Best speech at the NRA Convention

[Brian Blackwell]

These two Black ladies gave the best speech at the NRA Convention.

"They don't need to rewrite the Constitution, they need to reread the Constitution".

"You need to come off that Democrat slave plantation" ,

Well that was fun. I like the new format - political speeches benefit greatly from a hype man.

This is why hope remains. Despite the spells and incantations emanating from the dark towers of sorcerers trying to enslave humanity, the light of truth persists, cutting through the haze (you'll forgive a little poetic prose here hahaha).

"Maybe if people had self-control, we wouldn't need no gun control."

This is profound beyond the reckoning of the person who spoke it, and (most likely) every other person sitting in that room. This points to morality as the only viable solution to man's problems, period. Yes, I am speaking in the absolute, and no, most people are not willing to acknowledge this fact because it's hard work and does not abide shortcuts.

The immorality of man is the problem cited to justify the "necessity" of governmental control in broad terms; of law and authority in general. However, this is a band-aid non-solution that addresses only symptoms; effects, and not causes. Many still believe there is hope via the political process, but that's like expecting the Advil people to champion the cause of curing headaches. Real solutions are bad for the business of politics.

"Yeah, but it's delusional to expect that everyone is going to be moral". Well, **** it, then. Let's just rape and kill each other. If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em, right? NO. Them's are weasel words. The talk of cowards. Even if we don't have the power to change others (and there's much we can do to help them along), we have absolute authority over ourselves. We do have free will - contrary to what some would have us believe - and we can choose morality over immorality, order over chaos.

If you understand that you have the unalienable right to own a gun, and that no man has a right to infringe upon that liberty, then to believe otherwise in regard to any other liberty makes you either an unfortunate victim of an elaborate mind control con-job, or a slithering self-serving hypocrite. ALL liberties are subject to the same arguments used to defend gun rights. ANY support of a system that denies man's inherent rights is an act of outright evil.

The answers do not lie in voting, protests, or legal recourse... in political rituals and ancient parchments. The answer lies in each of us committing to moral principles above all else - regardless of how inconvenient or contrary to the cultural paradigm that may be - and defending ourselves and our neighbors against those who refuse to embrace this commitment.

That is all fine but I think Diamond and Silk was just pointing out that Democrats are assholes.

Well, yes, but that (though true) is a very narrow view. I was illustrating how there is deeper wisdom in their words.

 

[Flash]

These two Black ladies gave the best speech at the NRA Convention.

"They don't need to rewrite the Constitution, they need to reread the Constitution".

"You need to come off that Democrat slave plantation" ,

Well that was fun. I like the new format - political speeches benefit greatly from a hype man.

This is why hope remains. Despite the spells and incantations emanating from the dark towers of sorcerers trying to enslave humanity, the light of truth persists, cutting through the haze (you'll forgive a little poetic prose here hahaha).

"Maybe if people had self-control, we wouldn't need no gun control."

This is profound beyond the reckoning of the person who spoke it, and (most likely) every other person sitting in that room. This points to morality as the only viable solution to man's problems, period. Yes, I am speaking in the absolute, and no, most people are not willing to acknowledge this fact because it's hard work and does not abide shortcuts.

The immorality of man is the problem cited to justify the "necessity" of governmental control in broad terms; of law and authority in general. However, this is a band-aid non-solution that addresses only symptoms; effects, and not causes. Many still believe there is hope via the political process, but that's like expecting the Advil people to champion the cause of curing headaches. Real solutions are bad for the business of politics.

"Yeah, but it's delusional to expect that everyone is going to be moral". Well, **** it, then. Let's just rape and kill each other. If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em, right? NO. Them's are weasel words. The talk of cowards. Even if we don't have the power to change others (and there's much we can do to help them along), we have absolute authority over ourselves. We do have free will - contrary to what some would have us believe - and we can choose morality over immorality, order over chaos.

If you understand that you have the unalienable right to own a gun, and that no man has a right to infringe upon that liberty, then to believe otherwise in regard to any other liberty makes you either an unfortunate victim of an elaborate mind control con-job, or a slithering self-serving hypocrite. ALL liberties are subject to the same arguments used to defend gun rights. ANY support of a system that denies man's inherent rights is an act of outright evil.

The answers do not lie in voting, protests, or legal recourse... in political rituals and ancient parchments. The answer lies in each of us committing to moral principles above all else - regardless of how inconvenient or contrary to the cultural paradigm that may be - and defending ourselves and our neighbors against those who refuse to embrace this commitment.

That is all fine but I think Diamond and Silk was just pointing out that Democrats are assholes.

Well, yes, but that (though true) is a very narrow view. I was illustrating how there is deeper wisdom in their words.

The deeper wisdom is fine but that was not what the speech by the two ladies was all about.

It was about the stupidity and oppression of the Democrats.

If we could all be good little boys and girls there would be no need for a lot of things but ever since Cain slewed Abel we pretty well know that ain't gonna happen.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

These two Black ladies gave the best speech at the NRA Convention.

"They don't need to rewrite the Constitution, they need to reread the Constitution".

"You need to come off that Democrat slave plantation" ,

Well that was fun. I like the new format - political speeches benefit greatly from a hype man.

This is why hope remains. Despite the spells and incantations emanating from the dark towers of sorcerers trying to enslave humanity, the light of truth persists, cutting through the haze (you'll forgive a little poetic prose here hahaha).

"Maybe if people had self-control, we wouldn't need no gun control."

This is profound beyond the reckoning of the person who spoke it, and (most likely) every other person sitting in that room. This points to morality as the only viable solution to man's problems, period. Yes, I am speaking in the absolute, and no, most people are not willing to acknowledge this fact because it's hard work and does not abide shortcuts.

The immorality of man is the problem cited to justify the "necessity" of governmental control in broad terms; of law and authority in general. However, this is a band-aid non-solution that addresses only symptoms; effects, and not causes. Many still believe there is hope via the political process, but that's like expecting the Advil people to champion the cause of curing headaches. Real solutions are bad for the business of politics.

"Yeah, but it's delusional to expect that everyone is going to be moral". Well, **** it, then. Let's just rape and kill each other. If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em, right? NO. Them's are weasel words. The talk of cowards. Even if we don't have the power to change others (and there's much we can do to help them along), we have absolute authority over ourselves. We do have free will - contrary to what some would have us believe - and we can choose morality over immorality, order over chaos.

If you understand that you have the unalienable right to own a gun, and that no man has a right to infringe upon that liberty, then to believe otherwise in regard to any other liberty makes you either an unfortunate victim of an elaborate mind control con-job, or a slithering self-serving hypocrite. ALL liberties are subject to the same arguments used to defend gun rights. ANY support of a system that denies man's inherent rights is an act of outright evil.

The answers do not lie in voting, protests, or legal recourse... in political rituals and ancient parchments. The answer lies in each of us committing to moral principles above all else - regardless of how inconvenient or contrary to the cultural paradigm that may be - and defending ourselves and our neighbors against those who refuse to embrace this commitment.

That is all fine but I think Diamond and Silk was just pointing out that Democrats are assholes.

Well, yes, but that (though true) is a very narrow view. I was illustrating how there is deeper wisdom in their words.

The deeper wisdom is fine but that was not what the speech by the two ladies was all about.

It was about the stupidity and oppression of the Democrats.

If we could all be good little boys and girls there would be no need for a lot of things but ever since Cain slewed Abel we pretty well know that ain't gonna happen.

The problem with the “ain’t gonna happen” theory of human morality is that by assuming a foregone conclusion, you discourage any effort in that direction. It’s an unfounded premise upon which a string of otherwise valid logic can be used to justify injustice (like the oppression you attribute to democrats, but seemingly fail to recognize in broader terms).

The social convention of covering one’s balls in public is almost universally accepted and willingly adopted, but this is a learned behavior. Why can’t morality become as universally accepted, particularly since there are much better reasons for adopting this practice?

There is a purposeful effort to hide the truth about morality and human nature. Morality is not relative, and it is not a function of time and place. However, our understanding of it is. Morality is the cause-and-effect of human behavior, and it is rooted in law, just like the laws of physics. But people will deny this, despite having not researched and understood the topic.

By throwing in the towel, we are confining our solutions to the realm of effect, not cause. Man’s law can never yield a universally peaceful, prosperous society because it only punishes acts that have already taken place. It does nothing to deal with the real issue. It’s like stopping at a station to put air in your tire every 10 miles, instead if fixing the flat. It’s precisely that irrational.

The futility you’re suggesting makes people believe that since immorality is here to stay, we may as well use it to our advantage. After all, it always offers short-term benefits. But we don’t like to be openly evil, so we hide behind religious beliefs about the laundering ability of governmental process.

To go to your neighbor’s house with a gun and drag him to a cage in your basement for growing pot would be considered insane and immoral. But if we vote for a man, and he writes a law, and a guy takes an oath and wears a piece of metal on his shirt, then we can have him do our dirty work, and no one is responsible. The voter isn’t responsible, he merely pulled a lever. The lawmaker isn’t responsible, he’s merely a representative of the people. The cop was only following orders, just “doing his job”, so it’s not his fault. So some guy misses his kids growing up for growing pot in his yard, and it’s no one’s fault. We can all sleep easy, except for him, but **** it, government is a “necessary evil” because mankind is immoral.

You see the problem.

 

[Taz]

There were reportedly 15 ACRES of guns manufacturers exposing their wares at the NRA convention. Now tell me again that the NRA isn't a gun manufacturers' lobby. Go ahead, I DARE YA!

Of course there would be firearm vendors at a convention of people wanting to protect their right to keep and beat arms. Duh!

However, there are about seven million individual NRA members, including myself that don't make money off the firearms industry that supports the NRA.

I don't think those two ladies make any money selling firearms, do you?

The NRA isn't a firearm manufacturer's lobby you nitwit. It is a grassroots Constitutional rights lobby. It is also the largest gun safety organization in the world.

If you stupid Moon Bats were really concerned about public safety you would join the NRA and be a part of an organization that protects our Constitutional rights, promotes responsible firearms safety procedures and legal firearms use.

Instead you are assholes that hate the right to keep and bear arms because it is a threat to your agenda to make this country a socialist shithole.

But where's my right to own any weapon I want? Like AA missiles or nukes? Does the NRA uphold my right to those arms? Or just the ones that gun manufacturers make? Why aren't they upset about my rights being infringed for cluster bombs or bunker busters? What up with that? Why weren't chemical weapons on display at their convention? How can I have a militia without them? The US government has them, why can't I?

since when are these considered "arms"?

arms are guns. not tanks, not bombs, not nukes...

but the left loves to throw these up as if it's relevant.

Just by saying that you're infringing on my 2nd Amendment right.

 

[Taz]

There were reportedly 15 ACRES of guns manufacturers exposing their wares at the NRA convention. Now tell me again that the NRA isn't a gun manufacturers' lobby. Go ahead, I DARE YA!

Of course there would be firearm vendors at a convention of people wanting to protect their right to keep and beat arms. Duh!

However, there are about seven million individual NRA members, including myself that don't make money off the firearms industry that supports the NRA.

I don't think those two ladies make any money selling firearms, do you?

The NRA isn't a firearm manufacturer's lobby you nitwit. It is a grassroots Constitutional rights lobby. It is also the largest gun safety organization in the world.

If you stupid Moon Bats were really concerned about public safety you would join the NRA and be a part of an organization that protects our Constitutional rights, promotes responsible firearms safety procedures and legal firearms use.

Instead you are assholes that hate the right to keep and bear arms because it is a threat to your agenda to make this country a socialist shithole.

But where's my right to own any weapon I want? Like AA missiles or nukes? Does the NRA uphold my right to those arms? Or just the ones that gun manufacturers make? Why aren't they upset about my rights being infringed for cluster bombs or bunker busters? What up with that? Why weren't chemical weapons on display at their convention? How can I have a militia without them? The US government has them, why can't I?

The Constitution very clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That pretty well says that under strict scrutiny (that is usually used when determining Consitutional rights) that the government has very little leeway to ban anything.

The bit about advanced weapons is bullshit. Very few people could afford to own anything other than a small arm.

If I could afford a tank what is wrong with me having one if I didn't use it in a crime? I own a legal machine gun and have never used it in a crime.

The crime should never be the possession of an "arm" but the crime done with the arm.

So you're saying that an Arab-American who could afford a nuke should be allowed to have one, or more? Next door to you?

Who is the Muslim going to buy the nuke from since the only place that makes them is the US government? It is not like you can go to the 7-11 and buy one.

Besides under the NRC regulations to own nuclear material you have to get a license. I think the only licenses they issue are for instrumentation, medical isotopes and power plant generation.

You didn't answer my question Moon Bat.

If I could afford a tank and don't use it in a crime what is wrong with me owning one?

Re: tank, nothing wrong with you owning one, but same goes for AA missiles.

As for your regs on nuclear material, that is an infringement on my 2nd right.

 

[Dschrute3]

Not all African Americans are duped Communists/Democrats. Too many are, but not all. Thanks for the great post.

 

[Dschrute3]

Ha, i can see why the Facebook Democrat wankers banned em. They can't handle the truth. These ladies are awesome.

 

[Dschrute3]

 

[Flash]

[Q

Re: tank, nothing wrong with you owning one, but same goes for AA missiles.

As for your regs on nuclear material, that is an infringement on my 2nd right.

They are not my regs. They are the filthy ass government's regs.

I suspect that an AA system would cost you at least $100 million. Do you have that money to spend on that kind of range toy?

The crime should never be the possession of an arm but the crime that is done with it.

Goes hand in hand with the bit in the Constitution that says "shall not be infringed".

 

[Flash]

These two Black ladies gave the best speech at the NRA Convention.

"They don't need to rewrite the Constitution, they need to reread the Constitution".

"You need to come off that Democrat slave plantation" ,

Well that was fun. I like the new format - political speeches benefit greatly from a hype man.

This is why hope remains. Despite the spells and incantations emanating from the dark towers of sorcerers trying to enslave humanity, the light of truth persists, cutting through the haze (you'll forgive a little poetic prose here hahaha).

"Maybe if people had self-control, we wouldn't need no gun control."

This is profound beyond the reckoning of the person who spoke it, and (most likely) every other person sitting in that room. This points to morality as the only viable solution to man's problems, period. Yes, I am speaking in the absolute, and no, most people are not willing to acknowledge this fact because it's hard work and does not abide shortcuts.

The immorality of man is the problem cited to justify the "necessity" of governmental control in broad terms; of law and authority in general. However, this is a band-aid non-solution that addresses only symptoms; effects, and not causes. Many still believe there is hope via the political process, but that's like expecting the Advil people to champion the cause of curing headaches. Real solutions are bad for the business of politics.

"Yeah, but it's delusional to expect that everyone is going to be moral". Well, **** it, then. Let's just rape and kill each other. If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em, right? NO. Them's are weasel words. The talk of cowards. Even if we don't have the power to change others (and there's much we can do to help them along), we have absolute authority over ourselves. We do have free will - contrary to what some would have us believe - and we can choose morality over immorality, order over chaos.

If you understand that you have the unalienable right to own a gun, and that no man has a right to infringe upon that liberty, then to believe otherwise in regard to any other liberty makes you either an unfortunate victim of an elaborate mind control con-job, or a slithering self-serving hypocrite. ALL liberties are subject to the same arguments used to defend gun rights. ANY support of a system that denies man's inherent rights is an act of outright evil.

The answers do not lie in voting, protests, or legal recourse... in political rituals and ancient parchments. The answer lies in each of us committing to moral principles above all else - regardless of how inconvenient or contrary to the cultural paradigm that may be - and defending ourselves and our neighbors against those who refuse to embrace this commitment.

That is all fine but I think Diamond and Silk was just pointing out that Democrats are assholes.

Well, yes, but that (though true) is a very narrow view. I was illustrating how there is deeper wisdom in their words.

The deeper wisdom is fine but that was not what the speech by the two ladies was all about.

It was about the stupidity and oppression of the Democrats.

If we could all be good little boys and girls there would be no need for a lot of things but ever since Cain slewed Abel we pretty well know that ain't gonna happen.

The problem with the “ain’t gonna happen” theory of human morality is that by assuming a foregone conclusion, you discourage any effort in that direction. It’s an unfounded premise upon which a string of otherwise valid logic can be used to justify injustice (like the oppression you attribute to democrats, but seemingly fail to recognize in broader terms).

The social convention of covering one’s balls in public is almost universally accepted and willingly adopted, but this is a learned behavior. Why can’t morality become as universally accepted, particularly since there are much better reasons for adopting this practice?

There is a purposeful effort to hide the truth about morality and human nature. Morality is not relative, and it is not a function of time and place. However, our understanding of it is. Morality is the cause-and-effect of human behavior, and it is rooted in law, just like the laws of physics. But people will deny this, despite having not researched and understood the topic.

By throwing in the towel, we are confining our solutions to the realm of effect, not cause. Man’s law can never yield a universally peaceful, prosperous society because it only punishes acts that have already taken place. It does nothing to deal with the real issue. It’s like stopping at a station to put air in your tire every 10 miles, instead if fixing the flat. It’s precisely that irrational.

The futility you’re suggesting makes people believe that since immorality is here to stay, we may as well use it to our advantage. After all, it always offers short-term benefits. But we don’t like to be openly evil, so we hide behind religious beliefs about the laundering ability of governmental process.

To go to your neighbor’s house with a gun and drag him to a cage in your basement for growing pot would be considered insane and immoral. But if we vote for a man, and he writes a law, and a guy takes an oath and wears a piece of metal on his shirt, then we can have him do our dirty work, and no one is responsible. The voter isn’t responsible, he merely pulled a lever. The lawmaker isn’t responsible, he’s merely a representative of the people. The cop was only following orders, just “doing his job”, so it’s not his fault. So some guy misses his kids growing up for growing pot in his yard, and it’s no one’s fault. We can all sleep easy, except for him, but **** it, government is a “necessary evil” because mankind is immoral.

You see the problem.

God recognized the problem when he asked Cain what happen to Abel.

We humans are flawed. Even us righteous God fearing people are sinners. We are condemned to commit sin. Our salvation will never come about through deeds but by God's forgiveness.

Maybe if you are a member of the Church of Scientology you would think that you could pull yourself up by the bootstraps or that some aliens will save you but most religions understand that humans are pretty damned flawed.

Anyway I need my right to keep and bear arms so that I can protect myself from governments and thugs that didn't get the memo you are putting out.

 

[Dschrute3]

Democrats might not wanna tangle with these chicks anymore. They completely lit up the dumb Democrat Congress critters. Why would Democrats march out a known dumbass who claimed Guam might 'tip over?' How could they believe he wouldn't get his ass kicked? These women are light-years more intelligent than he is.

 

[Taz]

[Q

Re: tank, nothing wrong with you owning one, but same goes for AA missiles.

As for your regs on nuclear material, that is an infringement on my 2nd right.

They are not my regs. They are the filthy ass government's regs.

I suspect that an AA system would cost you at least $100 million. Do you have that money to spend on that kind of range toy?

The crime should never be the possession of an arm but the crime that is done with it.

Goes hand in hand with the bit in the Constitution that says "shall not be infringed".

I agree with you about the infringing. So Arab-American with enough money should be able to own AA missiles and more...?

 

[Flash]

[Q

Re: tank, nothing wrong with you owning one, but same goes for AA missiles.

As for your regs on nuclear material, that is an infringement on my 2nd right.

They are not my regs. They are the filthy ass government's regs.

I suspect that an AA system would cost you at least $100 million. Do you have that money to spend on that kind of range toy?

The crime should never be the possession of an arm but the crime that is done with it.

Goes hand in hand with the bit in the Constitution that says "shall not be infringed".

I agree with you about the infringing. So Arab-American with enough money should be able to own AA missiles and more...?

If a ******* Muslim wants to commit a crime with any weapon then no law is going to stop him.

If you agree with me that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then good for you.

Now answer this question for me, Moon Bat.

There were 500,000 bump stocks sold in the US.

One person commits a crime with them. Why should the other 499,999 people that own bump stocks and never committed a crime have their rights infringed upon?

 

[Taz]

[Q

Re: tank, nothing wrong with you owning one, but same goes for AA missiles.

As for your regs on nuclear material, that is an infringement on my 2nd right.

They are not my regs. They are the filthy ass government's regs.

I suspect that an AA system would cost you at least $100 million. Do you have that money to spend on that kind of range toy?

The crime should never be the possession of an arm but the crime that is done with it.

Goes hand in hand with the bit in the Constitution that says "shall not be infringed".

I agree with you about the infringing. So Arab-American with enough money should be able to own AA missiles and more...?

If a ******* Muslim wants to commit a crime with any weapon then no law is going to stop him.

If you agree with me that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then good for you.

Now answer this question for me, Moon Bat.

There were 500,000 bump stocks sold in the US.

One person commits a crime with them. Why should the other 499,999 people that own bump stocks and never committed a crime have their rights infringed upon?

They shouldn't. And children should be allowed to carry at school to protect themselves. There's no age limit in the 2nd.

 

[Flash]

[Q

They shouldn't.And children should be allowed to carry at school to protect themselves. There's no age limit in the 2nd .

Good for you!

So does that also mean that my granddaughter who will be seven years old in 2020 can vote for Trump?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Well that was fun. I like the new format - political speeches benefit greatly from a hype man.

This is why hope remains. Despite the spells and incantations emanating from the dark towers of sorcerers trying to enslave humanity, the light of truth persists, cutting through the haze (you'll forgive a little poetic prose here hahaha).

"Maybe if people had self-control, we wouldn't need no gun control."

This is profound beyond the reckoning of the person who spoke it, and (most likely) every other person sitting in that room. This points to morality as the only viable solution to man's problems, period. Yes, I am speaking in the absolute, and no, most people are not willing to acknowledge this fact because it's hard work and does not abide shortcuts.

The immorality of man is the problem cited to justify the "necessity" of governmental control in broad terms; of law and authority in general. However, this is a band-aid non-solution that addresses only symptoms; effects, and not causes. Many still believe there is hope via the political process, but that's like expecting the Advil people to champion the cause of curing headaches. Real solutions are bad for the business of politics.

"Yeah, but it's delusional to expect that everyone is going to be moral". Well, **** it, then. Let's just rape and kill each other. If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em, right? NO. Them's are weasel words. The talk of cowards. Even if we don't have the power to change others (and there's much we can do to help them along), we have absolute authority over ourselves. We do have free will - contrary to what some would have us believe - and we can choose morality over immorality, order over chaos.

If you understand that you have the unalienable right to own a gun, and that no man has a right to infringe upon that liberty, then to believe otherwise in regard to any other liberty makes you either an unfortunate victim of an elaborate mind control con-job, or a slithering self-serving hypocrite. ALL liberties are subject to the same arguments used to defend gun rights. ANY support of a system that denies man's inherent rights is an act of outright evil.

The answers do not lie in voting, protests, or legal recourse... in political rituals and ancient parchments. The answer lies in each of us committing to moral principles above all else - regardless of how inconvenient or contrary to the cultural paradigm that may be - and defending ourselves and our neighbors against those who refuse to embrace this commitment.

That is all fine but I think Diamond and Silk was just pointing out that Democrats are assholes.

Well, yes, but that (though true) is a very narrow view. I was illustrating how there is deeper wisdom in their words.

The deeper wisdom is fine but that was not what the speech by the two ladies was all about.

It was about the stupidity and oppression of the Democrats.

If we could all be good little boys and girls there would be no need for a lot of things but ever since Cain slewed Abel we pretty well know that ain't gonna happen.

The problem with the “ain’t gonna happen” theory of human morality is that by assuming a foregone conclusion, you discourage any effort in that direction. It’s an unfounded premise upon which a string of otherwise valid logic can be used to justify injustice (like the oppression you attribute to democrats, but seemingly fail to recognize in broader terms).

The social convention of covering one’s balls in public is almost universally accepted and willingly adopted, but this is a learned behavior. Why can’t morality become as universally accepted, particularly since there are much better reasons for adopting this practice?

There is a purposeful effort to hide the truth about morality and human nature. Morality is not relative, and it is not a function of time and place. However, our understanding of it is. Morality is the cause-and-effect of human behavior, and it is rooted in law, just like the laws of physics. But people will deny this, despite having not researched and understood the topic.

By throwing in the towel, we are confining our solutions to the realm of effect, not cause. Man’s law can never yield a universally peaceful, prosperous society because it only punishes acts that have already taken place. It does nothing to deal with the real issue. It’s like stopping at a station to put air in your tire every 10 miles, instead if fixing the flat. It’s precisely that irrational.

The futility you’re suggesting makes people believe that since immorality is here to stay, we may as well use it to our advantage. After all, it always offers short-term benefits. But we don’t like to be openly evil, so we hide behind religious beliefs about the laundering ability of governmental process.

To go to your neighbor’s house with a gun and drag him to a cage in your basement for growing pot would be considered insane and immoral. But if we vote for a man, and he writes a law, and a guy takes an oath and wears a piece of metal on his shirt, then we can have him do our dirty work, and no one is responsible. The voter isn’t responsible, he merely pulled a lever. The lawmaker isn’t responsible, he’s merely a representative of the people. The cop was only following orders, just “doing his job”, so it’s not his fault. So some guy misses his kids growing up for growing pot in his yard, and it’s no one’s fault. We can all sleep easy, except for him, but **** it, government is a “necessary evil” because mankind is immoral.

You see the problem.

God recognized the problem when he asked Cain what happen to Abel.

We humans are flawed. Even us righteous God fearing people are sinners. We are condemned to commit sin. Our salvation will never come about through deeds but by God's forgiveness.

Maybe if you are a member of the Church of Scientology you would think that you could pull yourself up by the bootstraps or that some aliens will save you but most religions understand that humans are pretty damned flawed.

Anyway I need my right to keep and bear arms so that I can protect myself from governments and thugs that didn't get the memo you are putting out.

Bah! This makes no sense, even on the face of it. So humans are flawed, all that means is we can’t attain perfection. Obviously God set down moral commandments because it’s expected that we should make an attempt to be moral people. I’m not talking about salvation by bootstraps, I’m talking about an improved human condition on this planet.

The notion that moral uplift is hopeless so we should content ourselves with moral mediocrity is misantrhopic. My main concern is what you and I are doing personally. Are we committing immoral acts by proxy because we’ve succumbed to a poisoned worldview that says evil is necessary for man to have order, or are we living righteously by removing our support from an immoral system and opening the path for man to achieve his full social and moral potential?

 

[miketx]

Looks like the democrats are gonna need to build a wall around the plantation to keep all their slaves in.

 

[Flash]

That is all fine but I think Diamond and Silk was just pointing out that Democrats are assholes.

Well, yes, but that (though true) is a very narrow view. I was illustrating how there is deeper wisdom in their words.

The deeper wisdom is fine but that was not what the speech by the two ladies was all about.

It was about the stupidity and oppression of the Democrats.

If we could all be good little boys and girls there would be no need for a lot of things but ever since Cain slewed Abel we pretty well know that ain't gonna happen.

The problem with the “ain’t gonna happen” theory of human morality is that by assuming a foregone conclusion, you discourage any effort in that direction. It’s an unfounded premise upon which a string of otherwise valid logic can be used to justify injustice (like the oppression you attribute to democrats, but seemingly fail to recognize in broader terms).

The social convention of covering one’s balls in public is almost universally accepted and willingly adopted, but this is a learned behavior. Why can’t morality become as universally accepted, particularly since there are much better reasons for adopting this practice?

There is a purposeful effort to hide the truth about morality and human nature. Morality is not relative, and it is not a function of time and place. However, our understanding of it is. Morality is the cause-and-effect of human behavior, and it is rooted in law, just like the laws of physics. But people will deny this, despite having not researched and understood the topic.

By throwing in the towel, we are confining our solutions to the realm of effect, not cause. Man’s law can never yield a universally peaceful, prosperous society because it only punishes acts that have already taken place. It does nothing to deal with the real issue. It’s like stopping at a station to put air in your tire every 10 miles, instead if fixing the flat. It’s precisely that irrational.

The futility you’re suggesting makes people believe that since immorality is here to stay, we may as well use it to our advantage. After all, it always offers short-term benefits. But we don’t like to be openly evil, so we hide behind religious beliefs about the laundering ability of governmental process.

To go to your neighbor’s house with a gun and drag him to a cage in your basement for growing pot would be considered insane and immoral. But if we vote for a man, and he writes a law, and a guy takes an oath and wears a piece of metal on his shirt, then we can have him do our dirty work, and no one is responsible. The voter isn’t responsible, he merely pulled a lever. The lawmaker isn’t responsible, he’s merely a representative of the people. The cop was only following orders, just “doing his job”, so it’s not his fault. So some guy misses his kids growing up for growing pot in his yard, and it’s no one’s fault. We can all sleep easy, except for him, but **** it, government is a “necessary evil” because mankind is immoral.

You see the problem.

God recognized the problem when he asked Cain what happen to Abel.

We humans are flawed. Even us righteous God fearing people are sinners. We are condemned to commit sin. Our salvation will never come about through deeds but by God's forgiveness.

Maybe if you are a member of the Church of Scientology you would think that you could pull yourself up by the bootstraps or that some aliens will save you but most religions understand that humans are pretty damned flawed.

Anyway I need my right to keep and bear arms so that I can protect myself from governments and thugs that didn't get the memo you are putting out.

Bah! This makes no sense, even on the face of it. So humans are flawed, all that means is we can’t attain perfection. Obviously God set down moral commandments because it’s expected that we should make an attempt to be moral people. I’m not talking about salvation by bootstraps, I’m talking about an improved human condition on this planet.

The notion that moral uplift is hopeless so we should content ourselves with moral mediocrity is misantrhopic. My main concern is what you and I are doing personally. Are we committing immoral acts by proxy because we’ve succumbed to a poisoned worldview that says evil is necessary for man to have order, or are we living righteously by removing our support from an immoral system and opening the path for man to achieve his full social and moral potential?

Those Ten Commandments didn't work work out very well, did it?

In fact that old covenant was trashed in favor of the New Covenant, wasn't it? One in which God recognized that were all sinners but would forgive us.

With so many sinners in the world it is good to have the right to keep and bear arms so that we all can protect ourselves and our families from evil doers, isn't it?

 

[Taz]

[Q

They shouldn't.And children should be allowed to carry at school to protect themselves. There's no age limit in the 2nd .

Good for you!

So does that also mean that my granddaughter who will be seven years old in 2020 can vote for Trump?

has nothing to do with the 2nd.

 

[conserveguy877]

Why are the snowflakes so obsessed with Nora now? Leave her alone!