6/9/08 03:19 PM, ByronicHero wrote: I sure hope someone here bans all firearms: that way I can go into a person's house, steal any and all valuables, have my way with them, and there wouldn't be a goddamn thing they could do about it.

what if the homeowner is armed with some other weapon?

Like a watermelon?

At 6/9/08 03:27 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

Like a watermelon?

A durian.

At 6/9/08 03:25 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 6/9/08 03:19 PM, ByronicHero wrote: I sure hope someone here bans all firearms: that way I can go into a person's house, steal any and all valuables, have my way with them, and there wouldn't be a goddamn thing they could do about it.

what if the homeowner is armed with some other weapon?

I too will be similarily armed, if not more efficiently. Time would ultimately be on my side.

At 6/9/08 07:36 PM, ByronicHero wrote: I too will be similarily armed, if not more efficiently. Time would ultimately be on my side.

how would time be on your side?

At 6/9/08 07:40 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 6/9/08 07:36 PM, ByronicHero wrote: I too will be similarily armed, if not more efficiently. Time would ultimately be on my side.

how would time be on your side?

I would have the time plan my little act and gather up any materials that would come in handy while my victim would be unaware and would end up being caught off guard.

At 6/9/08 12:07 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: I can't imagine that a member of a super-secret group would post his status on Newgrounds.

Once more, one of your base assumptions is wrong and reflects a superficial understanding of something. The Masons are NOT a super-secret group. As I have pointed out and provided links to, we wear rings and other jewelry by which we can be identified by Masons and non-Masons alike. Furthermore, me affix symbols of our craft on our automobiles that identify us as we drive down the road. Our Lodges are clearly marked AND display our meeting times. Just about every Grand Lodge (State level) has a homepage on the internets as do many local Lodges.

We make NO effort to disguise our existence, individuals who are members, our places of assembly or times of assembly.

Thus your criticism as well as the other guy's of my membership is false, and filter through an emotional filter that leads you to a false conclusion. (I'm starting to see a trend.)

We have a saying; we are not a secret society...we are a society with secrets. This sums us up well. We exist, meet and identify ourselves in the open. Have you ever seen a parade with Shriners driving those funny little cars while wearing Fezes? Guess what...you have to be a Mason to be a Shriner because that is a branch of Masonry. Furthermore, we do much charitable work...all in the public eye.

However, our "rituals", passwords and initiation rites are secret. Those I have not divulged...nor will I. But I am a Mason. Identifying myself as such is alright.

But now you have reduced this to an ad hominem attack upon me because you cannot provide a basis for your original argument. You have displayed your ignorance on two subjects now, care to yield?

Regardless, any information you could offer could be easily found on the internet. I don't believe you for the same reason people don't refer to me as 'General Irish'. Because I'm not.

At 6/9/08 08:26 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Regardless, any information you could offer could be easily found on the internet. I don't believe you for the same reason people don't refer to me as 'General Irish'. Because I'm not.

Well GNE, believe what you wish. I am a Mason and all I will give you in way of verification is my word. So you make a partially good point. The information is out there for someone to easily pass themselves off as the real deal. It is wise to remain skeptical. However, you also claim to know the truth of the matter and make the claim that you do not believe I am a Mason because I am not a Mason.

That is the point where wisdom becomes foolishness. On this topic your friend called me arrogant and foolish for claiming to know "the truth" about an ideological issue. Where his attack fails is in that he did not recognize that my argument was not based upon ideology but a technical/scientific understanding of the issue. That I do not acknowledge your side as valid is as arrogant as pointing out to a person who believes humans can breathe under water (without technology)...that their position/belief/idea is invalid/wrong/ignorant.

In whether or not I am a Mason there is no technical/scientific way that you have to verify my Masonic credentials. Therefore it is wise to be skeptical, but foolish to assert that you know any truth on the topic of my Masonic membership/status.

At this point, discussing my Masonic affiliation is futile. I refuse to do anything other than give you my word. Thus while you cannot verify the validity of my word, any assertion on your part that I am definately not a Mason is folly on your part and will only serve to make you look like a fool and further damage your credibility.

Therefore, I will no longer respond to your attempts to flame me in an effort to obfuscate your weak position on your own topic.

Thus I will once again remind you that you have only provide emotional arguments (very thin ones at that) and ad hominem attacks to support your position. So then I once more ask you...do you have anything substantial backing up your original assertions/argument?

At 6/9/08 08:12 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: mason why dont you just say something about that ritual we spoke about Solomons temple if I either searched on google or youtube everyone would learn about your guys little rituals theirs even former masons who have leaked those kinds of thing so it really doesnt matter

As GNE and yourself pointed out...that is all available on the internet. If you dug deep enough you could find all of our secrets. In fact one of my fellow airmen tried to get the answer out of me a few years ago when I was in Korea. I would not show him our secret handshake nor would I divuldge our passwords.

I go outside to work on the jet, and when I come back he gives me the handshake of a 1st Degree Mason. Then he shows me where he found it on the internets. So it is out there. What at stake is not the secrets of Masonry but my personal honor. I made an oath and promised not to tell certain things. I will not violate this comitment even though some of my Brothers have...and not for so shallow a reason than prove a point.

For further reading about Masonry there is an excellent open source: Manly P. Hall. About.com has a few of his articles and for someone who found all of this out by themselves...it is pretty good. In fact he was made a 32d Mason in either the York or Scottish Rite (I cannot remember which one) because of his work...without ever becoming a Master Mason (3d...technically the highest degree of Masonry is the Third Degree) in the Blue Lodge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_m assacre - This recent tragedy was caused with a knife, not a gun.

I have not flamed you, Mason, but I am atheist not because I can disprove the existence of God, as I can not, but because I can say it is unlikely that there is one and I hate not choosing a side. By the same token, I can't PROVE you're not a Mason, but I can say that it is highly unlikely and therefor I will take the more likely side instead believing that you could be either one. there is a CHANCE that you are a Mason, but too small of one for me to call it credible.

Also, I do have something to back up my original argument. in Europe and most of Asia, there are gun bans and limitations. There are less shooting deaths there. I don't need to argue about theories when a real-life example is a plane ride away. Communism works in theory, but we all know how that turned out. There are slightly different circumstances regarding the US, but they do not destroy the credibility that it works for the rest of the world. The same can go for limiting government size, the UN, and gay marriage.

At 6/5/08 09:48 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: One, I have no problem with the government interfering with our lives so long as it is competent, helps us, and doesn't collapse the country,...

And this is why you fail.

I suppose if the government were made up of actual supernatural all-knowing creatures, I'd go along with that. But the government is made up of people. And you are saying you aren't competent enough to do things on your own, you need another guy to come in and make you do right. Well I am more than competent. I don't need some average to come pull me down.

And you're a troll for lying about the 2nd amendment to begin with. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms..." Militias are not "The people" the people are the people. And you know this troll. The second amendment does go on to call for a well regulated militia, but as the first amendment covers speech, religion, press, and assembly, I don't find it a stretch of the non-troll imagination that the amendment right after the 4 subject first one, could have more than one subject itself. And to my surprise, it does. If "the people" were "a militia" it would be one sentence, "The right of a regulated to militia to keep and bear arms."

The militia is in there somewhere, and if not, then I sincerely apologize for making a mistake and having false presumptions.

I am not and never will be a troll.

I am aware that government agents are human, but, as I said, as long as they do a GOOD JOB, I'd trust them to interfere with some parts of my life. I sure as hell would not trust the current government. Bill Clinton maybe.

At 6/9/08 09:32 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: ...I can't PROVE you're not a Mason, but I can say that it is highly unlikely and therefor I will take the more likely side instead believing that you could be either one. there is a CHANCE that you are a Mason, but too small of one for me to call it credible.

Why do you think that it is so unlikely that my claim to be one is incredible? Why do you think the probability is so low?

At 6/9/08 09:35 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Also, I do have something to back up my original argument. in Europe and most of Asia, there are gun bans and limitations. There are less shooting deaths there. I don't need to argue about theories when a real-life example is a plane ride away... There are slightly different circumstances regarding the US, but they do not destroy the credibility that it works for the rest of the world. The same can go for limiting government size, the UN, and gay marriage.

If you truly believe that the diffrences are not that great and that the European system is so much more preferable just move there. Why is it you feel it necessary to strip civil liberties that I value?

Furthermore, Cellar can link you to a multitude of stories showing that gun masacres can and do happen in Europe and Asia. Furthermore, I avoid those comparative discussions because while you wish to downplay the differences...these differences are huge. Quite simply, gun bans do not work everywhere. The US is one of those places where European style gun policies will not work for those reasons I have mentioned. Furthermore, the root of gun crime in this nation is not guns but rather poverty and education. This has scientifically been proven over and over. Pursuing gun control is a waste of time that has been proven not to work in our country, so why spin our wheels when the government needs to devote its time to issues they can manage such as fixing the budget.

At 6/9/08 10:02 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: The militia is in there somewhere, and if not, then I sincerely apologize for making a mistake and having false presumptions.

It is, however from a historical/grammer perspective it is not the subject of the sentence. It is part of the explanatory clause. The subject is the people upon whom the right is conferred. Everywhere else in the Constitution the people refers to an individual (not a state or federal) right.

I am not and never will be a troll.

So far I have not seen where you are a troll...you just present weak arguments.

I am aware that government agents are human, but, as I said, as long as they do a GOOD JOB, I'd trust them to interfere with some parts of my life. I sure as hell would not trust the current government. Bill Clinton maybe.

There are systemic problems with government agents. The BATF needs to be scrapped. There is a guy who has been charged with illegally transfering a machine gun. What happened is he loaned his AR-15 (an M-16 clone) to a friend and at the range the gun malfunctioned in a way that caused to fire a three-round burst (what the US military uses now instead of full-auto). What happened was the owner had replaced some worn-out parts with surplus M-16 parts. Everything he did was legal.

However, he got convicted. Now, the BATF hid evidence that would have cleared the guy: a letter from the manufacturer saying they were considering recalling this type of rifle because replacement with M-16 parts would unintentionally cause the gun to go into burst mode WITHOUT ANY ILLEGAL MODIFICATION. In short this agency, even under a pro-gun administration, is overzealous and ideologically motivated in the execution of their duties.

It is because of such police tactics that we must keep the second amendment intact. The police and military must fear the people in order to provide a clear and present incentive NOT to abuse their power. Bill Clinton provided that example for conservatives. Bush should be providing that example for liberals. BOTH presidents provide examples for libertarians.

I found this from my State's Grand Lodge and thought I'd cut & paste because this topic has become just as much about Masons as guns and I often get people IMing me about Masons and becoming one. Might as well kill 2 birds w/ 1 stone.

Masonry is NOT what everyone thinks it is. To think that it is so improbable that someone is a Mason, that it is so selective...is indicative of a person who is only familiar with how Masonry has been sensationalized in entertainment and fringe/kook media. Being or becoming a Mason is no more rare or elite as joining any non-honors society college fraternity. In fact we are less selective in that we do not have as expensive dues nor do we have educational requirements. To say that it is highly unlikely that I or anyone else who is of the age of majority, is not in jail and of good reputation could be a Mason is like saying it is incredible that I could be a member of the Rotarians or Elks Club.

SOURCE

Freemasonry & Secrecy

People sometimes refer to Freemasonry as being a "Secret Society." In one sense the statement is true. Any social group or private business is "secret" in the sense that its business meetings may be open only to its members. In Freemasonry, the process of joining is also a private matter, and its members are pledged not to discuss with nonmembers certain parts of the ceremonies associated with the organization.

Like all college fraternities, Freemasonry does have certain handshakes and passwords, which are kept private. They are means of recognizing each other-necessary in an organization which spans the entire world and which encompasses many languages.

The tradition of using handshakes and passwords was very common in the Middle Ages, when the ability to identify oneself as belonging to a building or trade guild often made the difference in getting a job or in obtaining help for yourself and family. Today, Freemasons make the same pledge to every member that he will be offered assistance if he, or his family, ever requests it.

Freemasonry can't be called a "secret society" in a literal sense. A truly secret society forbids its members to disclose that they belong to the organization, or that it even exists. Much of the Masonic ritual is in books called "Monitors" that are widely available, even in public libraries. Most Freemasons wear rings and lapel pins that clearly identify them as members of the fraternity. Masonic Lodges are listed in public phone books, Masonic buildings are clearly marked, and in many areas of the country Masonic Lodges place signs on the roads leading into town, along with civic organizations, showing the time and place of meetings.

In terms of what it does, what it teaches, who belongs, where it meets, there are no secrets in Freemasonry! It is a private fraternal association of men who contribute much toward the public good, while enjoying the benefits of the brotherhood of a fraternity.

Freemasonry & Religion

Freemasonry is not a religion, nor is it a substitute for religion. It requires of its members a belief in God as part of the obligation of every responsible adult, but advocates no sectarian faith or practice. Masonic ceremonies include prayers, both traditional and extempore, to reaffirm each individual's dependence on God and to seek divine guidance. Freemasonry is open to men of any faith, but religion and sectarian discussion is forbidden in Lodge rooms. Masons meet in a spirit of toleration and brotherhood.

Masons believe that there is one God and that people employ many different ways to seek and to express what they know of God. Masonry primarily uses the appellation, "Grand Architect of the Universe," and other nonsectarian titles, to address Deity. In this way, persons of different faiths may join together in prayer, concentrating on God, rather than differences among themselves. Masonry believes in religious freedom and that the relationship between the individual and God is personal, private and sacred. It strongly encourages each man to be active in his own church, synagogue or house of worship. It expects each member to follow his own faith and to place his duty to God above all other duties. Freemasonry's moral teachings are acceptable to all religions.

Freemasonry lacks the basic elements of religion. It has no dogma or theology, no wish or means to enforce religious orthodoxy and it offers no sacraments. Freemasonry does not claim to lead to salvation by works, by secret knowledge or by any other means. The secrets of Freemasonry are concerned with modes of recognition, not with the means of salvation.

An open Volume of the Sacred Law, "the rule and guide of life," is an essential part of every Masonic meeting. The Volume of the Sacred Law to a Christian is the Bible; to Freemasons of other faiths it is the book held holy by them. The obligations taken by Freemasons are sworn on the Volume of the Sacred Law. They are undertakings to follow the principles of Freemasonry and to keep confidential a Freemason's means of recognition.

Many outstanding religious leaders are and have been Masons--including the Reverend Norman Vincent Peale, Bishops of the Methodist Church, Episcopal Bishops and Archbishops, Presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention, Rabbis and leaders of all the world's great religions. Masons are members of numerous denominations representing many faiths--including many thousands of Roman Catholic Masons in the United States and around the world.

You seem to be going off topic rather often, and my 'it works in real life AND in theory' approach to gun control is all the evidence anyone should need. Also, I don't care if you're a Mason or a weapons expert, it has nothing to do with politics.

At 6/9/08 11:19 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: You seem to be going off topic rather often, and my 'it works in real life AND in theory' approach to gun control is all the evidence anyone should need. Also, I don't care if you're a Mason or a weapons expert, it has nothing to do with politics.

I am going off topic rather often. The reason is I've been asked a few questions about Masonry in this thread and in IM. Considering you haven't given much in the way of concrete evidence to tear apart opens the door to a side-bar discussion.

Actually you have not proven that it works in either theory or real life. The reason is your theory has been time and again shot down because of all the holes in it. Furthermore, it has been shown that in real-world situations it is not effective. I am taking a macro-NG Politics BBS approach here because every time some one says the same things as you...it has been dispensed with.

Yes the US has the highest gun death rate in the Western world. However, when you look at the standard deviation it is not a significant outlier. Therefore the premise that we have a gun problem is erroneous. There goes your strongest argument...that it works elsewhere in places that do not have the same social make-up and attendant issues or even geographical position. There goes your "real-life" observations.

Secondly, the vast majority of gun crime is committed by a guns that find their way into criminal hands in such a fashion that background checks could not prevent. The illicit gun trade would be unaffected by background checks. Furthermore, the 1994 assault rifle ban and waiting periods have been shown to have NO effect upon crime rates. Finally, in the US areas that guns have been outright banned have been shown to be the most violent areas of the country. The reason being a gang culture taking root in an impoverished area with limited educational opportunities as well as easy access to an illicit trade in guns. There goes your theory that we need more background checks.

We have testimony of gang bangers who want gun control because they think it is a joke. We also have prison interviews and government statistical data that show what types of guns are used in crime and where they come from. What these show are background checks won't stop gun violence, nor will any other gun-control measure taken by the anti-gunners. There goes BOTH of your argument's theory and real-life observations.

As I've said before, automobile safety, drunk driving and fuel consumption are by FAR more of a problem than gun crime. About 3x more Americans die a year as a result of car accidents than by guns. If the trend would go national of charging drunk drivers with murder then more Americans would officially be murdered each year by cars than are murdered by guns. Then there are secondary public health concerns caused by pollution.

In short, there is no viable real-world or theoretical reason to be concerned about guns or spend time and money in a futile attempt to solve the problem by creating more gun control legislation.

Finally, it is funny how people want to downplay the relevance of expertise and qualifications when the experts are on the other side. Me being a weapons expert has a direct impact on the validity of my assesment of this issue and the quality of my opinion. As does the fact that I'm a political scientist. You have a good point that me being a Mason has no impact on politics, but it was afterall an ad hominem attempt at obfuscation launched by your side and continued by you. But my familiarity with weapons coupled with my knowledge of how the system works coupled with my training in interpreting the relevent data...does bear directly upon this discussion.