Sorry. Civil rights is not in the 'Bill of rights'. It came much later. Do they teach history in your black churches? No doubt, a perverted history.
Stranger
USA riots
- Thread starter Cristo Rei
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Sorry. Civil rights is not in the 'Bill of rights'. It came much later. Do they teach history in your black churches? No doubt, a perverted history.
Stranger
bukka
Well-Known Member
This has already been answered historyb in my summary argumentation: I have taken the positions of these two posters to their simple logical conclusion. This is done to show the falsity of their positions. At bottom, both of these posters are still defaming lawful citizens, equating them with the criminals that have infiltrated their assemblies. This position of these posters has not changed. I cannot accept the defamation of lawful protesters exercising their constitutional right of assembly to seek redress of grievances, particularly that of police murder and voter suppression.
So I asked these posters, do you hold all gun owners responsible for the criminals that infiltrate their ranks to possess and use firearms to commit crimes such as robbery or murder? Are you sure about this? Do you want your guns taken away from you. This is another application of the logic these posters are using. I have continued to ask, why you can't be morally consistent? Again, the logical conclusion of your arguments so far, is that you want to take away the Bill of Rights from Americans.
Are you angry that the Bill of Rights are in the hands of a race different from yourself? I have to wonder that. It's getting more and more like it is. I don't know why you hate the Bill of Rights except that it may be cherished by people you don't like.
bukka
Well-Known Member
Civil rights are based on the Bill of Rights, Stranger. Your gun rights, for example, are contained in the 2nd Amendment.
At this point who cares if the protestors are angry? They have set race relations back decades by thier actions. What do you want, anarchy? That's not going to be so happy for you when it's your neighborhood they trash.
bukka
Well-Known Member
This posting is logically coherent and still stands. To deny it, you deny gun rights.
Since I've been flooded with postings meant to annoy me and to make answering difficult, I will wait to see if marks and Rennik can answer the following:
I have taken the positions of these two posters to their simple logical conclusion. This is done to show the falsity of their positions. At bottom, both of these posters are still defaming lawful citizens, equating them with the criminals that have infiltrated their assemblies. This position of these posters has not changed. I cannot accept the defamation of lawful protesters exercising their constitutional right of assembly to seek redress of grievances, particularly that of police murder and voter suppression.
So I asked these posters, do you hold all gun owners responsible for the criminals that infiltrate their ranks to possess and use firearms to commit crimes such as robbery or murder? Are you sure about this? Do you want your guns taken away from you. This is another application of the logic these posters are using. I have continued to ask, why you can't be morally consistent? Again, the logical conclusion of your arguments so far, is that you want to take away the Bill of Rights from Americans.
Are you angry that the Bill of Rights are in the hands of a race different from yourself? I have to wonder that. It's getting more and more like it is. I don't know why you hate the Bill of Rights except that it may be cherished by people you don't like.
I have always asserted that BLM was not a specifically Christian organization. I do not believe that civil rights be based upon religious belief; and, in state religions of any type. I don't think that churches should be dependent upon governmental tax dollars with the ministers being appointed or confirmed to their office by the government. I think that is something that is set up for anti-christ.
I THINK THE POSTERS ARE NOT ANSWERING ME BECAUSE THEY CANNOT ANSWER ME. THE LOGIC IS IRREFUTABLE AND SO THEY SEEK TO HARASS AND ANNOY ME AND AVOID ANY TYPE OF LOGICAL ARGUMENTATION.
Again I ask, why not consider the Golden Rule for a change? This is the moral basis for the right of assembly specifically, and for the Bill of Rights, generally. Let us follow Christ and love others as we wish ourselves to be loved. The Golden Rule establishes equity in law.
Yes, I know. That is part of the Bill of Rights. Your 'Civil Rights' came later. Again, do they teach history in those black churches? Or do they just teach activism? You and I both know the answer.
Stranger
bukka
Well-Known Member
All civil right are based on the Bill of Rights, even large texts of case law, Stranger. Those case laws are intended to explain the meaning of the Bill of Rights.
I can post the same nonsense over and over too, doesn't make it any more sensible. I love the part about the golden rule, lol. Yes those violent protesters were sure following the golden rule!
Bull****. You don't even know why your 'civil rights' came about. Do you? Explain.
Stranger
bukka
Well-Known Member
You're just failing to answer the argument, Renniks. I guess you're against gun rights.
bukka
Well-Known Member
I've already explained, Stranger. Would you say that marks and Renniks feel the same about black people as you do? I'm curious since I'm relatively new here.
On this I agree.
As for the rest . . . You just keep coming back to this ridiculousness that I somehow hate the bill of rights, or that it's "in someone else's hands", have no idea what you could mean by that.
This is a thread about the riots. I'm talking about what I've seen in these riots. You are intent in somehow using this thread convincing me that BLM is such a lily-white organization, or should as say "orchid-black"? Anyway, that they are so pure and all, and no one should mind what they are doing.
Well I see what they are doing, and I do mind, because they trample the rights of others. And approve of those who so do, welcoming them with open arms for the most part.
And you want to tell me that no one in BLM are the ones doing all the bad acts? Keep telling yourself that, but it's not working on me.
What I can't stand is to see so many govenment agencies cow-tow to BLM. NYC painting "Black lives matter" on all their streets?
Some white lady going to a black protester, to give an apology, he tells her to kiss his feet, and she does it! I don't know which I find more outrageous.
Kiss his feet? For something she never even did? And more likely than not was never done to him? But that's what this is all about.
Your protesters what to take our bill of rights and stand it on its head, and put a black foot on white necks across the US, no matter that the absolutely huge majority of us have never done anything against a black person in our lives.
And I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and ignore what is in front of my eyes no matter how much you want it, and no matter how much you repeat the party line.
No you haven't. If so, give me the post number.
I don't know them. And what does it matter. Answer my question. Or can you?
Stranger
I doubt it too Wiles was ever in the military.
It used to be almost impossible for someone to get elected as President without some military experience. The one thing I do like about people who have been in the military is that they know the horrors of war and they know it's not something to go into lightly. That was a big reason I supported McCain when he ran. How Trump insulted McCain is another reason I find Trump so loathsome. Trump evaded the draft by bribing a doctor to say he had bone spurs (but then went on to play squash and football in college) and then said McCain was not a war hero since he had allowed himself to be captured?
I was never in the military myself, but Trump's insult to McCain horrified me. I think it horrifed many people who had been in the military. I know it horrified a friend of mine who had been in the Vietnam War. Trump's recent threat to use the military on protesters also horrified some retired generals like Colin Powell.
Since you are new, I don't mind explaining, I don't "feel about black people". I'm not racist. I never have been. Wasn't raised that way. I don't always even really notice skin color or ethnic appearance.
I was watching a movie the other day, it was about 30 minutes into it when I realized another part of the storyline was that this was a "mixed marriage" so called. White guy married to a black lady. I mentioned it to my wife, and she pointed out the very oriental boy who was the son.
Do you have different feelings about black people from white people?
bukka
Well-Known Member
The post number is #669, Stranger. The answer is relatively simple. Case law, or should I say statutory law is based on the constitution.
And the people in the suburbs say, "Oh no. It was okay as long the cities were in turmoil, but don't come to the suburbs to threaten our white lifestyle. Quick, Trump, call out the military."
bukka
Well-Known Member
The cowards and chickenhawks are that way, Giuliano, which is unfortunate. I was wealthy enough to dodge military service. Most of the people who casually talk about a civil war don't know what they're getting into. With modern economies, there will be mass starvation in a civil war. And with modern weapons the killing will be very very easy.
- Status
Similar threads
