Thanks, I understand now. To be honest I think that way sometimes. But not being active hasn't worked either....who knows?
Thanks, I understand now. To be honest I think that way sometimes. But not being active hasn't worked either....who knows?
Fighting the state may strengthen it, I don't really know either way. But infiltrating the state and using it to dismantle itself seems to me a great idea.
Mike Denny wrote:
Thanks, I understand now. To be honest I think that way sometimes. But not being active hasn�t worked either�.who knows?
*From:* Acree, Michael [mailto:acreem@…]
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 20, 2003 12:36 PM
*Subject:* RE: [lpsf-discuss] Tao of Gun
I read him as arguing against political activity per se, on the grounds that fighting the State only strengthens it. I don't recall his mentioning the LP specifically. Did I read too quickly?
*From:* Mike Denny [mailto:mike@…]
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 20, 2003 12:27 PM
*Subject:* RE: [lpsf-discuss] Tao of Gun
Mike: you said
Also an interesting argument against the LP.
What are you referring to?
*From:* Acree, Michael [mailto:acreem@…]
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 20, 2003 12:04 PM
*Subject:* RE: [lpsf-discuss] Tao of Gun
I don't know anything about the author, and can't access the
starseed URL he asks us to acknowledge, but this is a terrific,
mind-bending article, perfect for all my liberal friends. Also an
interesting argument against the LP.
*From:* Mike Denny [mailto:mike@…]
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 19, 2003 1:21 PM
*Subject:* [lpsf-discuss] Tao of Gun
TAO of GUN
and the Hypocrisy of Gun Control
This essay addresses gun control and Second
Amendment issues from a Spiritual perspective and
develops the following themes:
� It is hypocritical to affirm that human beings are
responsible for their reality and at the same time ask
the State to take away guns to make the world safer.
� We are sovereign beings who have projected our
sovereign rights onto others to control us by
licensing our rights back to us as privileges.
� There are no victims. There are no oppressors.* *We
are responsible for our own self-defense, our own
well-being and our own problems.
� By supporting any State enforced gun control we deny
our heritage as sovereign spiritual beings in human
form. We also put ourselves, our loved ones and our
communities at a statistically greater physical risk.
� Making the world a better place comes through the
personal transformation of consciousness, not through
external State control.
� The first step to regain sovereignty is discovering
how much you've given away to the State and to the
"good opinion of others." A good way to discover that
is apply for a gun license, buy a gun and -- tell your
� You are still a sovereign being. Now, go create a
Copyright � 2000 Richard Roberts. All Rights Reserved.
Permission to cite and excerpt is granted provided
material is unchanged, author is credited and this URL
*Last revision, February 2, 2000.
� *New Age Hypocrisy*
o You Create Your Own Reality - Sometimes
o Fear of the Responsibility of Personal Power
o Bullets or Arrows?
o Creative Visualization and Wishful Thinking
o "Thank God I Don't Have a Gun!"
o Isn't It Ironic?
o 3D Choices
� *Non-Violence and Self-Defense*
o The Right to Choose - (Defense)
o Gandhi and Non-Violence
o Christ, Non-Violence and Self Defense
o The Medical Model
o The Prozac Connection
� *Irritating Firearm Facts*
o The Second Amendment
o Guns Save Lives
� *The Politics of Control*
o Legislating Safety
� Cause and Effect
� The Compassion Fascist
o Unintended Consequences
o Dying of Consumption
o Just Try Buying a Gun
o The Global Village
� Disarming the Village
� Seeds of Gun Confiscation
� Some Historic Fruits of Gun Confiscation
� For The Children . . .
o Better Government or No Government?
� Whom Do You Trust (with Power)?
� The Ultimate Heresy
� *The Individual and Community*
o Exercise of Freedom
o Energetic Solutions Instead of External Restrictions
� Lighthouses of Prayer
� Power of Prayer
o Personal and Community Responsibility
� *Spiritual Sovereignty*
o Waking Up
o Acting In Consciousness
o Reclaiming Power
o The Sovereign Outlaw
o Transmutation and Reverberation
On April 30, 1999, Hollis Littlecreek, my flute
teacher, mentor and friend, passed from this world.
Hollis, an Anishinabe Native American elder who freely
shared his teachings, was an important catalyst at
many points in my life. How appropriate that on the
day Hollis left, I would apply for my Massachusetts
Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permit. I could imagine
him laughing to himself. For while his pipe, his
flutes and his tools were never far away, neither was
his gun -- and among those who visited with him, I was
one of the most unlikely to get one.
As I watched the hysteria grow after the shootings
at Columbine High School in Colorado, I realized
that if I would ever want a gun, best to get it
now, because it would only be more difficult later.
I was under no immediate personal threat. In fact,
whether traveling in India or driving cab in New
York, I've always felt safe and protected. My
reasons were more pragmatic -- like buying a
chainsaw now because you just learned you might
not be able to buy one when you would need it.
I learned a lot buying a gun. I encountered
Byzantine regulations and media programmed biases.
I made surprising legal, factual and historical
discoveries. I faced uncomfortable contradictions
in my beliefs about personal power, sovereignty,
and an individual's rights and responsibilities
within the community. I also reexamined my beliefs
and actions and my responsibilities to the world
our children will inherit.
After encountering some pretty strong anti-gun
feelings when talking with New Age acquaintances,
I ran a survey
to better understand New Age sentiments toward
guns. This article developed from that survey and
the research and numerous conversations that followed.
New Age Hypocrisy
We say we create our own reality. We say we're
responsible for our experience. We say we attract
the events in our life. We say our beliefs affect
We also say that agents of the State should be
more active in regulating the purchase and use of
guns. (See survey
This is the same State we don't trust to regulate
Vitamin C. This is the same State that wages the
drug war. This is the same State we don't want
irradiating our food. But, we want this State to
regulate guns. In fact, many of us even think it's
a good idea that only agents of this State be
allowed to have guns.
As Ann Coulter asks in a recent article
/George Magazine/, "Why is it that the same people
who have the least confidence in the police and
military are the most willing to allow only the
police and military to have guns?"
I think most of us in the New Age community aren't
intentionally hypocritical, we just suffer from
what I call the Paint Chip Syndrome. The paint
chip looks great in the hardware store, but when
you actually paint your wall, you wonder what you
In one room in our consciousness, we agree with
the Catholic mystic, Pierre Tielhard de Chardin
that we are co-creators in creation. And as we
study the Course in Miracles
we learn there is no "other" to blame for our
sorrow. Meanwhile, in another room in our
consciousness we see someone in such pain that
we're moved to tears. No one should have to suffer
that. Someone should do something. Someone or
something is to blame. "There ought to be a law."
We start a petition, pass a law, illegalize a thing.
As Jane Roberts' channeled entity, Seth
<http://www.sethcenter.com/>, described, we carry
contradictory beliefs. Each may appear logical
within its own particular context, but when
they're set side-by-side in the same room, the
contradiction is obvious.
A good example of this disconnect is in the
survey. Nearly one fourth (23%) of the New Age
respondents each individually agreed or strongly
agreed with both of the following statements:
"Gun control laws only affect law-abiding
citizens -- criminals will still be able to
obtain handguns illegally whenever they want."
"If the laws on gun ownership were stricter
than they are now, the overall number of
violent crimes would be reduced."
How can we with one breath repeat Louise L. Hay's
first affirmation in her book /You Can Heal Your
Life/, "We are each 100% responsible for all of
our experiences", and then with the next breath
insist the State forbid a particular sharp object
so our world will feel safer?
Affirmations not in alignment with our beliefs are
impotent, no matter how emotionally soothing they
feel at the time. Accepting and directing the
power and creativity of our non-physical selves
requires conscious, integrated and coherent focus.
*You Create Your Own Reality - Sometimes
*Some New Age folks play the parking space game.
You know, visualize the parking space at the
entrance to the supermarket on a busy Saturday and
ta-da, there it is. I do it. Although I've not
kept precise stats, I at least imagine it works
quite well. It's fun to take credit for a
hard-to-find parking space. It's less easy to take
responsibility for a flat tire, or an accident, or
Accepting responsibility for everything may not be
easy at first. You certainly won't find much
support for that approach on TV, or in magazines
or newspapers. We cannot pick and choose the
realities for which we'll accept responsibility.
We either get to own it all and live as the
responsible sovereigns we are, or blame it all and
playing the role of victim, look to others and the
State for protection and compensation for our
The question is, "Who is responsible for my life?"
*Fear of the Responsibility of Personal Power
*Why do so many of us otherwise sensible and
intellectually honest New Age folks support State
mandated gun restrictions? I think one reason is
that we're uncomfortable with the full
responsibility of our personal power.
I lived in an ashram for many years. It was a very
seductive environment for me (at seventeen). I
didn't need to think too much. My life was figured
out. Even my afterlife was figured out. All I
needed to do was meditate, work hard, and
participate in a few group activities. I knew I
was in heaven and I was helping to bring
enlightenment to the world. Whenever someone was
thinking about moving out, everyone else would try
to convince them to stay for their own good. But
now I think there was another, more important
reason. You had to keep people from leaving lest
you doubt your own reasons for staying.
The dominant paradigm for much of our culture is
the Cult of the Victim. It is a very seductive
cult. We don't need to think too much. Entire
systems are in place to support us and reward us
for our victimization. Sovereign people who accept
the responsibility of their personal power
threaten the Cult of Victim. So like crabs in a
bucket who pull back any crab that tries to
escape, the victim culture acts reflexively to
squash acts of power.
Gun ownership is the quintessential threatening
act of power to the victim paradigm. It's like
waving a pentagram in Salem, Massachusetts in the
1600's. Deep down folks know they're responsible.
But their denial requires they eliminate anything
that reminds them of what they're denying. That
may explain much of the negative reactions to my
owning and wearing a gun.
Gun ownership requires that a person acknowledge
and ponder at great length the responsibility of
their personal power. Nothing symbolizes that
responsibility like putting on a gun. And nothing
threatens someone who's afraid of the
responsibility of their personal power like
someone wearing a gun.
Whom does the gun in the care of the good-hearted
person threaten? It threatens the criminal, the
State apparently, and also individuals who have
learned to fear the responsibility of their
personal power and the unpredictable potential of
their spiritual sovereignty should it ever be free
of externally imposed restrictions.
*Bullets or Arrows?
*I have a bullet on a necklace I sometimes wear.
It gets interesting reactions and looks. My
friend, who thinks the State should confiscate all
guns, wears an arrowhead on his necklace and no
one blinks an eye. Some tell me, "You've gone too
far now," "A kid could never sneak a bow and arrow
to school," or "We romanticize arrowheads because
they remind us of a time before there were guns."
For those who wish to return to a world without
guns, do they really understand the implications
and responsibility of taking away the tools which
the outnumbered and overpowered need, which the
women, the elderly, and the disabled need to
protect their bodies and children from thugs with
clubs or bows and arrows?
We revere Native Americans as keepers of wisdom.
We honor them for sharing their teachings of
prophecy, community living, and caring for the
earth. Every New Age bookstore has shelves of
books about the teachings and sufferings of Native
Americans. Ironically, many of the people who buy
"Free Leonard Peltier
<http://www.freepeltier.org/>" bumper stickers and
mourn the Indians' loss of land and life at the
hands of the "power hungry Christian, white, males
of the United States", now want the same State
that took away the Indians' lands and lives to
take away the Indians' guns -- again!
All my friends who have significant Native
American heritage either have guns or support
people having guns. I wonder if that has anything
to do with remembering a time when their
grandparents' grandparents really needed a gun and
couldn't get one.
*Creative Visualization and Wishful Thinking
*When we learn creative visualization we're taught
to define our objective clearly, see it as
accomplished and release it, knowing it will
occur. Just as in prayer, we put our supplication
before the Lord not as a whine, but with
thanksgiving that the result has already been
accomplished. One thing that /doesn't/ work in
visualization or prayer, is to instruct the Great
Mystery or God or All That Is /how/ you want your
goal to be achieved.
We want a peaceful and free society for ourselves
and our loved ones. That's the goal, the prayer.
And now we've presumed to instruct the Almighty
how such goal is to be achieved by saying that the
State should control the guns. Somehow the means
became the goal. Presuming to know the correct
means, we seek to impose those means on others.
It's against our best interests to limit God's
means to achieve our objective. Besides, how can
you limit God? God /is /limitless.
Remember the bumper sticker, "Visualize World
Peace"? Do we want world peace or do we want to
live in peace? Both? Well, we're only responsible
for our world. As New Age author, Stuart Wilde
<http://www.powersource.com/wilde/> says, "You
don't want to mess with world peace -- all you
want to do is be peaceful." Perhaps people try to
compensate for not being responsible for their own
worlds by being responsible for everyone else's
world. Most people's worlds are already quite
peaceful -- we just have to turn off our TVs and
ignore the State alarming us to crisis after
manufactured petty crisis.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to
keep the populace alarmed -- and thus
clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all
of them imaginary."
/-- H.L. Mencken/
We've mixed up wishful thinking with
visualization. Imagining what a peaceful world
will look like, we attack anything that doesn't
match our projection of the final picture. We
decide that in a "perfect" world there will be no
need for guns, so wishing we were in that world
now, we say, "Get rid of guns." But wishing
doesn't make it so. It's not about the presence or
absence of guns anyway, it's about what's in a
person's consciousness, not a person's pocket.
The idealists dream of magic wands. But their
wands don't work, because as victims, they have
denied their own power. So they project their
denied power onto the State to perform magic
through external control.
Just because weapons have been used (mainly by the
State against its own people) to destroy people
and cultures, does not mean that is the only use
for personal firearms. "Get rid of guns!" does not
equal "Get rid of war, hate and suffering." This
is a task of the heart, of the spirit, not a task
to be given to the regulation writers of the State.
*"Thank God I Don't Have a Gun!"
*Folks who haven't accepted the responsibility of
their own personal power and the results of their
choices don't seem to readily accept it in others.
Perhaps folks who haven't dealt with their own
demons figure everyone else is just like them,
ready to blow up at the next insult, and God
forbid they have a gun.
In /Rambo and the Dalai Lama/, Gordon Fellman
writes about his feelings while reading an account
of firearms training at Jeff Cooper
I finished reading Gobson's account with a
gripping fantasy that I would take the Gunsite
course. I wanted to feel the thrill and power
Gibson did. I know murderous rage, but for the
first time, I felt something in me that would
like to soldier, to shoot and slay. I imagined
killing Nazis in muddy battles in World War II
and hunting down rapists and child-molesters
in big cities and beating, strangling, and
shooting them. I imagined myself, Rambolike,
living on the edge, honing survival skills and
cleverly fashioning weapons to destroy my
enemies with perfect mastery and no aftermath
From reading Mr. Fellman's book I've gathered that
he supports gun control and it's no surprise if he
thinks everyone is as full of the self-absorbed
frustration, hate, anger, violence and revenge as
he represents himself to be.
It's almost cliche� to read of the man who snaps
and goes on some spree of violence: "He was such a
nice, quiet man."
*Isn't It Ironic?
*Many in the New Age community support a woman's
right to choose to continue or end a pregnancy,
but not her right to use a gun to protect her child.
Many support a woman's right to control her own
body, but not her right to protect it with a gun.
Many support the rights of the disabled to have
access to bathrooms, theaters and restaurants, but
not access to the effective personal defense of a gun.
Many support not "judging" others' lifestyles, but
then immediately judge those who choose to protect
themselves and others with a gun.
Many support respecting the diversity of
religions, cultures and sexual preferences, but
not the diversity of choosing a gun to preserve
the well-being of our selves, our families and our
*We make choices in 3D all the time. Many of those
choices are about personal safety and defending
our selves, our family, our home, our community
and our planet. We put on our seat belts, install
fire extinguishers, put our babies in child safety
seats, lock our doors, recycle, organize to keep
the local landfill away from the town reservoir.
We stop using freon, asbestos and lead-based
paint. We eat organic foods, exercise, use
condoms, take seminars and go to ceremonies. We
buy car insurance to protect our car, home
insurance to protect our house and possessions,
health insurance to protect our bodies and money.
We even read books on psychic shielding.
We revere the Native American tradition of making
choices based on what's best for the coming
/seven/ generations. And then we support more gun
control, the one thing that made all the genocides
and massacres of civilians throughout history
*Non-Violence and Self-Defense
Christ's view on self-defense was clear,
asserts Douglas Kennard, a theology professor
at Moody Bible Institute, a seminary in
Chicago, and teaching karate sends the wrong
message to churchgoers. "For those who are
kingdom-bound, we should allow ourselves to be
abused," he says. "Even to the point of
repeatedly being abused."
/-- Wall Street Journal, Thursday October 28,
1999, front page article on teaching karate in
Many people are uncomfortable with the concept of
self-defense. Some Christians, like the writer
above, completely reject the concept. Some equate
personal self-defense with the Mutually Assured
Destruction (MAD) strategy of nuclear warfare.
Some reject self-defense, because its need or
preparation means failure to envision and create a
better world. They would say that preparing to
defend yourself simply reinforces the possibility
In spirit, we may know there is no death and even
though there are times we may not fear death, this
physical 3D experience is still precious. All
beings have a right, inherent in their existence,
to defend that existence in this beautiful 3D
creation. All have a right and duty to preserve
and protect their family's and their community's
existence as well. This is not about competition.
This is not about control. This is not about
violence for its own sake. This is about honoring
the sacredness of this experience of life in 3D.
This is about honoring and protecting our own, our
family's and our community's right to life,
liberty and however we choose to pursue happiness.
Some utopian views may include no need for
self-defense and I don't begrudge such visions.
But why are some folks so insistent all of a
sudden that only the police, military and other
agents of the State should have guns? Why are they
so eager to take them away from regular folk?
What's the difference between the person who hits
you and the person who ties your hands so that
someone else can hit you? Whoever takes away your
ability to defend yourself needs to be defended
In the atmosphere of today's victim mentality,
self-defense can be an irritating reminder of
personal responsibility. Self-defense also can be
an irritating reminder of spiritual sovereignty.
Metaphysically, do we think events occur accidentally?
*The Right to Choose - (Defense)
*Since we are responsible (response-able), we have
a right to choose how to respond. Actually, we
can't /not/ make that choice.
Increasingly we are being trained to give our
response-ability over to others. We are taught to
seek help, not self-defend. We're taught to call
police (with guns, by the way) to respond after
the fact to a day-care/school/church shooting, but
we're shocked at the idea of a private individual
carrying a gun in a day-care/school/church. (See A
Nation of Cowards
I imagine a person who lost a family member in a
school or church shooting being offered a chance
to replay the tragedy with only one difference --
that an armed woman or man of good heart be
present who /might/ avert or lessen the tragedy. I
can't believe that even the staunchest supporter
of gun confiscation would hesitate for a moment to
give anything to replay the scene again -- to have
a woman or man of good heart at the scene with a
gun tucked beneath their sweater
Many people expect benefits without
responsibility. Not aware of the process, we hire
others to do our messy work. Then we criminalize
or demonize the activity for everyone else, so we
don't feel pressured to do it ourselves. For
instance, some people who disdain the hunting and
trapping of free, wild animals pay others to
raise, kill and butcher animals under unnatural
and often inhumane conditions. Some who support
gun confiscation travel with their own armed
bodyguards or police protection.
Some say you don't need a gun because the police
are there to protect you. However,
In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v.
Maryland) found that law enforcement officers
had no duty to protect any individual. Their
duty is to enforce the law in general. More
recently, in 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the
Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held,
"...there is no Constitutional right to be
protected by the state against being murdered
by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the
state fails to protect its residents... but it
does not violate... the Constitution." Later
court decisions concurred: the police have no
duty to protect you.
"Women are supposed to be 'nice.' They like to
think of themselves as nurturing and they
don't like to think about hurting someone,"
explains Dr. Helen Smith, 38, a forensic
psychologist in Knoxville, Tennessee. Smith,
who works with violent criminals in the
courts, sees the aftermath of violence, some
of it gun-related, on a near daily basis.
Which is exactly why she says she's pro-gun.
"I see so many women shot dead," she explains.
"An ex-husband comes back to the house, and if
she doesn't have a gun..." She says women hop
on the gun-control bandwagon because it feels
right, because they don't understand how guns
work, and because they don't want to take the
responsibility of protecting themselves.
"When women get on their high horse, what they
don't realize is they're taking away someone's
right to self-protection," she says. "If you
want to die on the street, that's fine."
In 3D, all beings have the inherent right to
protect themselves, their families and their
villages from lethal force. To acknowledge that
right, acknowledges the need for an effective
response. You cannot acknowledge a right and at
the same time deny the means to exercise it.
"The irony is, if you're willing to kill a
perpetrator, you probably won't have to."
/-- //Massad Ayoob <http://www.ayoob.com/>,
Lethal Force Institute/
Once I would have described myself as
"non-violent" (in fact, once I was, to the
point of never defending myself) -- but after
a lot of consideration I have decided that
what I am now is "nonaggressive."
Violence is the use of destructive force
against an object, or a person who doesn't
welcome it. Unfortunately, self-defense often
I cannot claim I am "non-violent" or "anti
violence," because I am pro self-defense. I
simply believe that one should never INITIATE
violence. I believe that most people would
describe themselves this way if you put this
distinction before them in those words.
/-- //C.D. Tavares
**Gandhi and Non-Violence
*When discussing non-violence, Mahatma Gandhi
comes to mind. I used to interpret non-violence as
passivity in the face of violence, but Gandhi's
approach was never passive.
Gandhi believed non-violence had to be a choice.
He said a mouse can't be non-violent with a cat,
because a mouse doesn't have the potential to be
violent with a cat. Indeed, non-violence is only
possible from a position of power where there is
the choice, the tools and the ready opportunity to
More importantly, Gandhi's philosophy was about
shifting paradigms, not conquering a violent
opponent, as Mark Shepard writes:
How, then, to oppose injustice and reform
society? I hoped that Gandhi held the answer.
It seemed to me he had meant to work out just
what I was looking for: a way of defeating and
overthrowing the oppressors of the world, but
by moral means.
That was my myth about Gandhi; that was my
filter. I had to read an entire book and a
half about Gandhi before it struck me -- and
it struck me hard -- that Gandhi was not
talking about defeating or overthrowing anyone.
/Satyagraha/ -- Gandhi's nonviolent action --
was not a way for one group to seize what it
wanted from another. It was not a weapon of
class struggle, or of any other kind of
division. Satyagraha was instead an instrument
of unity. It was a way to remove injustice and
restore social harmony, to the benefit of both
Satyagraha, strange as it seems, was for the
opponent's sake as well. When Satyagraha
worked, both sides won.
That concept did not pass at all easily
through my filter, and I understand why so
many others miss it entirely. But it is,
really, the essential difference between
Gandhi's Satyagraha and so much of the
nonviolent action practiced by others.
You may wonder, how did Gandhi himself come to
this amazing attitude? He said it this way:
"All my actions have their source in my
inalienable love of humankind."
/-- Mark Shepard, "Mahatma Gandhi and His Myths"/
Similarly, my objective with this essay is not
merely to change gun confiscation laws or who's in
Congress. My objective is to bring about a greater
awareness and acceptance of our responsibility for
"No lasting change is ever wrought from without."
/-- Ken Carey/
Lasting change comes from waking up to our
inherent personal spiritual sovereignty. To wake
up, we first have to realize we're sleeping. We
have to realize just how unsovereign we've allowed
ourselves to be treated. We gradually become aware
of how our beliefs and assumptions are programmed
and legislated -- they're not really our beliefs
at all. They are what Taisha Abelar in /Sorcerer's
Crossing/ calls a forced inventory in our memory
The way I came face to face with my forced
inventory and my programmed assumptions was to
become familiar with guns and how we view them.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule
in India, history will look upon the act of
depriving a whole nation of arms, as the
/- -Mahatma Gandhi, "Gandhi, An
Autobiography", page 446/
*Christ, Non-Violence and Self defense
*Many accept Jesus Christ as the epitome of
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye
for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say
unto you, That ye resist not evil: but
whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,
turn to him the other also."
/-- Matthew 5:38,39/
Actually, that's excellent advice for any
concealed carry gun safety class. You'll find that
folks carrying guns are extremely polite and go
out of their way to avoid confrontation. If you're
getting slapped on your right cheek (more an
insult than an assault) and your life and limb are
not in grave, imminent and unavoidable danger, you
should offer the other cheek before you even hint
that you have a gun.
I doubt Christ intended this verse to apply to
grave bodily harm or lethal force, (but whosoever
shall cut off one arm, offer him the other also .
For me, the key is in Christ's admonition "that ye
resist not evil." As we'll see later, the real
change is to be made in the arena of energy and
consciousness, not by confronting evil on its own
terms which only reinforces it.
Also, the translation of the sixth commandment,
"Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13) is
misleading. I recently learned the word that was
translated "kill" actually means to "murder from a
hidden place." The commandment would more
accurately be translated, "Thou shalt not murder."
*The Medical Model
*Medicine is shifting from a mechanistic world
view to a holistic world view. The field of
medicine and health is developing consciousness
based interventions instead of relying solely on
mechanical interventions to address various
"disease expressions." The strictly mechanistic
approach that removes the tumor and ignores the
person and his or her world is accepted less and less.
"The mechanism of illness is not the origin of
/-- Dr. Deepak Chopra/
Dr. Chopra <http://www.chopra.com/> teaches the
need to trust spirit as we explore health and the
origins of illness, even if it takes us past
These same insights also apply to society and the
individual. We can no longer afford to assume that
the mechanism of a social illness is the same as
the origin of a social illness.
Illness is feedback, whether on the individual
level or the social level. A tumor in the body can
cause pain and suffering, even death. We now know
that if we remove a tumor and the affected organ
but ignore or leave unchanged the underlying
cause, the body is frustrated and confused because
the feedback the body created is gone, but the
reason it created the feedback still exists. So
the body sends another message and perhaps
sacrifices another organ, and another.
Illness in society is no different. Violent
attacks, whether with gasoline, fertilizer, knives
or guns, are symptoms, feedback of an underlying
cause. As long as we address only the symptom and
not the underlying cause, the feedback will get
louder and more insistent.
On the cellular level, the human body maintains a
level of high alert. Macrophage cells, T-cells,
B-cells and Natural Killer Cells roam the body on
the lookout for cellular threats. When this
cellular self defense system encounters a
threatening cell, the Natural Killer Cells shoot a
bullet of tumor necrosis factor that penetrates
the cell membrane and kills the offending cell.
We know that our attitudes impact our cells'
performance. High stress and an attitude of
"What's the use?" is communicated to the immune
system and the immune response cells take up the
refrain of "What's the use?" and allow diseased
cells to proliferate. In the same way, if a person
rejects the very concept of self defense, then
what should we expect the Natural Killer Cells to
do with that information?
The data from the 1990 Harvard Medical
Practice Study suggest that 150,000 Americans
die every year from doctors' negligence --
compared with 38,000 gun deaths annually. Why
are doctors not declared a public health
menace? Because they save more lives than they
take. And so it is with guns. Every year, good
Americans use guns about 2.5 million times to
protect themselves and their families, which
means 65 lives are protected by guns for every
life lost to a gun.
/-- Dr. Edgar Suter, San Francisco Chronicle,
7/12/94, Opinion (p. A17)./
*The Prozac Connection
*Guns are not the only item present when a
murderer intent on killing another human being
pulls the trigger. Drugs are almost always
present. And not just the ones the State has
decided to make illegal. No, the drugs that are
often present are State approved SSRI
antidepressants like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox,
Serzone, Effexor, Anafranil, Fenfluramine
(Fen-Phen and Redux), Deseryl, Meridia, and other
serotonin increasing drugs.
Among the adverse signs and symptoms of SSRI
antidepressants which Harvey Sternbach, M.D. lists
the following in his report /The Serotonin
Syndrome/ are the following:
Insomnia or bad dreams, agitation or
restlessness, hostility, anxiety, anger,
violent thoughts and/or violence, suicidal
thoughts or behavior, self destructive
behavior, rage, panic, confusion, superhuman
strength-energy, mood swings, unconcerned
about consequences, out of control behavior,
and altered personality.
Prozac - Panacea or Pandora
Prozac Survivors' Support Group <http://www.pssg.org/>
Kids, Drugs, Guns and Psychopolitics
Irritating Firearm Facts
The focus of this essay is not the wisdom of
America's founding fathers in writing the Second
Amendment. Nor is it about adding another bit of
data to the ongoing statistical wrestling match
over gun confiscation. This essay is primarily
about our inherent spiritual sovereignty being at
odds with relying on external State controls.
Nevertheless, here are some leads if you're
interested in facts. Unfortunately, I don't
believe the disagreement on this topic is rooted
in facts. If it really were about facts, safety
and well being, guns would be as common as seat
belts, and gun training as accepted as drivers
*The Second Amendment*
"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
Some say that the Second Amendment acknowledges a
preexisting individual right to keep and bear arms
for both personal safety and to check inevitable
- Gun Cite <http://www.guncite.com/>
- The Supreme Court and the Second
essay by Don Kates, Jr.
- Second Amendment Foundation <http://www.saf.org/>
- Independence Institute <http://i2i.org/crimjust.htm>
- The Unabridged Second Amendment
Some say the Second Amendment only allows the
states to have a militia, now called the National
- American Civil Liberties Union
- American Bar Association
**Guns Save Lives
*"If it saves the life of even one child, it's
worth getting rid of that gun!"
Unfortunately it's not that simple. There's
volumes of research on this point. If there wasn't
a larger agenda at work here, and if it was just
about the safety for our communities, our children
and our elders, then gun ownership would be widely
supported and encouraged. But then if it were
about facts, doctors would be prescribing prayer
circles for all post-op patients, too.
Some say that guns save lives:
- John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime
- Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
- Links to Source Studies
by Gun Owners of America <http://www.gunowners.org/>
- A Letter to Elizabeth
Some say that the presence of guns increases the
likelihood of gun accidents and deaths:
- Handgun Control, Inc.
- Violence Policy Center <http://www.vpc.org/>
What do you think? Visit Oleg Volk's survey
<http://www.dd-b.net/RKBA/views2.html> and find out!
The Politics of Control
Keeping sharp objects out of reach is not always
the wisest choice. Hollis once described how he
learned not to touch hot stoves. His grandfather
explained to him that when the stove was hot he
shouldn't touch it. Then Hollis touched the hot
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)