7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—bakerjrae”

  1. That messaging needs to be seen by our fellow citizens who vote for the ones who promise to take guns.

    If more people realize what is being given up for the false promises of safety, one would hope fewer would vote the way they do.

    • Interesting, isn’t it, that we have so-called “protections” of our rights built into the constitution and yet we all think, speak and act as though any or all of our rights could be voted away at any time?

      The constitution exists so as to make it impossible to simply vote away the rights of other people.

      Or does it?

      Certainly, those who drafted and ratified the constitution thought it OK that a super majority of the states could vote away people’s rights.

      So in the thinking of the founders there are no absolutes. The use of the word “unalienable” in the Declaration is contradicted by the super majority rule.

      They said that rights are endowed by our Creator, and yet they left provisions, or allowances, for a super majority to obliterate any and all protections of those rights.

      And our culture tells us that anyone who believes in absolutes is an “extremist”.

      This means that stubborn adherence to the concept of God-given and therefore unalienable rights is “extremism” or “fundamentalism” and is therefore, we are programmed to believe, dangerous and probably even inherently criminal.

      It “violates the rights” of a majority to violate rights, you see.

      Such is the state of the world, that most people, although they’ll rarely articulate it in public, actually believe that.

      In fact, real protection of your rights would mean that no majority, of any proportion, could ever vote away those protections.

      Instead, we’re continually in a state of war, in which voting factions seek to annihilate either the rights, or the privileges of “legal” coercion, from the other factions.

      Is that not proof that the system is irretrievably corrupt? And if it is irretrievably corrupt, then our choices would be limited to two; participate in this corrupt system and thus be corrupt ourselves, or have no part in it. A or B.

      I don’t know, so I ask.

      I know all the standard arguments. We all do, ad nauseum, so don’t anyone waste your time repeating any of them. Go and watch the old “Douche and a Turd” episode of South Park before you join in the conversation.

      • The Bible tells us that man is fallen. Therefor we happy few that inhabit this rock will always be at war.
        Fast forward, Rights are never “inalienable”, because the only people guarding those rights are as fallen as those trying to deprive humanity of them.
        Here, try this on. Your already dead. (matter of time) War is the only constant.(see it ending anytime soon?)
        Si vis pacem para bellem. (if you would have peace, prepare for war.) Jesus told us it was better to be broke and cold, but have a sword. Than not. He knew something we don’t?( He’s the only human I trust.)
        When to fight? Always! As,” Vigilance is the price of freedom”.
        When should you actually shoot back? “When you see the whites of their eye’s!”

  3. That is certainly a death threat, so let’s not argue when the leftists accuse gun owners of making threats of violence.

    Further; everything the left does, and everything the left wants to do, is based on wholesale coercion, backed, ultimately, by a death threat. So both sides are backed by death threats.

    In the issuing of death threats then, is one side more righteous than the other? Is there such a thing as a righteous death threat at all? If so the circumstances would be few and extremely limited in scope.

    One side might in theory be right in their fundamental beliefs (assuming they have any – popular culture tells us we should never have fundamental beliefs because such things are dangerous – and THAT is, in and of itself, a fundamental belief) but the death threats are perhaps another matter.

    The Bible tells us that “the wages of sin is death”, but don’t make the mistake of taking that as a death threat, per se. It’s like warning children against playing ball on the edge of a cliff, or against drinking poison. You’re not threatening to kill them. You’re warning them of a threat to their lives which they in their ignorance fail to perceive, in the hope that they’ll begin to perceive and thus their lives might be saved.

Comments are closed.