Iaido

[Dotanuki]

For those who don't already know, Youtube has a an Iaido group site you can find here;

http://www.youtube.com/groups_videos?name=iaido

[bobO]

Dotanuki, Didn't know,found it,LOVE IT! Thank you!=D>I did notice not to much Mugai ryu,how come?:-<

[goose710]

Dotanuki
The interview with the sword smith is very interesting. he is showing the hamon of that blade exterordiary (my spelling) the many different activities layered in that blade !!! i watched it repetetly.
thank you for that
goose710

[bobO]

I would give anything to know what they where saying.that sword made my heart beat faster,weird huh.

[royalblueeyes]

Dotanuki, Didn't know,found it,LOVE IT! Thank you!=D>I did notice not to much Mugai ryu,how come?:-<
As my Sensei explained; there is a hegemony in Mugairyu of the soke that is always on the lookout for any and all people who would step out of line and share the secrets of Mugairyu with the general population (thus allowing it not to be controlled).

Niina Gosoke-Sensei, apparently, doesn't want any of his students or his student's students getting involved, and thus just says to keep in on the down-low.

All this harkens back to the fact that you don't talk about your swordstyle outside of the dojo, until you are a certified instructor (so that you aren't perverting the art).

I'm surprised that the other styles aren't cracking down on Youtube.

[Brian Brazier]

great link, Thanks Dotanuki

[Dotanuki]

As my Sensei explained; there is a hegemony in Mugairyu of the soke that is always on the lookout for any and all people who would step out of line and share the secrets of Mugairyu with the general population (thus allowing it not to be controlled).

Niina Gosoke-Sensei, apparently, doesn't want any of his students or his student's students getting involved, and thus just says to keep in on the down-low.

All this harkens back to the fact that you don't talk about your swordstyle outside of the dojo, until you are a certified instructor (so that you aren't perverting the art)

I'm surprised that the other styles aren't cracking down on Youtube.


This is how it should be!
Your instructor has the responsibility of PRESERVING his art, not promoting it like a carnival. This responsibility is a heavy "Giri" [obligation] to the Japanese. A point that is lost to many in the West, who have no idea what it means to preserve a cultural heritage.
Although nowdays, many Japanese are also losing this mindset. [selling out!]

[bobO]

This was easy for my sensei to get across as a lot of us, himself included, were from the submarine service. And keeping secrets is what we did. We was sneaky s.o.b's. This is also why I get a chuckle out of a lot of the ninja stuff, like there gonna tell us round eyes anything real.

[royalblueeyes]

This is how it should be!
Your instructor has the responsibility of PRESERVING his art, not promoting it like a carnival. This responsibility is a heavy "Giri" [obligation] to the Japanese. A point that is lost to many in the West, who have no idea what it means to preserve a cultural heritage.
Although nowdays, many Japanese are also losing this mindset. [selling out!]

I see the issues with selling out; but remember: All martial arts styles have something unique that set them apart from each other. Would it truly be selling out if someone actually studied all of the styles in depth, and then picked out all of the crunchy bits and put them into a style that consistently worked? We would have one art, and I do see the issue in standardizing all of the styles; but ultimately, if I always reach out to cut with my sword, and another style preaches an idea I can incorporate into reaching out that benefits me in some way; what exactly then is wrong?

The cultural heritage had no meaning way back then when having the better style meant the difference between life or death. The cultural heritage today is preserving those styles that were the best and survived the test of time. It is then our duty as practitioners of these ancient arts to expand upon them as the the founders did.

Even if it means killing an art or altering it. But then what we must contend with is that we do not live in a world of practicality; and then to the expansion upon learning a sword art is to forgo learning the sword art and buying a gun.

I can not justify carrying around a sword anymore than another can justify carrying around a gun; but the difference in between then is that the sword is a conscious weapon.

So then the art of the sword is conscious. And thus our art is validated and justified.

[jwilliams]

Blue,
I've enjoyed most of your posts so far and most of this one I can go along with, but I think you missed the mark a couple of times with your comment about guns. There is nothing more conscious than pulling the trigger on a gun and as far as not being able to justify a sword anymore than someone can justify a gun is nonsense. I can justify both very well thank you. In this country it is a right and being a right that means that it was granted by some beneficent government only to be taken away at their whim. A right is something we are born with that can't be taken away any more than the right to breathe and live can be.

The right of self-preservation is the only justification any American needs to carry any arm for protection. It is late so I'm going to stop now.

Happy 4th of July!

[Dotanuki]

Royalblueeyes,
You just proved my point of;
A point that is lost to many in the West, who have no idea what it means to preserve a cultural heritage.

From your post I'm not sure you even understand the Oriental concept of Martial Art.
If you would know what it means to study any martial style "in depth" [your words], you would never make the statements you just did.
As these things already exist when you study in depth, at the higher levels that most people don't have the perserverance to reach.

I have no idea what you are even talking about with your correlation between the sword and the gun.
JW understands both in the modern world, as does Menukisan, Ivory Shogun, Bob-O and quite a few others on this Forum. We obviously live in a different world than you.

It sounds to me you are trying to do a JKD [Bruce Lee] thing with the sword arts. But Bruce Lee [a point conviently overlooked] actually studied the arts "in depth". His true concepts have been taken out of context, by people who only want to study the "crunchy bits".

[bobO]

Crunchy bits,LOL, I like that!!>:)

[Brian Brazier]

looks like I will be enrolling in a local Iaido class cause my sensei for Ishi Yama took a job on the east coast and there is no one else to train the class, oh well, the Iaido class is closer and cheaper anyways

[FrozenIpaq]

Blue,
I've enjoyed most of your posts so far and most of this one I can go along with, but I think you missed the mark a couple of times with your comment about guns. There is nothing more conscious than pulling the trigger on a gun and as far as not being able to justify a sword anymore than someone can justify a gun is nonsense. I can justify both very well thank you. In this country it is a right and being a right that means that it was granted by some beneficent government only to be taken away at their whim. A right is something we are born with that can't be taken away any more than the right to breathe and live can be.

The right of self-preservation is the only justification any American needs to carry any arm for protection. It is late so I'm going to stop now.

Happy 4th of July!

I'm a bit unclear on what you are talking about for the second half of your post here (about rights and carrying a weapon for protection). It is our natural right to life, liberty and property (or pursuit of happiness, whichever way you may look at it). The government that we have established (I'm referring to the US government at this point) has a responsibility to protect these rights. Yes, we too have a right to protect ourselves - but not if it infringes on the rights of others. Carrying a weapon to protect yourself is not something I called justified. The majority of people are walking around "unarmed", so to justify carrying a weapon of any sort to me is nonsense.

John Locke and his theory of the Law of Nature suggests that no one should infringe or cause harm another and his natural rights. By carrying a weapon, I believe you are immediately threatening one of our key rights as a human being - life and I cannot justify such means regardless of the end result.

[RedZorak]

Yes, we too have a right to protect ourselves - but not if it infringes on the rights of others. Carrying a weapon to protect yourself is not something I called justified. The majority of people are walking around "unarmed", so to justify carrying a weapon of any sort to me is nonsense.

John Locke and his theory of the Law of Nature suggests that no one should infringe or cause harm another and his natural rights. By carrying a weapon, I believe you are immediately threatening one of our key rights as a human being - life and I cannot justify such means regardless of the end result.

I disagree. By carrying a weapon, I am not necessarily threatening another persons life. I could decide to at some point, but having a weapon doesn't mean I am going to kill someone. Also, remember that the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" is only philosophical, so referring to it as a concrete right is kind of useless. Sure, we can call it a "right," but that's not going to stop Freddy the Robber from putting a few bullets in my chest if he so chooses.

[jwilliams]

Frozen,
Sorry but you are way off base here and out of your element. Being armed doesn't infringe or endanger anyones rights. On the contrary, had one person been armed at Virginia Tech, or any other mass shooting, the body count may have been much less. Look at the Mall shooting in Utah and the church shooting where they had an armed security guard. Why do you think that crime has gone up over 300% in England since they rook away people's rights to bear arms and defend themselves? Why has crime actually gone down in states that have concealed carry laws. Facts that the liberal left media don't want you to hear and actually spew the opposite. I can't believe that intelligent people fall for their lies. And to not tell the truth is a lie.

There are 3 types of people in the whole armed/unarmed debate. Ignorant, evil and conscientious objector. The ignorant are no longer so once presented with the facts. The evil who in spite of the facts still want to take away your rights to defend yourself because they want to preserve that for themselves. The objector because he has a philosophical/moral objection to weapons and their use. I don't have a problem with the ignorant or the objector but I have a serious problem with the evil and once the ignorant is shown the facts and continues to believe that we can't be trusted to defend ourselves, then he becomes part of the problem.

You need to look into the whole Government responsibility to protect you, they have no responsibility or requirement by law to protect you. As stated by the Supreme Court. And those who wait for the government to save your life, better have good burial insurance, because by their nature they are reactive , not proactive, and are only there to write the reports of what happened and try to find who did it. A cop's fantasy is to be able to stop a crime in progress, but do you know how often that happens? This seems to be a condition of the entitlement society that doesn't want to do anything for themselves but let the government do it.

The Government couldn't or didn't stop 3 planes from hitting their targets on 911, Law-abiding citizens did stop the 4th plane from hitting it's target, at the sacrifice of their own lives. That's the way it has always been, the way it will always be.

If you choose not to arm and defend yourself I can accept that but don't call it ignorant to do so. And how does me defending myself infringe on the rights of others? The only people infringed on or that you seek to protect are the criminals that seek the victimize society.The media lies about self defense that it endangers others is just that, lies.

You quote John Locke, you need to read the founding fathers. "They that give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin. "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed-unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."James Madison. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry.

And it goes on and on. You need to start thinking for yourself and quit believing everything you hear the media and left-wing politicians tell you. I hope I didn't offend you. But I would rather offend you now than have you continue believing sound bytes.

[jwilliams]

I disagree. By carrying a weapon, I am not necessarily threatening another persons life. I could decide to at some point, but having a weapon doesn't mean I am going to kill someone. Also, remember that the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" is only philosophical, so referring to it as a concrete right is kind of useless. Sure, we can call it a "right," but that's not going to stop Freddy the Robber from putting a few bullets in my chest if he so chooses.

Red, you are right. The only person that would feel threatened by me having a gun is Freddy the Robber. If more gun laws stopped criminals from carrying guns I would be all for getting rid of guns, but it would also have to be all governments in the world too. Do you trust a criminal?

The philosophical only becomes tangible when backed up by the right to keep and bear arms.

[Dotanuki]

FrozenIpaq,

I believe you are on the wrong Forum.
If you feel this way, you should march right down to your local police station, and turn in your sword.
Then join a Rosie O'Donnell Forum, where your comments will be more welcome!

[FrozenIpaq]

You bring up some very valid points and maybe I was overstepping or grabbing onto information I didn't exactly need. We formed a government to protect ourselves as citizens, you can argue that whatever way you would like but that is the function and purpose of a government (you can also argue control as well). What I was trying to get at is you do not need to carry a weapon around. You bring up those points about shootings happening in modern times involving guns but do you honestly think that because you have a gun in that situation that you would be saved? Granted the body count might have been less, but for all we know it might be more - these are things that you cannot argue with.

Also, last I checked it was illegal to carry a sword and a weapon without a permit (illegal to carry a sword with certain exceptions). You can interpret it however you like but if I see some average joe walking around with a gun in a holster I would feel threatened. I see no benefit in carrying around a weapon of any sort besides to strike fear in those besides you.

You bring up the point about 9/11 and how the government didn't protect us there - last I checked we, as citizens, if equipped with guns couldn't have handled the situation any differently than we did. The government does its best to protect their citizens ("does it's best" can be argued...). We have an anti-terrorist agency for the sole purpose of protecting citizens from terrorist attacks - is that not protecting?

If someone infringes on your rights than you have all the reason and justification to defend yourself. However who's to decide whether a situation needs to be diffused with a guns and not words? I feel that no citizen has the right to bear arms for "protection" outside of their home (even in their home I find it "overkill") as in today's society the chances of you using such a weapon are slim to none unless you put yourself in such a situation willingly (then I wouldn't call it self-defense).

I do not allow the media or left-wing politicians to control my thoughts on arms, this is my own personal, educated opinion. There is no legal basis for my claim but only a moral objection.

All in all, what makes you different from a criminal, (that is to say) whose to say you are one who will lawfully (even morally right) use your weapon? Sure you must go through quite a bit to get a permit to carry a weapon, but no one can foresee the future. The chance of you having to actually use a weapon to defend your life is slim (unless in the act of war) - so justifying the right to bear arms during a time of "peace" is just not capable for me.

@Dotanuki - Why should I turn in my sword? I am not claiming nor using it for self defense like the argument at hand. I have a passion for Eastern culture and an interest in katanas and the art of both their use and production. I will not hand in my sword as I do not intend to disgrace it and use it as a form of self defense..

Frozen,
Sorry but you are way off base here and out of your element. Being armed doesn't infringe or endanger anyones rights. On the contrary, had one person been armed at Virginia Tech, or any other mass shooting, the body count may have been much less. Look at the Mall shooting in Utah and the church shooting where they had an armed security guard. Why do you think that crime has gone up over 300% in England since they rook away people's rights to bear arms and defend themselves? Why has crime actually gone down in states that have concealed carry laws. Facts that the liberal left media don't want you to hear and actually spew the opposite. I can't believe that intelligent people fall for their lies. And to not tell the truth is a lie.

There are 3 types of people in the whole armed/unarmed debate. Ignorant, evil and conscientious objector. The ignorant are no longer so once presented with the facts. The evil who in spite of the facts still want to take away your rights to defend yourself because they want to preserve that for themselves. The objector because he has a philosophical/moral objection to weapons and their use. I don't have a problem with the ignorant or the objector but I have a serious problem with the evil and once the ignorant is shown the facts and continues to believe that we can't be trusted to defend ourselves, then he becomes part of the problem.

You need to look into the whole Government responsibility to protect you, they have no responsibility or requirement by law to protect you. As stated by the Supreme Court. And those who wait for the government to save your life, better have good burial insurance, because by their nature they are reactive , not proactive, and are only there to write the reports of what happened and try to find who did it. A cop's fantasy is to be able to stop a crime in progress, but do you know how often that happens? This seems to be a condition of the entitlement society that doesn't want to do anything for themselves but let the government do it.

The Government couldn't or didn't stop 3 planes from hitting their targets on 911, Law-abiding citizens did stop the 4th plane from hitting it's target, at the sacrifice of their own lives. That's the way it has always been, the way it will always be.

If you choose not to arm and defend yourself I can accept that but don't call it ignorant to do so. And how does me defending myself infringe on the rights of others? The only people infringed on or that you seek to protect are the criminals that seek the victimize society.The media lies about self defense that it endangers others is just that, lies.

You quote John Locke, you need to read the founding fathers. "They that give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin. "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed-unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."James Madison. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry.

And it goes on and on. You need to start thinking for yourself and quit believing everything you hear the media and left-wing politicians tell you. I hope I didn't offend you. But I would rather offend you now than have you continue believing sound bytes.

[Taygrd]

Yes, we too have a right to protect ourselves - but not if it infringes on the rights of others. Carrying a weapon to protect yourself is not something I called justified. The majority of people are walking around "unarmed", so to justify carrying a weapon of any sort to me is nonsense.
I believe you have a very idealistic view of the world and how it should be. Unfortunately history, the world, and mankind do not abide by ideals. The very fact that you have the ability to feel as you do and voice that opinion is reinforced by those that protect you. This is not done by words, lofty ideas, or rhetoric formed by John Locke, but by those who bear arms to protect you. Man's inhumanity towards man is as old as the world and will continue as long as we exist. If my carrying a weapon infringes upon your natural rights, wait until those that are intent to do evil find out that no one is bearing arms. I think a little more than your natural rights may become infringed. I studied Locke, Hume, Socrates, Bacon and numerous others in college. The more you learn, the more you read, you find that no one doctrine is perfect or whole. Being idealistic is fine as long as it is tempered with practicality.

[bobO]

This is why I've made my whole body a deadly weapon!:hahaskull:

[jwilliams]

You bring up some very valid points and maybe I was overstepping or grabbing onto information I didn't exactly need. We formed a government to protect ourselves as citizens, you can argue that whatever way you would like but that is the function and purpose of a government (you can also argue control as well). What I was trying to get at is you do not need to carry a weapon around. You bring up those points about shootings happening in modern times involving guns but do you honestly think that because you have a gun in that situation that you would be saved? Granted the body count might have been less, but for all we know it might be more - these are things that you cannot argue with.

Also, last I checked it was illegal to carry a sword and a weapon without a permit (illegal to carry a sword with certain exceptions). You can interpret it however you like but if I see some average joe walking around with a gun in a holster I would feel threatened. I see no benefit in carrying around a weapon of any sort besides to strike fear in those besides you.

You bring up the point about 9/11 and how the government didn't protect us there - last I checked we, as citizens, if equipped with guns couldn't have handled the situation any differently than we did. The government does its best to protect their citizens ("does it's best" can be argued...). We have an anti-terrorist agency for the sole purpose of protecting citizens from terrorist attacks - is that not protecting?

If someone infringes on your rights than you have all the reason and justification to defend yourself. However who's to decide whether a situation needs to be diffused with a guns and not words? I feel that no citizen has the right to bear arms for "protection" outside of their home (even in their home I find it "overkill") as in today's society the chances of you using such a weapon are slim to none unless you put yourself in such a situation willingly (then I wouldn't call it self-defense).

I do not allow the media or left-wing politicians to control my thoughts on arms, this is my own personal, educated opinion. There is no legal basis for my claim but only a moral objection.

All in all, what makes you different from a criminal, (that is to say) whose to say you are one who will lawfully (even morally right) use your weapon? Sure you must go through quite a bit to get a permit to carry a weapon, but no one can foresee the future. The chance of you having to actually use a weapon to defend your life is slim (unless in the act of war) - so justifying the right to bear arms during a time of "peace" is just not capable for me.

@Dotanuki - Why should I turn in my sword? I am not claiming nor using it for self defense like the argument at hand. I have a passion for Eastern culture and an interest in katanas and the art of both their use and production. I will not hand in my sword as I do not intend to disgrace it and use it as a form of self defense..

Frozen,
You prove my point. You make statements and claim they are fact when they are worse than an outright lie. How can you possibly claim that there would be more of a body count if I had a gun to defend myself. That is called fearmongering. Like a spoiled child you don't back up anything with fact, you just say "is so, cuz I said so" and expect that we will all just say "oh, good point". You confuse law-abiding citizens with criminals. It's not the gun that is evil, it's the person wielding it, and until you get rid of all evil people you are going to have violent crime and people that need to stop it.
You do not intend to disgrace your sword by using it in self-defense? How would that disgrace it? You obviously have no family, children or anyone you love because you would allow them to become crime victims rather than protect them with a weapon. I know you are a black belt but isn't that a double standard and hypocritical to use your body as a weapon? Your argument is equal to saying all martial artists are violent thugs who must be stopped from training. I'm going to stop now so I don't get too personal, you have the right to your opinion, I just hope you don't live to regret it. Or are you a Rosie O'Donnell and hate guns unless they are being used by your children's body-guards.

I find your comment comparing me to a criminal highly offensive, you see, in America we don't have to prove we are law-abiding citizens. I don't have to prove that I am worthy. There are no preemptive strikes on my rights. You can't say I might do something wrong so I should be stopped it before I have a chance to.

[bobO]

I was going to jump in here but after reading j's post, I don't feel the need to add more. I will say this to not defend your family and by extension your country, freedoms etc, with every weapon available to you is the disgrace. Musashi, himself said to lose a fight without having used every weapon, was disgraceful. But of course, this is only if all else fails. And no one has ever advocated carry swords around with you on this forum, quite the opposite I believe. Guess I did have more to say. Should add that I'm in NEPA, where every one has guns and fishing poles and other outdoorsy type stuff.

[Firehand10k]

Also, last I checked it was illegal to carry a sword and a weapon without a permit (illegal to carry a sword with certain exceptions). You can interpret it however you like but if I see some average joe walking around with a gun in a holster I would feel threatened. I see no benefit in carrying around a weapon of any sort besides to strike fear in those besides you.



Actually this veries greatly by where you are. Where I am, here in Kentucky, there is an open carry law that states a weapon carried openly in plain view, ie. in a holster, is legal, except in sensitive locations (government buildings, schools, and churches). Only concealed carry requires a permit. There is actually a statment in the wording of the state law that says no subjurisdiction can make the open carry illegal, although carrying openly in some areas, like major cities may get you questioned about your intent.
This is mainly for firearms but is worded to include deadly weapons which includes swords. I bet those would raise even more questions though. It is nice to know though since it allows me to go to a Ren Faire then stop somewhere and carry the sword I wore there instead of leaving it in the car for the heat to damage the leather handles or the scabbrd lacquer.

Umm, yeah I wrote this while bobO was writing and he has a point. I don't recommend wearing swords or even guns around just to do it but its good to know we can when there is a reason. BTW I don't own any firearms, even though I'm in the Army and trained in many but I do own over 60 edged weapons and heartily support everyones right to own any reasonable weapon they choose. Hell, thats what I'm in the military to support. The US Constitution including the bill of rights and ammendment 2.

[FrozenIpaq]

[Deleted - Moved to a new thread about Right to Bear arms discussion] We can't get off topic on such a great thread as this one!

@ Brian's comment about going to Iaido class - be sure to tell us how your fast day goes!