Oliver North query

[ja308]

Originally Posted by eta34

Lol. I’m a very religious and moral person. I’m a Christian. I have been a youth leader for many years. I vote republican. I am an NRA member. These characteristics have nothing to do with my right to possess a firearm.

See, the 2nd amendment isn’t conditional. It is a right that shall not be infringed. Sure, most of us can agree that violent felons shouldn’t possess guns. Most of us will not agree that the 2nd amendment applies only to religious and moral people.

Do you really believe what you are saying? Is it your personal opinion, or one you believe the NRA should endorse? Maybe you can write this stuff down and send it to the NRA attorneys. Surely if they presented your stellar analysis in court, the war against the 2a would be over.

its my personal opinion based on the fact immoral persons commit crimes against persons with firearms. eliminate immoral people from guns and they need to find other tools.
synonyms for immoral
"bad, black, dark, evil, iniquitous, nefarious, rotten, sinful, unethical, unlawful, unrighteous, unsavory, vicious, vile, villainous, wicked, wrong."

democrats are confused as to what male or female is and they should not own guns as mental illness indicates instability !

Would I pass a law ? probably not but I would give an FFL the ability to opt out of any gun sale for persons he thought were unstable or immoral!

[FabulousSeal]

Originally Posted by eta34

No. The NRA does not agree with you. The 2nd amendment does not agree with you. You are as bad, or worse, than the leftist gun grabbers.

There are plenty of current and former military members who vote democrat. Plenty of them are non-religious. You want them disarmed. It’s disgusting and pathetic.

Couldn't have said this better myself.

Originally Posted by ja308

its my personal opinion based on the fact immoral persons commit crimes against persons with firearms. eliminate immoral people from guns and they need to find other tools.
synonyms for immoral
"bad, black, dark, evil, iniquitous, nefarious, rotten, sinful, unethical, unlawful, unrighteous, unsavory, vicious, vile, villainous, wicked, wrong."

democrats are confused as to what male or female is and they should not own guns as mental illness indicates instability !

Would I pass a law ? probably not but I would give an FFL the ability to opt out of any gun sale for persons he thought were unstable or immoral!

You seem to be confused, and you don't understand the difference between morality and religion. One need not be religious to be a moral person. Also why are you listing synonyms for immoral, and why is the word black in there?

[ja308]

Originally Posted by FabulousSeal

Couldn't have said this better myself.


You seem to be confused, and you don't understand the difference between morality and religion. One need not be religious to be a moral person. Also why are you listing synonyms for immoral, and why is the word black in there?

Ah yes we are faced with a tough choice who is better educated and who has done more for freedom.
We study John Adams signer of the declaration, scholar, president and was there during the war for independence.
Then we have a JR cal gunner who goes by fabulous seal!
Lets see what the mis guided Adams had to say:
https://wallbuilders.com/importance-...on-government/

There are three points of doctrine the belief of which
forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the
second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state
of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either
of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will
have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind
him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous,
or happy.

(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John
Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M.
Alden, 1850), pp. 22-23.)

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish
the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of
a free constitution is pure virtue.

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending
with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution
was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the
government of any other.

Sorry but even a cal gunner of your stature cannot compete with the wisdom of those who founded the only free nation on earth.
There was one other, but the population of sheep (not cal gunners) demanded a King!

I took the synonyms for immoral from the very lame brained Merriam Webster. Their examples of immoral are a border wall etc.

[FabulousSeal]

Ok. Thomas Jefferson also participated in the founding of the only free nation on earth and he had some different things to say about religion.

Also let's not quote John Adams like he's infallible. I can critique his and your narrow views on morality just as well as you can parrot his talking points. If religion is the only thing keeping you from doing bad things, you're not a very moral person at all. Moral people do good things because they benefit their families, countrymen, and sometimes, themselves. People act in certain ways in short because it makes them feel good. People do good acts because seeing others benefit from those acts makes them feel good. People who deviate from this value their own well-being more than that of their fellow man, and they act in a way that is anti-social and what we would consider immoral. All of this can be derived outside the confines of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or what have you.

[ja308]

Originally Posted by FabulousSeal

Ok. Thomas Jefferson also participated in the founding of the only free nation on earth and he had some different things to say about religion.

Also let's not quote John Adams like he's infallible. I can critique his and your narrow views on morality just as well as you can parrot his talking points. If religion is the only thing keeping you from doing bad things, you're not a very moral person at all. Moral people do good things because they benefit their families, countrymen, and sometimes, themselves. People act in certain ways in short because it makes them feel good. People do good acts because seeing others benefit from those acts makes them feel good. People who deviate from this value their own well-being more than that of their fellow man, and they act in a way that is anti-social and what we would consider immoral. All of this can be derived outside the confines of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or what have you.

You are correct it is possible for morality to exist without religion, but its the exception not the rule.

Its true I have lots of respect and admiration for those who signed the declaration and I believe if you think about his quote. "Our constitution was made only for a religious moral people..."
you will agree that religious moral people are not the problem.

We have all heard of what is termed bad areas, places you would not want to go anytime, because of a real danger you could be robbed, beated, killed, etc. Do you agree there are places that are really bad areas? I am referring to USA exclusively.
I recent read Colin Flaretys book " White Girl Bleeds a Lot where he documents 100s of examples of the Knock out game and un provoked attacks, mob behavior, violence, property damage and massive theft.

These un provoked violent attacks and mob behavior are exactly what Adams knew would happen without religion and morality.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...rl-bleed-a-lot

[Frito Bandido]

Originally Posted by ja308

Its true I have lots of respect and admiration for those who signed the declaration and I believe if you think about his quote. "Our constitution was made only for a religious moral people..."

Question for you ja308:

If "Our constitution was made only for a religious moral people...", how do you think that fits in with the First Amendment protection against restrictions on the free exercise of religion?

If the First Amendment establishes that people are free to practice a religion of their preference without being deprived of their rights, why should they be denied their Second Amendment rights if they happen to pick the "wrong" religion which may have a different perspective on morality?

From my perspective, denying someone their natural rights based on what religion they practice is an immoral act in and of itself.

Who's to say which one of us has the correct interpretation of morality in this instance and who gets to pick which individuals are deprived of their natural rights? That line of enforced religiosity can be a very slippery slope...

[ja308]

Originally Posted by Frito Bandido

Question for you ja308:

If "Our constitution was made only for a religious moral people...", how do you think that fits in with the First Amendment protection against restrictions on the free exercise of religion?

If the First Amendment establishes that people are free to practice a religion of their preference without being deprived of their rights, why should they be denied their Second Amendment rights if they happen to pick the "wrong" religion which may have a different perspective on morality?

From my perspective, denying someone their natural rights based on what religion they practice is an immoral act in and of itself.

Who's to say which one of us has the correct interpretation of morality in this instance and who gets to pick which individuals are deprived of their natural rights?

Correct the 1st amendment protects religious beliefs and does not even imply what religious path one should take. It was implied that one should have a religion that incorporates what Adams said,

"There are three points of doctrine the belief of which
forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the
second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state
of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either
of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will
have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind
him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous,
or happy." John Adams

I think Adams put forth a thoughtful, accurate view on what it takes for morality and happiness.

does that work ?

[Frito Bandido]

Originally Posted by ja308

Correct the 1st amendment protects religious beliefs and does not even imply what religious path one should take. It was implied that one should have a religion that incorporates what Adams said,

"There are three points of doctrine the belief of which
forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the
second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state
of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either
of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will
have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind
him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous,
or happy." John Adams

I think Adams put forth a thoughtful, accurate view on what it takes for morality and happiness.

does that work ?

I disagree with his view that in order for a person to be moral, it absolutely requires them to recognize the existence of God, the immortality of the human soul, and the future state of rewards and punishments (heaven & hell). I don't know many atheists or agnostics, but the few I do know live good, productive lives and unless you got into a conversation about religion with them, you'd never know they were non-believers.

I believe people can still act in a moral way without prescribing to a religious doctrine. I also believe people can act in immoral ways while prescribing to a religious doctrine.

I get where he's coming from though. I do believe that having a strong moral compass can have it's foundation firmly cemented in religion. On the other hand, I also believe it can have it's foundation in ethics, empathy, and a sense of compassion borne out of a sense of solidarity with your fellow human beings - one not tied to religious doctrine but simply out of universal values that transcend creed and culture.

[ja308]

Originally Posted by Frito Bandido

I disagree with his view that in order for a person to be moral, it absolutely requires them to recognize the existence of God, the immortality of the human soul, and the future state of rewards and punishments (heaven & hell). I don't know many atheists or agnostics, but the few I do know live good, productive lives and unless you got into a conversation about religion with them, you'd never know they were non-believers.

I believe people can still act in a moral way without prescribing to a religious doctrine. I also believe people can act in immoral ways while prescribing to a religious doctrine.

I get where he's coming from though. I do believe that having a strong moral compass can have it's foundation firmly cemented in religion. On the other hand, I also believe it can have it's foundation in ethics, empathy, and a sense of compassion borne out of a sense of solidarity with your fellow human beings - one not tied to religious doctrine but simply out of universal values that transcend creed and culture.

You doubt have heard of the couple walking when quickly approaching them were 4 large black men and as the story goes “We were so relieved when we heard one exclaim to another. “ wow that sure was a powerful bible study”

Just saying that John Adams statement can be proven daily when we look at the absolute evil

[eta34]

So this story of a couple’s racism supports John Adams somehow? So now only moral, religious, and white people should own guns?

[ja308]

Originally Posted by eta34

So this story of a couple’s racism supports John Adams somehow? So now only moral, religious, and white people should own guns?

Story hit home didn't it ! Only moral religious people should own guns.

My GF went to the NRA convention in free state Indiana. Sun morning she choose a church for us to attend. It didn't take long to see the entire church attendee's were black . We stayed and enjoyed the service,sermon, music and seeing faithful people so well dressed and joyous!
We both had our NRA badges around our necks and mine had an added TRUMP 2020 button and My SO had a Melania button.

After the service these friendly, moral,religious people welcomed us, shook hands and asked where we were from .
One church attendee wearing a nice suit and about 50 was also wearing an NRA badge.
He told me about enjoying the NRA convention. He also said at least 15 people were armed within the church.
We of course were pleased to feel so protected against unprincipled, immoral people who would do others harm!

[Suresh*t]

**opens door to see if sh*tshow is still going on**

Originally Posted by ja308

only moral religious people should own guns.

It didn't take long to see the entire church attendee's were black . We stayed and enjoyed the service,sermon, music and seeing faithful people so well dressed and joyous!

After the service these friendly, moral,religious people welcomed us, shook hands and asked where we were from .
One church attendee wearing a nice suit

**backs out of room and closes door**

[ja308]

Originally Posted by Suresh*t

**opens door to see if sh*tshow is still going on**



**backs out of room and closes door**

I am pleased you are in agreement that "our constitution was made only for a religious moral people" Thank you !

[eta34]

^Only it wasn’t. Please stop spouting this nonsense. You are a bigot and a moron. You are a true enemy of the 2nd amendment.

[eta34]

Also, JA, you never answered my question. What do you do with military members who are not moral and religious? Do you take away their guns too? You have clearly asserted that the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to them.

I have know many veterans who are not religious. They don’t fit my views of morality. But they aren’t criminals and don’t hurt anyone. They were brave combat soldiers and marines. Should they not own guns?

[ja308]

Originally Posted by eta34

Also, JA, you never answered my question. What do you do with military members who are not moral and religious? Do you take away their guns too? You have clearly asserted that the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to them.

I have know many veterans who are not religious. They don’t fit my views of morality. But they aren’t criminals and don’t hurt anyone. They were brave combat soldiers and marines. Should they not own guns?

1st off the Marine Corp did require a Marine to have a religion and is also included in the oath to protect the constitution. "so help me god..."

Its very telling that you must resort to calling me names for advocating a policy you disagree with. It is not bigoted to reference a group who has an extremely high percentage of criminality and violence. Because too many people in this demographic have turned away from religion and morality. Many have fallen prey to the communist propaganda spewed by by democrat media and their sycophantic followers in positions of authority. These types know the best way to take down American liberty is to recruit a nation of godless, immoral pawns who require police state measures, including loss of gun rights!

I will flat out say all the shootings, dope peddling,rapes .violence we read about every day are the result of people not being moral or religious. This is true of every criminal who as Adams said have the morality of " the tiger or shark".
If you have evidence this is not correct, post it !

http://whitegirlbleedalot.com

[wpage]

The point of Oliver North a former lt colnel in the US Marines. Indicates a moral issue that he did not agree with the compass direction the NRA had taken under the direction of Wayne LaPierre amoung others.

How this all shakes out time will tell...

[Frito Bandido]

Originally Posted by ja308

1st off the Marine Corp did require a Marine to have a religion and is also included in the oath to protect the constitution. "so help me god..."

The "No Religious Test Clause" of the Constitution - Article VI, Clause 3 states that no federal officeholder or employee can be required to adhere to or accept any particular religion or doctrine as a prerequisite to holding federal office or a federal government job.

At some point you have to determine what holds more weight - the actual text of the Constitution that was the consensus agreed upon by all the Founding Fathers at the constitutional convention or some obscure quotes from John Adams. Based on your earlier statements that Democrats and non-religious people do not have 2A rights, I have a good idea of which one you'd go with.

[ja308]

George Washington, Address of George
Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination
(Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address
to the United States in 1796.)

[T]he [federal] government . . . can never be in danger
of degenerating into a monarchy, and oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any other
despotic or oppressive form so long as there shall remain any virtue in the
body of the people.

While the founders wisely did not recommend any particular denomination of religion it was expected each would be religious and moral.
Its painful obvious what society becomes when the state is worshipped over the creator!