As Democratic and Republican members rush to line up with new bills to restrict speech or guns after the Tucson massacre, Rep. Peter King once again will not be outdone in criminalizing conduct. He is reportedly planning to introduce a bill that would make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the President, Vice President, Members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary. This, of course, raises the problem with politicians being mobile. In states allowing concealed weapons, the appearance of any federal official or judge would require a fast estimation of 1,000 feet to avoid criminal charges.
However, Rep. Louie Gohmert is about to introduce legislation to allow members to carry guns in Congress. Thus, armed members could move around in a 1000 gun-free zone except for the one that they are carrying.
For his part, Rep. Dan Burton wants the entire House chamber encased in Plexiglas to protect members from the public. No one has suggested encasing members in Plexiglas to combine both concepts.
Once again, a tragedy has led to impulse buy legislation with little concern for the impact on the Constitution or our political system.
Having federal officials move around in a 1000 foot protected zone is appealing until you consider the legal and practical problems. Under this logic, an official walking toward a person with a legally permitted gun would require the citizen to flee the moving protected zone. Analogies to schools (which are often the subject to such limitations) are not very helpful since they tend to stay put and are immediately recognizable.
The only positive aspect to this proposal would be the scene of a campaigning member walking into a gun show to see the pandemonium.
Source: Politico
Jonathan Turley
Two words for you, Brian.
Infinite regressions.
That’s why courts use concepts like proximate cause.
And this?
“What I require with a scientifically rebuttal is accurately including all such causes as have happened since the dawn of human events and before and all such consequences as shall occur within the eternity of the future.”
Is simply ridiculous. What you “require” is an impossibility. It requires not only perfect knowledge of the past, but perfect knowledge of the future. Setting aside the issue of temporal mechanics, perfect knowledge is not possible. See Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem if you’re confused as to why perfect knowledge is not possible.
How did those words escape getting written? Perhaps I can fix the words more betterer. Hence, correction attempt:
There is no “My question.” There may be, “Our question,” which is, “What, practical and achievable, will actually stop the first bullet, so no bullets ever again kill anyone.”
If the first bullet kills a person, the next nine, or twenty nine, or fifty nine, to strike the former person’s body are like adding more frosting to a cake that isn’t there anymore.
There is no “My question.” There may be, “Our question,” which is, “What, practical and achievable, will actually stop the first bullet, so no bullets ever again kill anyone.”
If the first bullet kills a person, the next nine, or twenty nine, or fifty nine, to strike the former person’s body are like frosting on a cake that isn’t there anymore.
I write for my intended readers, specifically for those who are willing to read what I write, and I do this for the sake of the happenstance of finding someone who will actually make enough effort to understand what I write well enough to meaningfully critique it.
Perhaps one in a thousand people? I have no way to learn how many unless I write so that someone can find what I write.
My reason for being here is my observation that, at the core if my research is something that may be of use to legal theorists who have sufficient grasp of science to bring contemporary science into the foundational principles of human-made law.
I write for no one else. I welcome anyone as a reader of what I write, without prejudice on my part.
If I write in short piddles that make no sense to me because of having most of the essential aspects omitted, I am unable to imagine anyone else finding what I write worth the bother, even were what I write short enough for everyone to comfortably read.
As the basis of my work methodology appears to me to be, in essence, without prior art, I design and develop methods as I go. Were there prior art applicable to my work which I am able to find, I would acknowledge and use it.
Harris: What is your question?
LOL
eniobob
rats i can handle, it’s roaches/palmetto bugs that give me the creeps
that and drunk rednecks with guns yellin “ya’ll check’is out”
way too long of a comment to read. sorry. 🙁
There may be available an alternative to the methods which my reading of history suggests have failed disastrously since before the dawn of recorded human history.
I do not think in words and some of the meanings in my mind make sense to me only auf Deutsch. Sorry about that. German to English translation is, I note, easy to find on the Internet. I may be worthwhile to do searches for the German words I here use, in German context, so as to garner adequate idiomatic perspectives.
I have never attempted to include German quite this way on a blog comment before, and cannot tell in advance whether words I find I have entered correctly will be corrected on the way to appearing on this blog so as to make what I have submitted correct in my mind into what I will find to be incorrect in my mind.
What follows is as simple and short as I have yet been able to write it:
It was over 50 years ago, in a German class at Carleton College, one of the assigned books was a story about World War I.
Erich Kästner, Drei Männer im Schnee:
Two lines from that book etched themselves into my brain; as vivid now as then, though I have not read Drei Männer im Schnee since then. Just before writing these words, I ordered a used copy, found through checking BookFinder.
The two lines, as I remember them:
Der schoß.
Der kopf ist kaput.
As best I remember, (I am aware that psychologist Elizabeth Loftus has studied memory and false memory in formidable depth and detail), when I was four, during World War II, living in Seattle, searchlights scanning the sky for Japanese airplanes, I had three dreams in a sequence, with some days in between the dreams.
The second dream, as I can briefly describe a summary of my memory of it, had me as a front line soldier, with my commanding officer (c.o.) close by.
A shot from “the enemy” whizzed by, and my c.o. ordered me to shoot. I declined, asking, “How do I know that the man over there wants me to shoot at him?”
A shot from “the enemy” pinged my helmet, and my c.o. shouted his command that I shoot. I declined, saying, “I still don’t know that he wants me to shoot at him.”
A shot from “the enemy” knocked my helmet off, and my c.o. began to raise his gun and screamed at me to shoot. I declined, saying, “I want him to stop shooting at me, so I can’t shoot at him.”
A shot from “the enemy” creased my head, a flesh wound that really hurt, and my c.o . ordered me to shoot or he would shoot me. I declined, saying, “How do I know there isn’t someone next to him saying to him what you are saying to me?”
I woke up, screaming, and my dad came to comfort me.
As I began writing these words, on the mourning [not a typo – jbh] of January 13, 2011, it came to me that something I could not say when I was four or since, I may finally be able to put to words.
In that dream, as before and ever since, I encounter various forms of commanding officers. They are always somewhat like my c.o. in that dream; they order me to violate what my C.O. admonishes me to do.
My C.O.?
My Conscientious Objection to any and all forms of human destructiveness.
When the human socialization tradition commanded me, at the age of about 18 months, to replace my inner C.O. with society’s c.o., my C.O. admonished me to love my “enemies” as I had already been given to love myself and the life I was being given.
When society’s c.o. commanded, shouted, screamed, and threatened to murder me, my C.O. gently whispered, “You may love your ‘enemies’ as you have already been given to love yourself and the life you are being given.”
The commands, shouts, screams, and threats of society were utterly drowned out by the gentle whisper of my C.O, as has always been true in my life, always and without exception, “You may love your ‘enemies’ as you have already been given to love yourself and the life you are being given.”
Why “enemies” and ‘enemies’ in quotes? Because, as demonstrable fact of life, I neither have enemies nor have ever had enemies, nor can ever have enemies. No person, no society, no command, shout, scream, or threat can ever have a trace of a hint of a smidgen of jot of an iota of a wisp of a phantasm of the power to be my enemy, no matter what, where, when, why, or how persons, societies, commands, shouts, screams, or threats of any authoritarian tyrannical coercion demand of me that I do else.
Ich beinahe kein Deutsch spreche. Ich ein am schrechlisten Deutsch student war. Ganz schade ist?
I flunked German at Carleton each time I took a class the first time. It took me taking a given class twice in order to pass the class. I have this thing about words, and there is a curious property to German, the traditional word order, which made learning German particularly difficult for me.
I put so much time and effort into German that I had not nearly the necessary time to get good grades in other classes. I did not “flunk out,” though. Perhaps ten years ago, Carleton acknowledged that some otherwise-capable students have language difficulties, and, under the present foreign language approach at Carleton, I would, had it existed in 1957, been able to take classes about foreign cultures, with English language used, as an alternative to flunking German and having my GPA almost totally trashed. Accommodations for autism-spectrum people are showing up.
German language structure? Typically, the verb at the end of the sentence, as in the first and last parts of Heinrich Heine, “Die Lorelei,” written in 1822 as I understand.
Die Lorelei begins with:
Ich weiß nicht, was soll es bedeuten,
Daß ich so traurig bin,
And ends with:
Und das hat mit ihrem Singen,
Die Loreley getan.
I observe “bin” may be translated as the verb “am,” and “getan” may be translated as the verb “done.” Verbs in those excerpts are at the end; my being one who thinks in meanings and not in words, typical verb-at-the-end German sentences are, for me, reminiscent the process of being shot to death by a firing squad, “Ready, aim, fire.” One has to get to the end to know what is happening, by which time, it has already happened and it has become too late to change it.
I cannot easily process meanings in the verb-last traditional German way. That, as much as anything else, precluded my learning German at the pace Carleton required.
As best I can now recall, it was during my first attempt at third-semester German at Carleton. The professor, Arnold Mendel, was a very capable professor of German, so capable that I struggled to follow what he said.
One day, I tried a method I had first used as an infant, closing my eyes so visual stuff would not interfere with my processing spoken language in words and inflection alone. Professor Mendel, it is my best guess, thought I had gone to sleep, and threw a piece of chalk at me. To what I would guess was his utter astonishment, as the chalk came within range, I reached up with my right hand and caught it in mid-air. I had closed my eyes the better to learn German, not to sleep through the lesson.
Yet there is another lesson possible. It may not be sufficient to make 30-bullet cartridges illegal, nor to make 10-bullet cartridges illegal. It may be necessary to stop the first bullet before it can hit and harm anyone.
Catching a thrown piece of blackboard chalk in mid-air may be rather easy, catching a bullet in mid-air in a manner similar to how I caught that piece of chalk, such that no one is harmed in any way, is plausibly impossible.
Given the proclivity of even one bullet fired to cause harm, the only way I can identify to prevent such harm is to catch the first bullet before it can be fired. If you, dear reader, are awake and alert, that may inspire you to request that I be put in a strait-jacket and put away in absolute isolation. But I may have a better idea.
I happened to watch “The Military Channel” for a few minutes last evening. The Top Ten Sniper Rifles or something similar in name. The number one sniper rifle is intended to destroy the enemy with the first shot shot. What I observed in that program on The Military Channel is what led me to write about how to really catch the first shot before it is fired.
How do I know how to catch the first shot before it can be fired? That is how I live my life, how I have always lived my life, and how I plan to live the rest of my life; but for what I live to make any useful sense, one may need to grasp the symbolic nature of words when used to describe processes.
As in that dream of my c.o. and my C.O., when I was four, I cannot control what someone else does; and, if I do not understand how to control what I do, neither can I control that. Executive Control is a term used by some psychology-scientist critters to describe understanding self sufficiently to have self-control.
Might be I have pretty decent executive control. Might be such is not yet true for everyone. Might be someone attempts to shoot me down by informing me that my bioengineering research is “crap.” The story has it that Thomas Crapper’s “water closet” invention has much improved urban and rural sanitation.
As the lives of people who died in the manner of folks like Dietrich Bonhöffer or Kitty Genovese, ignoring an undesired behavior may extinguish a person’s life and may not extinguish the undesired behavior. So, I do not ignore someone who, as best I can out make any form of intelligible sense, calls my work “crap” because my work does not fit within such person’s world view. Neither can I retaliate in kind or in unkind, without firing a bullet of some sort, such as a word bullet or a bullet point.
My C.O. whispers to me to not allow society’s c.o. to persuade me to fire bullets. The faintest whisper from my C.O. always drowns out all the commands, the shouting, the screaming, the threatening that society’s c.o. has ever sent my way. Even now, as I write this, my C.O. is whispering, “You may love your ‘enemies’ as you have already been given to love yourself and the life you are being given.”
My C.O. whispers to me to explore using humor, even if humor fails completely, as a way to tell people that there may be a path out of suffering, that there may be a path, now seemingly narrow, yet able to expand to safely lead all who take it toward successfully catching the first shot.
In the DVD I have of the movie, “A Beautiful Mind,” about 23 minutes into the movie:
Advisor, “Do you realize this flies in the face of a hundred fifty years of economic theory?”
Nash, “Yes, I do, sir.”
Advisor, “That’s rather presumptuous, don’t you think?”
Nash, “It is, sir.”
Advisor, “Well, Mr. Nash, with a breakthrough of this magnitude, I’m confident you will get any placement you like.”
In Sylvia Nasar’s book “A Beautiful Mind,” Nash presents his thesis to his advisor in Chapter 10, and I have not found the words of the movie in the book. The work of Marvin Minsky and others who studied game theory and the relationship(s) of structure and function of “the human brain” was an important part of my undergraduate and graduate education.
Allowing that the words in the movie spoken by Nash and his advisor were the work of movie scriptwriting and not historical, it may be meritorious herewith for me to state that I have been unable to find that my work on the work of human brains likely to be deemed other than flying in the face of the whole historical tradition of law theory by people who have yet to understand my work in depth and detail..
Asked of my research, by someone who unshakably believes that it flies in the face of the whole edifice of historical law theory, “That’s rather presumptuous, don’t you think?” I would answer, “No, I find it to be premier, because it adds to prior understanding without rejecting the past as might a scientific revolution.”
A scientific revolution, so I understand, overthrows the past and replaces it, a process which tends to throw out everything of value learned in the past, replaces it with ignorance, and builds much the same edifice of human error that it purported to replace.
Thus, my work is properly understood as a “scientific evolution.” Revolutions, whether scientific or political, tend to violently overthrow prior accomplishments; understood accurately, evolutions merely add to the past without overthrowing it.
I have spent almost the whole of my life, at least since I began to make sense of the sounds I now recognize as words, in an effort to unriddle the nature of human violence in such a way and manner as would allow people to abandon the violent ways of history as theories in use, while retaining them as ways of understanding what is wisely avoided. I find the enigma is solved, in the scientific sense.
My dissertation is the most intensely and profoundly mathematical doctoral dissertation I have ever encountered. The mathematics is the mathematics of problems of unfathomable, transcomputational complexity such that no analytic expression is even remotely possible. Thus, I had to express the mathematics as a set of word problems, for want of any achievable alternative. The mathematics may be rather simply (and incompletely) named, “high-dimension-space, complex-variable, pattern-recognition-oriented, relational tensor calculus.”
Such mathematics is real, it is of the sort that a typical housecat uses to successfully jump up and onto an unfamiliar item of household furniture for the first time.
One of my thesis committee members remarked to me, and I have permission to so state, that my research was of the “completely new paradigm” sort. Consider what happened after Galileo Galelei reported his finding of Jovian moons. His work did not comply with the social paradigm deemed mandatory by authoritarian leaders of society (the Pope? the Vatican?) and house arrest happened, followed centuries later by apology. I am vividly aware of the traditional human and social response(s) to dramatically new understanding of the world in which we live.
Nonetheless, I continue my effort because I have been perfectly unable to find even one person who has been able to suggest to me even as much as where to look for a flaw in the work. That level of science discover is uncommon when the discovery overlays almost the whole of a field of millennial tradition.
Someone would like to stop the very first bullet before it is fired, and wait to stop the shooting at the eleventh by limiting cartridges to ten bullets? I find I know and understand how that can be done. That is plausibly the furthest thing from a joke yet to happen in the world wherein people seemingly believe they abide.
I know and I understand what that is practical, practicable, pragmatic, and achievable that really can be done such that the firsts bullet is stopped before it is fired.
How on earth do I know and understand this?
I live it.
I have always lived it.
In words, AND ONLY IN WORDS, I beseech anyone and everyone, give me scientifically verifiable rebuttal, and/or refutation, and/or reproof.
To qualify as scientifically verifiable, I find that the following error as found, for example, in Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, on page 234 needs be addressed without the deception intrinsic to incomplete historical attribution:
” ‘Proximate cause’ — in itself an unfortunate term — is merely the limitation which the courts have placed upon the actor’s responsibility for the consequences of the actor’s conduct. In a philosophical sense, the consequences of an act go forward to eternity, and the causes of an event go back to the dawn of human events, and beyond. But any attempt to impose responsibility on such a basis would result in infinite liability for all wrongful acts, and would ‘set society on edge and fill the courts with endless litigation.’ [North v. Johnson, 58 Minn. 242, 59 N.W. 1012 (1894).] As a practical matter, legal responsibility must be limited to those causes which are so closely connected with the result and of such significance that the law is justified in imposing liability. Some boundary must be set to liability for the consequences of any act, upon some social idea of justice or policy.” W. Page Keeton, et. al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 41, at 264, (5th ed. 1984).”
What I require with a scientifically rebuttal is accurately including all such causes as have happened since the dawn of human events and before and all such consequences as shall occur within the eternity of the future.
You cannot do that? You cannot do that, so you know that I cannot do it? You are not me and I am not you, and you can do things I cannot do and I can do things you cannot do.
How can I do what I say I can do?. I learned the requisite mathematics. I learned the relevant sociology, psychology, history, engineering, biology, and all else, well enough. That’s how.
We, as individuals and as a species can work to palliate the symptoms of time-corrupted learning and its associated traumatic brain damage, or we can talk with one another in ways decent and respectful and learn from each other that which will enable us to live peaceably with ourselves, each other, and the universe which makes us possible. Or, what was the name of that other movie?
“Sayonara”?
As for me, as one who loves the whole of life as given to me, give me life and give me liberty to be truthful about myself as about others.
I would like to amend the proposed bill to read that No congressman or woman shall get no closer than 1000 feet of the Capital building with or without a gun.
Hobart, in response to your question, if a gun didn’t have bullets then a projectile could not likely exit from the barrel and the gun could only be a weapon then by throwing it or striking someone with it.
Hey pete this is all you need:
does he not understand that bullets can travel distances of more than 1000 feet?
oh duh we’re talking about peter king.
what a whinny little bitch
first he makes sure anyone can carry anything they want and when that backfires he wants to make sure they get nowhere near him.
you made the cake
now sit down and grab a fork
Unworkable, and yes stupid. But may I take another tangent. If congress spends time on this, and various government agencies have to do research and such, money and time is wasted. This corresponds to one of my pet peeves, when a legislature pasees a bill/law they must realize will be declared unconstitutional. (I know no sure thing with the Robert’s court.)Again, money and time wasted. Is there no way those responsible can be sanctioned? Please don’t say vote them out as then they just go to lobbying and pay the next moron to do the same thing.
Will this apply to gun lobbyists? Surely they’ll be packing.
Elaine M.
1, January 13, 2011 at 10:31 am
If there are any measures we could take to keep lobbyists away from members of Congress, I’d be in favor of them!
********************************************
mespo727272
1, January 13, 2011 at 11:14 am
I’ve checked and I believe the correct order of his names are “King, Representative (of) Peter.”
===============================================================
🙂 🙂
Oops..I meant Article One section 8 (and not the 1st amendment). Yes, I know the 2nd applies to arms, but that is not what I am referring to.
No one has the right to infringe on the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a gun.
Espcially the federal congress who is specifically singled out in the first amendment.
Mr. King needs to find other work if he is afraid to be a politician.
“michellefrommadison
1, January 13, 2011 at 10:55 am
What a ridiculous proposal. No criminal with a gun is going to care how many feet he is to his target. Fire that guy now!”
What if the gun doesnt have “bullets”?
Mespo727272:
you have it all wrong, he is King, Peter.
He slayed (the) Peter Dragon