America founded by whites... for whites

[Porter Rockwell]

Instead of hijacking someone else's thread, I wanted to defend the title of this thread by creating a thread to talk about one thing. However, before I do, I want to ask each of you a question: If I tell you that due to the court case of Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal in America, does that make me pro-abortion for stating a fact?

In this thread, I will give you the facts. I'll also put perspective into it and challenge my critics to respond without name calling and without long harangues to try and derail the thread. If you participate and you begin name calling, it will be noted and then no future responses will be required as you will have lost any pretend debate. Secondary, I will not respond to long diatribes that look like a book. Let's make our posts not exceed about a dozen paragraphs (give or take a few sentences. That said, let's rock:

The United States was founded by white Christians for the benefit of white Christians. Personally, I do not find it racist or white supremacist in its proper context. But, what I'm telling you is true. The very first governing document of the New World began with these words:

'In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith..." (see the Mayflower Compact of 1620)

About a decade later in 1630, aboard the ship the Arbella, John Winthrop gave a sermon that has been cited (in part) by all kinds of statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan. I'd like to give a couple of excerpts from that sermon and put this into perspective:

"First, in regard of the more near bond of marriage between Him and us, wherein He hath taken us to be His, after a most strict and peculiar manner, which will make Him the more jealous of our love and obedience. So He tells the people of Israel, you only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your transgressions.

...Thirdly, when God gives a special commission He looks to have it strictly observed in every article; When He gave Saul a commission to destroy Amaleck, He indented with him upon certain articles, and because he failed in one of the least, and that upon a fair pretense, it lost him the kingdom, which should have been his reward, if he had observed his commission.

...Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission..."

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

The ONLY people to have a special commission from God were the biblical Israelites. That is how the colonists viewed themselves: They were the Israelites of the Bible; the land we call America was the promised land - the New Jerusalem.

http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com/Unsealings/1425.pdf

Yeah, those who engage in genocide, ethnic cleansing, conquering and colonizing others always have some wackass feckless attempt at a rationale. It's the same with our endless bogus illegal unconstitutional wars. Hey! We're a takin' on "evil"! It's the Lord's work!

Founding a country on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence and biblical precepts is a Hell of a long way from genocide.

And the founding fathers of this nation made sure it was not a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson specifically stated that it was not. What was said on the Mayflower was made irrelevant by the US Constitution. And the subsequent constitutional amendments further separated us from the "White Christian" nation idea.

Dear WinterBorn and Porter Rockwell
I agree more with WinterBorn.

One problem with this set up is the rationalist/Deists such as Jefferson
get thrown in and counted "as Christians" by today's standards but back then,
anyone who questioned or contested "government rule by the Church" was
considered more like an apostate or heretic "against God and Christianity."

By one angle such Founding leaders are grouped together as "Christians promoting God and Christianity"
but by another angle of creating a "wall of separation" between church and state authority
they are seen as promoting SECULARISM in ways that are AGAINST Christianity.

Which way is it?

Both. What we ended up with are Constitutional laws that defend individual rights
whereby Government can NEITHER establish NOR prohibit religious exercise.

Instead of fighting over these sides as "either / or"
what we need to accept is the balance between both being respected simultaneously.

Government cannot be abused EITHER to Establish or Prohibit.

And, as political history teaches us, where we do make the overreaching mistake
of abusing government to establish a particular BIAS (as Porter Rockwell points out in the given examples of such flaws)
this causes OPPRESSION and an equal and opposite BACKLASH in response.

So the problem has to be corrected so the Government doesn't contradict its own laws.

Thus the political process of reform seeks to correct such inconsistencies and conflicts of interests/biases in the laws.

This process continues until we develop a more mature or "more perfect" system of democratic representation within a republic.

By natural laws of democratic government, from which our Constitution is derived but still needs self-correction to "more perfectly" reflect,
these rights, freedoms and protections will eventually be embraced and enforced for all people seeking equal justice under law.

Yes, Porter Rockwell, we are starting with an imperfect draft.
Similar to our math system that is still being expanded on today,
or with our system of science where new definitions and discoveries
are still developing, based on expanding on the laws and knowledge established previously.

Just because the founding language and laws weren't perfect or complete
doesn't mean we can't use the given system to perfect itself.

We have the basic tools outlined that we agree to defend by the Constitution:
freedom of speech and of the press; the right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances, including
petitioning to defend free exercise of religion from unfair bias, prohibition,
establishment, or discrimination by creed; and rights of due process, security,
equal protections of the laws, and no taxation without representation.

Porter Rockwell starting with enforcing these basic principles for US citizens,
once we master how to teach and uphold that framework for sustainable self-government,
then we can help all other nations to develop the same.

It may have been founded with the intent of helping the citizens of America,
who at that time were considered just the white property owners, but the same
natural law principles govern all people who agree to enforce them in practice.
By the Golden Rule of Reciprocity, to establish Equal Justice Under Law
means to accept equal responsibility for enforcing the same.

This is indeed a Christian principle, but it is meant to help all people
learn to live by the same standards of liberty, peace and justice for all.

This is NOT a debate about Christianity. It is about race. I will do another thread and we can discuss your concerns.

Thomas Jefferson was a Christian. Was he mainstream? No. Insofar as this wall of separation goes, you can agree or disagree with anyone you like, but bottom line: that letter mentioning a separation of church means 180 degrees opposite of what you're claiming AND it is not binding authority in any court of law; it is not even persuasive authority in any court of law. Get back on topic. After I have addressed this race issue, we will discuss this in another thread. If I don't get banned for this thread, I promise an America is a Christian Nation thread. Back to race.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Instead of hijacking someone else's thread, I wanted to defend the title of this thread by creating a thread to talk about one thing. However, before I do, I want to ask each of you a question: If I tell you that due to the court case of Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal in America, does that make me pro-abortion for stating a fact?

In this thread, I will give you the facts. I'll also put perspective into it and challenge my critics to respond without name calling and without long harangues to try and derail the thread. If you participate and you begin name calling, it will be noted and then no future responses will be required as you will have lost any pretend debate. Secondary, I will not respond to long diatribes that look like a book. Let's make our posts not exceed about a dozen paragraphs (give or take a few sentences. That said, let's rock:

The United States was founded by white Christians for the benefit of white Christians. Personally, I do not find it racist or white supremacist in its proper context. But, what I'm telling you is true. The very first governing document of the New World began with these words:

'In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith..." (see the Mayflower Compact of 1620)

About a decade later in 1630, aboard the ship the Arbella, John Winthrop gave a sermon that has been cited (in part) by all kinds of statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan. I'd like to give a couple of excerpts from that sermon and put this into perspective:

"First, in regard of the more near bond of marriage between Him and us, wherein He hath taken us to be His, after a most strict and peculiar manner, which will make Him the more jealous of our love and obedience. So He tells the people of Israel, you only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your transgressions.

...Thirdly, when God gives a special commission He looks to have it strictly observed in every article; When He gave Saul a commission to destroy Amaleck, He indented with him upon certain articles, and because he failed in one of the least, and that upon a fair pretense, it lost him the kingdom, which should have been his reward, if he had observed his commission.

...Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission..."

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

The ONLY people to have a special commission from God were the biblical Israelites. That is how the colonists viewed themselves: They were the Israelites of the Bible; the land we call America was the promised land - the New Jerusalem.

http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com/Unsealings/1425.pdf

Yeah, those who engage in genocide, ethnic cleansing, conquering and colonizing others always have some wackass feckless attempt at a rationale. It's the same with our endless bogus illegal unconstitutional wars. Hey! We're a takin' on "evil"! It's the Lord's work!

Founding a country on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence and biblical precepts is a Hell of a long way from genocide.

And the founding fathers of this nation made sure it was not a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson specifically stated that it was not. What was said on the Mayflower was made irrelevant by the US Constitution. And the subsequent constitutional amendments further separated us from the "White Christian" nation idea.

Dear WinterBorn and Porter Rockwell
I agree more with WinterBorn.

One problem with this set up is the rationalist/Deists such as Jefferson
get thrown in and counted "as Christians" by today's standards but back then,
anyone who questioned or contested "government rule by the Church" was
considered more like an apostate or heretic "against God and Christianity."

By one angle such Founding leaders are grouped together as "Christians promoting God and Christianity"
but by another angle of creating a "wall of separation" between church and state authority
they are seen as promoting SECULARISM in ways that are AGAINST Christianity.

Which way is it?

Both. What we ended up with are Constitutional laws that defend individual rights
whereby Government can NEITHER establish NOR prohibit religious exercise.

Instead of fighting over these sides as "either / or"
what we need to accept is the balance between both being respected simultaneously.

Government cannot be abused EITHER to Establish or Prohibit.

And, as political history teaches us, where we do make the overreaching mistake
of abusing government to establish a particular BIAS (as Porter Rockwell points out in the given examples of such flaws)
this causes OPPRESSION and an equal and opposite BACKLASH in response.

So the problem has to be corrected so the Government doesn't contradict its own laws.

Thus the political process of reform seeks to correct such inconsistencies and conflicts of interests/biases in the laws.

This process continues until we develop a more mature or "more perfect" system of democratic representation within a republic.

By natural laws of democratic government, from which our Constitution is derived but still needs self-correction to "more perfectly" reflect,
these rights, freedoms and protections will eventually be embraced and enforced for all people seeking equal justice under law.

Yes, Porter Rockwell, we are starting with an imperfect draft.
Similar to our math system that is still being expanded on today,
or with our system of science where new definitions and discoveries
are still developing, based on expanding on the laws and knowledge established previously.

Just because the founding language and laws weren't perfect or complete
doesn't mean we can't use the given system to perfect itself.

We have the basic tools outlined that we agree to defend by the Constitution:
freedom of speech and of the press; the right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances, including
petitioning to defend free exercise of religion from unfair bias, prohibition,
establishment, or discrimination by creed; and rights of due process, security,
equal protections of the laws, and no taxation without representation.

Porter Rockwell starting with enforcing these basic principles for US citizens,
once we master how to teach and uphold that framework for sustainable self-government,
then we can help all other nations to develop the same.

It may have been founded with the intent of helping the citizens of America,
who at that time were considered just the white property owners, but the same
natural law principles govern all people who agree to enforce them in practice.
By the Golden Rule of Reciprocity, to establish Equal Justice Under Law
means to accept equal responsibility for enforcing the same.

This is indeed a Christian principle, but it is meant to help all people
learn to live by the same standards of liberty, peace and justice for all.

I am not saying whether the founding fathers were Christian. That can often be hard to tell.

But the nation that they founded was not founded as a Christian nation. Those wise men went to some lengths to make sure it was a secular nation.

Yes, America was built on Christian principles, but not as a theocracy. Any chance you'd like to join THIS discussion and let's talk about that in a separate thread?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

LMFAO. In terms of percentages you can play all the number games you want. But, the white mans problems are complicated:

America consumes most of the world's opioid supply. American whites are singled out and constitute the biggest consumers of drugs in the entire world. It is a condition we've brought on ourselves.

At a very early age, the parents (usually egged on by the government or a doctor) put their kids on Ritalin or Adderall. For the most part such drugs are unnecessary AND the doctors don't bother to get to the root cause of alleged hyperactivity. It might be diet, bad sleeping habits, too little exercise, chaos in the home (like drug addicted parents or fighting in the home.) In any event, a five minute consultation and the cycle begins.

The child gets a bit older and they end up on opioids (whether legal or illegal.) Then the doctors, after a five minute consultation, put kids on SSRIs. Many of these kids are then easily drawn into illegal drugs and by the time they are in their early teens, they are hard core drug addicts. By the time these people are in their 20s, they are dropped off mommy's insurance by the insurance companies. Now you have generations of 20, 30, 40, and even 50 year olds that have no high school diploma, no job skills, no work experience, no work ethic, tattoos, body piercings, purple / pink hair, rotted teeth, a criminal record, and an absolute dependence on drugs and Uncle Scam. Mommy provides free rent; Uncle Scam provides a debit card for food and society is rewarded with people who sell their bodies and peddle drugs for their dealer to support their own addiction.

Big pharma profits, the government gets to profit, the boys in the hood get to become entrepreneurs, selling dope to dumb ass kids with well to do parents. The left wing / socialist / progressive / communist combine profits because it takes the posterity of the founders out of the game and allows non-producers to live off the wealth created by those who produce. The new right profits because the presence of so many drug addicts creates the illusion of a need to recruit wealthy and educated foreigners to take seats in our universities and colleges. Then those foreigners have begun to take over our government and steer us toward socialism and globalism... ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. And it ain't conspiracy theory when it happens right under your nose

Because whites are too lazy to work on the things they can change, they ARE over-represented on the welfare dole. That is no big secret, but it does not negate the facts surrounding the founding of America. There is racial genocide going on, but the white mans worst enemy is... his own race.

This post is so full of shit, it should be classified as a manure pile. You apparently know nothing about ADD and ADHD, or the process necessary to prescribe them..

I worked with foster kids as a DFACS asset. It appears YOU don't know anything about it.

I was a teacher for 21 years and have two grandsons with ADHD, which they inherited from their father, who was a borderline juvenile delinquent. I have taught literally hundreds of kids with such a diagnosis. Almost without fail, it turns out that medication can be very effective. I have had many students become very excellent students with the proper diagnosis and medication. It is also very easy to tell when a child misses a dose of medicine because of the extreme difference in behaviors. Many times, parents would call in advance if they were out of meds and waiting to get a new prescription, which is painfully difficult to get. The warnings were greatly appreciated.

That "5 minute consultation" is a lie. Teachers and parents have to complete extensive surveys about the child's behaviors and habits, just to prevent what you claim happens. Teachers are asked to complete these surveys for every class the child attends. There is hardly any doubt as to the decisions made by the physicians because of the extensive information they receive.

You are the one who is lying. Virtually all kids dumped into the foster care system are put on drugs without a diagnosis of any kind. Even the doctors who prescribe the drugs have their reservations:

Are Doctors Diagnosing Too Many Kids with ADHD?

But, here we are, discussing everything except the OP. What in the Hell is everybody afraid of? Every side comment is NOT an invitation to derail the thread with the peripheral issues. Maybe you are making a case of ADD ADHD. You have an inability to focus. Just for chits and giggles, you should start a thread over this:

“ADHD Is A Fake Disorder” Says Neurologist-Turned-Author

Unless you have a medical degree, you should just stipulate that you don't have all the facts; you will only listen to points of view that lend themselves to bias confirmation.

Back to the issue at hand.

So you are back-pedaling and saying it only applies to foster kids?

I just destroyed your pathetically weak reasoning with the facts and now you are pissed. You don't know anything about what you claim to be true, and you lie.

Why?

I have no reason to lie, but you do by pushing your agenda.

I've not back pedaled on a damn thing. Do you have ADD / ADHD? You sure seem to be lost. This is not about ADD / ADHD. If you want to debate it, start a separate thread. We're talking about race on this thread. Join the topic or I will ignore you.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The ONLY people to have a special commission from God were the biblical Israelites. That is how the colonists viewed themselves: They were the Israelites of the Bible; the land we call America was the promised land - the New Jerusalem.

The colonists were wrong:

1.The colonists were under a completely different covenant than the Israelites. Their Great CO-MISSION with Jesus Christ was to spread the Good News. < Mark 16:15 It was certainly not to usurp the role and identity of the Jewish people.
2.The Israelites of the Bible were, and remain, the Israelites of the Bible (not Pilgrims, not Gentiles).
3. The promised land (which was MUCH larger than the Israel of today) was promised, by God, to His friend Abraham and Abraham's descendants. (And still is) It is an everlasting covenant.
4. New Jerusalem, is New JERUSALEM. (Not New Boston, or Philly) and it specifically replaces (you guessed it)> OLD JERUSALEM. < Locate it and X marks the spot for the new one. And it requires a REBUILT Jewish Temple prior to the new event. There was not then, in the pilgrim era, nor is there yet, a 3rd. Temple.

It's not the Bible but the interpretation of what's in it that causes man to go astray in his knowledge and understanding. Just read it. It says what it says, no need to add to or take away from what is there. (Eve added to what God said, by just a little bit), and the consequences were dire for the rest of us.

God said:

"Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.

Because:

But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Then this happens:

Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

I doubt you have a monopoly on understanding. I present an opposing view:

Apocalypticism Explained | Apocalypse! FRONTLINE | PBS

The Old Jerusalem is Not the New JerUSAlem

I have no monopoly on understanding. Nor do I depend on the views of others. I read what the Bible says to discern whether or not the view of another is viable. And your links are not.
The whole narrative of the role of the Jews during the tribulation period needs no interpretation. It is as plain as God could make it.
We are even given the exact location Christ will return. The Mount of Olives. Not the Rockies, not the Mount of Appalachia. Christ will be returning to Israel which He will enlarge and set up shop.
It is not New Chicago, it is New Jerusalem. It means what it says...
Where do you think Christ is going to return to, when He returns?

Again, this is not a thread about religion. I WILL address it in a separate thread. When you proclaim that others are wrong, it means you think you have a monopoly on the truth. I post the facts and later I give my opinion. I don't proclaim that others are wrong - I prove it. HOWEVER, this is not about that issue. So back to race or I will ignore you. Stay focused and let's talk about race.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Haven’t we educated you enough this week when are you going to Pay for all this teaching we are getting you

The difference between us is that I will admit I am wrong if I am proven wrong. You won't. You just dance and try to say I twisted your words.

Haven’t we educated you enough this week when are you going to Pay for all this teaching we are getting you

The difference between us is that I will admit I am wrong if I am proven wrong. You won't. You just dance and try to say I twisted your words.

View attachment 299961

YOu keep posting as if I am anti-Second Amendment. That is obviously not true. Quit lying to try and play the victim.

Lol no your not you have stated you love the over regulation of the bill of rights.. you hate America

That is a lie. I don't consider not allowing violent convicted to own guns "over regulation" at all. And neither does the SCOTUS.

And considering you think the Bill of Rights is subject to the whims of a local community, you are the one showing hatred for the nation.

1) What in the Hell is wrong with Americans, allowing dangerous people to run amok in a free society if they cannot be trusted with firearms? If you kept dangerous people behind bars and released the ones you could return back to society with their Rights intact, you would have no pretext for a lot of the gun control arguments sick people make

2) Local communities all the way up to state governments can create pro-Second Amendment sanctuary cities. The United States Supreme Court legitimized sanctuary cities for undocumented foreigners and gun owners have the equal protection of the laws

3) This is not a Second Amendment thread. Why is everybody afraid to discuss the OP?

 

[August West]

Instead of hijacking someone else's thread, I wanted to defend the title of this thread by creating a thread to talk about one thing. However, before I do, I want to ask each of you a question: If I tell you that due to the court case of Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal in America, does that make me pro-abortion for stating a fact?

In this thread, I will give you the facts. I'll also put perspective into it and challenge my critics to respond without name calling and without long harangues to try and derail the thread. If you participate and you begin name calling, it will be noted and then no future responses will be required as you will have lost any pretend debate. Secondary, I will not respond to long diatribes that look like a book. Let's make our posts not exceed about a dozen paragraphs (give or take a few sentences. That said, let's rock:

The United States was founded by white Christians for the benefit of white Christians. Personally, I do not find it racist or white supremacist in its proper context. But, what I'm telling you is true. The very first governing document of the New World began with these words:

'In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith..." (see the Mayflower Compact of 1620)

About a decade later in 1630, aboard the ship the Arbella, John Winthrop gave a sermon that has been cited (in part) by all kinds of statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan. I'd like to give a couple of excerpts from that sermon and put this into perspective:

"First, in regard of the more near bond of marriage between Him and us, wherein He hath taken us to be His, after a most strict and peculiar manner, which will make Him the more jealous of our love and obedience. So He tells the people of Israel, you only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your transgressions.

...Thirdly, when God gives a special commission He looks to have it strictly observed in every article; When He gave Saul a commission to destroy Amaleck, He indented with him upon certain articles, and because he failed in one of the least, and that upon a fair pretense, it lost him the kingdom, which should have been his reward, if he had observed his commission.

...Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission..."

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

The ONLY people to have a special commission from God were the biblical Israelites. That is how the colonists viewed themselves: They were the Israelites of the Bible; the land we call America was the promised land - the New Jerusalem.

http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com/Unsealings/1425.pdf

When the Mayflower landed on these shores the 2 oldest cities in this country were already established and speaking Spanish. St. Augustine FL. and Santa Fe. NM.

 

[Jitss617]

Founding a country on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence and biblical precepts is a Hell of a long way from genocide.

And the founding fathers of this nation made sure it was not a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson specifically stated that it was not. What was said on the Mayflower was made irrelevant by the US Constitution. And the subsequent constitutional amendments further separated us from the "White Christian" nation idea.

Dear WinterBorn and Porter Rockwell
I agree more with WinterBorn.

One problem with this set up is the rationalist/Deists such as Jefferson
get thrown in and counted "as Christians" by today's standards but back then,
anyone who questioned or contested "government rule by the Church" was
considered more like an apostate or heretic "against God and Christianity."

By one angle such Founding leaders are grouped together as "Christians promoting God and Christianity"
but by another angle of creating a "wall of separation" between church and state authority
they are seen as promoting SECULARISM in ways that are AGAINST Christianity.

Which way is it?

Both. What we ended up with are Constitutional laws that defend individual rights
whereby Government can NEITHER establish NOR prohibit religious exercise.

Instead of fighting over these sides as "either / or"
what we need to accept is the balance between both being respected simultaneously.

Government cannot be abused EITHER to Establish or Prohibit.

And, as political history teaches us, where we do make the overreaching mistake
of abusing government to establish a particular BIAS (as Porter Rockwell points out in the given examples of such flaws)
this causes OPPRESSION and an equal and opposite BACKLASH in response.

So the problem has to be corrected so the Government doesn't contradict its own laws.

Thus the political process of reform seeks to correct such inconsistencies and conflicts of interests/biases in the laws.

This process continues until we develop a more mature or "more perfect" system of democratic representation within a republic.

By natural laws of democratic government, from which our Constitution is derived but still needs self-correction to "more perfectly" reflect,
these rights, freedoms and protections will eventually be embraced and enforced for all people seeking equal justice under law.

Yes, Porter Rockwell, we are starting with an imperfect draft.
Similar to our math system that is still being expanded on today,
or with our system of science where new definitions and discoveries
are still developing, based on expanding on the laws and knowledge established previously.

Just because the founding language and laws weren't perfect or complete
doesn't mean we can't use the given system to perfect itself.

We have the basic tools outlined that we agree to defend by the Constitution:
freedom of speech and of the press; the right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances, including
petitioning to defend free exercise of religion from unfair bias, prohibition,
establishment, or discrimination by creed; and rights of due process, security,
equal protections of the laws, and no taxation without representation.

Porter Rockwell starting with enforcing these basic principles for US citizens,
once we master how to teach and uphold that framework for sustainable self-government,
then we can help all other nations to develop the same.

It may have been founded with the intent of helping the citizens of America,
who at that time were considered just the white property owners, but the same
natural law principles govern all people who agree to enforce them in practice.
By the Golden Rule of Reciprocity, to establish Equal Justice Under Law
means to accept equal responsibility for enforcing the same.

This is indeed a Christian principle, but it is meant to help all people
learn to live by the same standards of liberty, peace and justice for all.

I am not saying whether the founding fathers were Christian. That can often be hard to tell.

But the nation that they founded was not founded as a Christian nation. Those wise men went to some lengths to make sure it was a secular nation.

Not according to history books .. I honestly don’t think America is the country for you.. sorry buddy

According to the US Constitution, it is not. And this country is exactly the country for me. Get used to me. I am not going to live anywhere else.

I do find it amusing that you claim it was founded for white Christians, and you claim to be a patriotic American. Hard to believe you identify as a Christian.

White Christians did build America our values our culture all stem from them.White Christians did build America our values our culture all stem from them ..But I remain open to having other ethnicities assimilate to our values.. all I’m saying is that if you opened up 20 Muslim schools and 20 Catholic schools there would be a line out the door for the Catholic schools

 

[Porter Rockwell]

IM2 THIS POST IS JUST FOR YOU

In another thread, you asked me a question that I had hoped we and other posters could discuss. It was the primary reason I started this thread. Hell, these people want to talk about religion, guns, drugs, but not the OP. I want to respond directly to you in a thread aimed at this one topic.

And the founding fathers of this nation made sure it was not a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson specifically stated that it was not. What was said on the Mayflower was made irrelevant by the US Constitution. And the subsequent constitutional amendments further separated us from the "White Christian" nation idea.

Dear WinterBorn and Porter Rockwell
I agree more with WinterBorn.

One problem with this set up is the rationalist/Deists such as Jefferson
get thrown in and counted "as Christians" by today's standards but back then,
anyone who questioned or contested "government rule by the Church" was
considered more like an apostate or heretic "against God and Christianity."

By one angle such Founding leaders are grouped together as "Christians promoting God and Christianity"
but by another angle of creating a "wall of separation" between church and state authority
they are seen as promoting SECULARISM in ways that are AGAINST Christianity.

Which way is it?

Both. What we ended up with are Constitutional laws that defend individual rights
whereby Government can NEITHER establish NOR prohibit religious exercise.

Instead of fighting over these sides as "either / or"
what we need to accept is the balance between both being respected simultaneously.

Government cannot be abused EITHER to Establish or Prohibit.

And, as political history teaches us, where we do make the overreaching mistake
of abusing government to establish a particular BIAS (as Porter Rockwell points out in the given examples of such flaws)
this causes OPPRESSION and an equal and opposite BACKLASH in response.

So the problem has to be corrected so the Government doesn't contradict its own laws.

Thus the political process of reform seeks to correct such inconsistencies and conflicts of interests/biases in the laws.

This process continues until we develop a more mature or "more perfect" system of democratic representation within a republic.

By natural laws of democratic government, from which our Constitution is derived but still needs self-correction to "more perfectly" reflect,
these rights, freedoms and protections will eventually be embraced and enforced for all people seeking equal justice under law.

Yes, Porter Rockwell, we are starting with an imperfect draft.
Similar to our math system that is still being expanded on today,
or with our system of science where new definitions and discoveries
are still developing, based on expanding on the laws and knowledge established previously.

Just because the founding language and laws weren't perfect or complete
doesn't mean we can't use the given system to perfect itself.

We have the basic tools outlined that we agree to defend by the Constitution:
freedom of speech and of the press; the right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances, including
petitioning to defend free exercise of religion from unfair bias, prohibition,
establishment, or discrimination by creed; and rights of due process, security,
equal protections of the laws, and no taxation without representation.

Porter Rockwell starting with enforcing these basic principles for US citizens,
once we master how to teach and uphold that framework for sustainable self-government,
then we can help all other nations to develop the same.

It may have been founded with the intent of helping the citizens of America,
who at that time were considered just the white property owners, but the same
natural law principles govern all people who agree to enforce them in practice.
By the Golden Rule of Reciprocity, to establish Equal Justice Under Law
means to accept equal responsibility for enforcing the same.

This is indeed a Christian principle, but it is meant to help all people
learn to live by the same standards of liberty, peace and justice for all.

I am not saying whether the founding fathers were Christian. That can often be hard to tell.

But the nation that they founded was not founded as a Christian nation. Those wise men went to some lengths to make sure it was a secular nation.

Not according to history books .. I honestly don’t think America is the country for you.. sorry buddy

According to the US Constitution, it is not. And this country is exactly the country for me. Get used to me. I am not going to live anywhere else.

I do find it amusing that you claim it was founded for white Christians, and you claim to be a patriotic American. Hard to believe you identify as a Christian.

White Christians did build America our values our culture all stem from them.White Christians did build America our values our culture all stem from them ..But I remain open to having other ethnicities assimilate to our values.. all I’m saying is that if you opened up 20 Muslim schools and 20 Catholic schools there would be a line out the door for the Catholic schools

I disagree. If we allowed America to be multicultural, the non-white Muslims would take over and demand that everyone obey Sharia Law.

 

[Jitss617]

And the founding fathers of this nation made sure it was not a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson specifically stated that it was not. What was said on the Mayflower was made irrelevant by the US Constitution. And the subsequent constitutional amendments further separated us from the "White Christian" nation idea.

Dear WinterBorn and Porter Rockwell
I agree more with WinterBorn.

One problem with this set up is the rationalist/Deists such as Jefferson
get thrown in and counted "as Christians" by today's standards but back then,
anyone who questioned or contested "government rule by the Church" was
considered more like an apostate or heretic "against God and Christianity."

By one angle such Founding leaders are grouped together as "Christians promoting God and Christianity"
but by another angle of creating a "wall of separation" between church and state authority
they are seen as promoting SECULARISM in ways that are AGAINST Christianity.

Which way is it?

Both. What we ended up with are Constitutional laws that defend individual rights
whereby Government can NEITHER establish NOR prohibit religious exercise.

Instead of fighting over these sides as "either / or"
what we need to accept is the balance between both being respected simultaneously.

Government cannot be abused EITHER to Establish or Prohibit.

And, as political history teaches us, where we do make the overreaching mistake
of abusing government to establish a particular BIAS (as Porter Rockwell points out in the given examples of such flaws)
this causes OPPRESSION and an equal and opposite BACKLASH in response.

So the problem has to be corrected so the Government doesn't contradict its own laws.

Thus the political process of reform seeks to correct such inconsistencies and conflicts of interests/biases in the laws.

This process continues until we develop a more mature or "more perfect" system of democratic representation within a republic.

By natural laws of democratic government, from which our Constitution is derived but still needs self-correction to "more perfectly" reflect,
these rights, freedoms and protections will eventually be embraced and enforced for all people seeking equal justice under law.

Yes, Porter Rockwell, we are starting with an imperfect draft.
Similar to our math system that is still being expanded on today,
or with our system of science where new definitions and discoveries
are still developing, based on expanding on the laws and knowledge established previously.

Just because the founding language and laws weren't perfect or complete
doesn't mean we can't use the given system to perfect itself.

We have the basic tools outlined that we agree to defend by the Constitution:
freedom of speech and of the press; the right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances, including
petitioning to defend free exercise of religion from unfair bias, prohibition,
establishment, or discrimination by creed; and rights of due process, security,
equal protections of the laws, and no taxation without representation.

Porter Rockwell starting with enforcing these basic principles for US citizens,
once we master how to teach and uphold that framework for sustainable self-government,
then we can help all other nations to develop the same.

It may have been founded with the intent of helping the citizens of America,
who at that time were considered just the white property owners, but the same
natural law principles govern all people who agree to enforce them in practice.
By the Golden Rule of Reciprocity, to establish Equal Justice Under Law
means to accept equal responsibility for enforcing the same.

This is indeed a Christian principle, but it is meant to help all people
learn to live by the same standards of liberty, peace and justice for all.

I am not saying whether the founding fathers were Christian. That can often be hard to tell.

But the nation that they founded was not founded as a Christian nation. Those wise men went to some lengths to make sure it was a secular nation.

Not according to history books .. I honestly don’t think America is the country for you.. sorry buddy

According to the US Constitution, it is not. And this country is exactly the country for me. Get used to me. I am not going to live anywhere else.

I do find it amusing that you claim it was founded for white Christians, and you claim to be a patriotic American. Hard to believe you identify as a Christian.

When you argue with crazy people you become crazy yourself.

I told you many times stop following me and talking shit you live down the street.. stop your keyboard commando actions. Zip it up

 

[Jitss617]

Haven’t we educated you enough this week when are you going to Pay for all this teaching we are getting you

The difference between us is that I will admit I am wrong if I am proven wrong. You won't. You just dance and try to say I twisted your words.

Haven’t we educated you enough this week when are you going to Pay for all this teaching we are getting you

The difference between us is that I will admit I am wrong if I am proven wrong. You won't. You just dance and try to say I twisted your words.

View attachment 299961

YOu keep posting as if I am anti-Second Amendment. That is obviously not true. Quit lying to try and play the victim.

Lol no your not you have stated you love the over regulation of the bill of rights.. you hate America

That is a lie. I don't consider not allowing violent convicted to own guns "over regulation" at all. And neither does the SCOTUS.

And considering you think the Bill of Rights is subject to the whims of a local community, you are the one showing hatred for the nation.

you mean “we the people” lol

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Dear WinterBorn and Porter Rockwell
I agree more with WinterBorn.

One problem with this set up is the rationalist/Deists such as Jefferson
get thrown in and counted "as Christians" by today's standards but back then,
anyone who questioned or contested "government rule by the Church" was
considered more like an apostate or heretic "against God and Christianity."

By one angle such Founding leaders are grouped together as "Christians promoting God and Christianity"
but by another angle of creating a "wall of separation" between church and state authority
they are seen as promoting SECULARISM in ways that are AGAINST Christianity.

Which way is it?

Both. What we ended up with are Constitutional laws that defend individual rights
whereby Government can NEITHER establish NOR prohibit religious exercise.

Instead of fighting over these sides as "either / or"
what we need to accept is the balance between both being respected simultaneously.

Government cannot be abused EITHER to Establish or Prohibit.

And, as political history teaches us, where we do make the overreaching mistake
of abusing government to establish a particular BIAS (as Porter Rockwell points out in the given examples of such flaws)
this causes OPPRESSION and an equal and opposite BACKLASH in response.

So the problem has to be corrected so the Government doesn't contradict its own laws.

Thus the political process of reform seeks to correct such inconsistencies and conflicts of interests/biases in the laws.

This process continues until we develop a more mature or "more perfect" system of democratic representation within a republic.

By natural laws of democratic government, from which our Constitution is derived but still needs self-correction to "more perfectly" reflect,
these rights, freedoms and protections will eventually be embraced and enforced for all people seeking equal justice under law.

Yes, Porter Rockwell, we are starting with an imperfect draft.
Similar to our math system that is still being expanded on today,
or with our system of science where new definitions and discoveries
are still developing, based on expanding on the laws and knowledge established previously.

Just because the founding language and laws weren't perfect or complete
doesn't mean we can't use the given system to perfect itself.

We have the basic tools outlined that we agree to defend by the Constitution:
freedom of speech and of the press; the right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances, including
petitioning to defend free exercise of religion from unfair bias, prohibition,
establishment, or discrimination by creed; and rights of due process, security,
equal protections of the laws, and no taxation without representation.

Porter Rockwell starting with enforcing these basic principles for US citizens,
once we master how to teach and uphold that framework for sustainable self-government,
then we can help all other nations to develop the same.

It may have been founded with the intent of helping the citizens of America,
who at that time were considered just the white property owners, but the same
natural law principles govern all people who agree to enforce them in practice.
By the Golden Rule of Reciprocity, to establish Equal Justice Under Law
means to accept equal responsibility for enforcing the same.

This is indeed a Christian principle, but it is meant to help all people
learn to live by the same standards of liberty, peace and justice for all.

I am not saying whether the founding fathers were Christian. That can often be hard to tell.

But the nation that they founded was not founded as a Christian nation. Those wise men went to some lengths to make sure it was a secular nation.

Not according to history books .. I honestly don’t think America is the country for you.. sorry buddy

According to the US Constitution, it is not. And this country is exactly the country for me. Get used to me. I am not going to live anywhere else.

I do find it amusing that you claim it was founded for white Christians, and you claim to be a patriotic American. Hard to believe you identify as a Christian.

When you argue with crazy people you become crazy yourself.

I told you many times stop following me and talking shit you live down the street.. stop your keyboard commando actions. Zip it up

I did not respond to you, fat boy. Down the street? You're geographically challenged I see. Dumbass.

 

[Jitss617]

IM2 THIS POST IS JUST FOR YOU

In another thread, you asked me a question that I had hoped we and other posters could discuss. It was the primary reason I started this thread. Hell, these people want to talk about religion, guns, drugs, but not the OP. I want to respond directly to you in a thread aimed at this one topic.

Dear WinterBorn and Porter Rockwell
I agree more with WinterBorn.

One problem with this set up is the rationalist/Deists such as Jefferson
get thrown in and counted "as Christians" by today's standards but back then,
anyone who questioned or contested "government rule by the Church" was
considered more like an apostate or heretic "against God and Christianity."

By one angle such Founding leaders are grouped together as "Christians promoting God and Christianity"
but by another angle of creating a "wall of separation" between church and state authority
they are seen as promoting SECULARISM in ways that are AGAINST Christianity.

Which way is it?

Both. What we ended up with are Constitutional laws that defend individual rights
whereby Government can NEITHER establish NOR prohibit religious exercise.

Instead of fighting over these sides as "either / or"
what we need to accept is the balance between both being respected simultaneously.

Government cannot be abused EITHER to Establish or Prohibit.

And, as political history teaches us, where we do make the overreaching mistake
of abusing government to establish a particular BIAS (as Porter Rockwell points out in the given examples of such flaws)
this causes OPPRESSION and an equal and opposite BACKLASH in response.

So the problem has to be corrected so the Government doesn't contradict its own laws.

Thus the political process of reform seeks to correct such inconsistencies and conflicts of interests/biases in the laws.

This process continues until we develop a more mature or "more perfect" system of democratic representation within a republic.

By natural laws of democratic government, from which our Constitution is derived but still needs self-correction to "more perfectly" reflect,
these rights, freedoms and protections will eventually be embraced and enforced for all people seeking equal justice under law.

Yes, Porter Rockwell, we are starting with an imperfect draft.
Similar to our math system that is still being expanded on today,
or with our system of science where new definitions and discoveries
are still developing, based on expanding on the laws and knowledge established previously.

Just because the founding language and laws weren't perfect or complete
doesn't mean we can't use the given system to perfect itself.

We have the basic tools outlined that we agree to defend by the Constitution:
freedom of speech and of the press; the right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances, including
petitioning to defend free exercise of religion from unfair bias, prohibition,
establishment, or discrimination by creed; and rights of due process, security,
equal protections of the laws, and no taxation without representation.

Porter Rockwell starting with enforcing these basic principles for US citizens,
once we master how to teach and uphold that framework for sustainable self-government,
then we can help all other nations to develop the same.

It may have been founded with the intent of helping the citizens of America,
who at that time were considered just the white property owners, but the same
natural law principles govern all people who agree to enforce them in practice.
By the Golden Rule of Reciprocity, to establish Equal Justice Under Law
means to accept equal responsibility for enforcing the same.

This is indeed a Christian principle, but it is meant to help all people
learn to live by the same standards of liberty, peace and justice for all.

I am not saying whether the founding fathers were Christian. That can often be hard to tell.

But the nation that they founded was not founded as a Christian nation. Those wise men went to some lengths to make sure it was a secular nation.

Not according to history books .. I honestly don’t think America is the country for you.. sorry buddy

According to the US Constitution, it is not. And this country is exactly the country for me. Get used to me. I am not going to live anywhere else.

I do find it amusing that you claim it was founded for white Christians, and you claim to be a patriotic American. Hard to believe you identify as a Christian.

White Christians did build America our values our culture all stem from them.White Christians did build America our values our culture all stem from them ..But I remain open to having other ethnicities assimilate to our values.. all I’m saying is that if you opened up 20 Muslim schools and 20 Catholic schools there would be a line out the door for the Catholic schools

I disagree. If we allowed America to be multicultural, the non-white Muslims would take over and demand that everyone obey Sharia Law.

Not if we deregulate the 2nd and 1st amendment

 

[Jitss617]

I am not saying whether the founding fathers were Christian. That can often be hard to tell.

But the nation that they founded was not founded as a Christian nation. Those wise men went to some lengths to make sure it was a secular nation.

Not according to history books .. I honestly don’t think America is the country for you.. sorry buddy

According to the US Constitution, it is not. And this country is exactly the country for me. Get used to me. I am not going to live anywhere else.

I do find it amusing that you claim it was founded for white Christians, and you claim to be a patriotic American. Hard to believe you identify as a Christian.

When you argue with crazy people you become crazy yourself.

I told you many times stop following me and talking shit you live down the street.. stop your keyboard commando actions. Zip it up

I did not respond to you, fat boy. Down the street? You're geographically challenged I see. Dumbass.

I go thru Brookline 3-4 days a week to get to the gym by fenway.. any time you meet up let me know sucka

 

[WinterBorn]

The difference between us is that I will admit I am wrong if I am proven wrong. You won't. You just dance and try to say I twisted your words.

The difference between us is that I will admit I am wrong if I am proven wrong. You won't. You just dance and try to say I twisted your words.

View attachment 299961

YOu keep posting as if I am anti-Second Amendment. That is obviously not true. Quit lying to try and play the victim.

Lol no your not you have stated you love the over regulation of the bill of rights.. you hate America

That is a lie. I don't consider not allowing violent convicted to own guns "over regulation" at all. And neither does the SCOTUS.

And considering you think the Bill of Rights is subject to the whims of a local community, you are the one showing hatred for the nation.

1) What in the Hell is wrong with Americans, allowing dangerous people to run amok in a free society if they cannot be trusted with firearms? If you kept dangerous people behind bars and released the ones you could return back to society with their Rights intact, you would have no pretext for a lot of the gun control arguments sick people make

2) Local communities all the way up to state governments can create pro-Second Amendment sanctuary cities. The United States Supreme Court legitimized sanctuary cities for undocumented foreigners and gun owners have the equal protection of the laws

3) This is not a Second Amendment thread. Why is everybody afraid to discuss the OP?

I am not afraid to discuss the topic. YOu'll have to ask Jitler why he continues to add 2nd amendment comments. I simply answer them.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't this thread originally about the claim that we were founded as a white Christian nation?

 

[WinterBorn]

IM2 THIS POST IS JUST FOR YOU

In another thread, you asked me a question that I had hoped we and other posters could discuss. It was the primary reason I started this thread. Hell, these people want to talk about religion, guns, drugs, but not the OP. I want to respond directly to you in a thread aimed at this one topic.

Dear WinterBorn and Porter Rockwell
I agree more with WinterBorn.

One problem with this set up is the rationalist/Deists such as Jefferson
get thrown in and counted "as Christians" by today's standards but back then,
anyone who questioned or contested "government rule by the Church" was
considered more like an apostate or heretic "against God and Christianity."

By one angle such Founding leaders are grouped together as "Christians promoting God and Christianity"
but by another angle of creating a "wall of separation" between church and state authority
they are seen as promoting SECULARISM in ways that are AGAINST Christianity.

Which way is it?

Both. What we ended up with are Constitutional laws that defend individual rights
whereby Government can NEITHER establish NOR prohibit religious exercise.

Instead of fighting over these sides as "either / or"
what we need to accept is the balance between both being respected simultaneously.

Government cannot be abused EITHER to Establish or Prohibit.

And, as political history teaches us, where we do make the overreaching mistake
of abusing government to establish a particular BIAS (as Porter Rockwell points out in the given examples of such flaws)
this causes OPPRESSION and an equal and opposite BACKLASH in response.

So the problem has to be corrected so the Government doesn't contradict its own laws.

Thus the political process of reform seeks to correct such inconsistencies and conflicts of interests/biases in the laws.

This process continues until we develop a more mature or "more perfect" system of democratic representation within a republic.

By natural laws of democratic government, from which our Constitution is derived but still needs self-correction to "more perfectly" reflect,
these rights, freedoms and protections will eventually be embraced and enforced for all people seeking equal justice under law.

Yes, Porter Rockwell, we are starting with an imperfect draft.
Similar to our math system that is still being expanded on today,
or with our system of science where new definitions and discoveries
are still developing, based on expanding on the laws and knowledge established previously.

Just because the founding language and laws weren't perfect or complete
doesn't mean we can't use the given system to perfect itself.

We have the basic tools outlined that we agree to defend by the Constitution:
freedom of speech and of the press; the right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances, including
petitioning to defend free exercise of religion from unfair bias, prohibition,
establishment, or discrimination by creed; and rights of due process, security,
equal protections of the laws, and no taxation without representation.

Porter Rockwell starting with enforcing these basic principles for US citizens,
once we master how to teach and uphold that framework for sustainable self-government,
then we can help all other nations to develop the same.

It may have been founded with the intent of helping the citizens of America,
who at that time were considered just the white property owners, but the same
natural law principles govern all people who agree to enforce them in practice.
By the Golden Rule of Reciprocity, to establish Equal Justice Under Law
means to accept equal responsibility for enforcing the same.

This is indeed a Christian principle, but it is meant to help all people
learn to live by the same standards of liberty, peace and justice for all.

I am not saying whether the founding fathers were Christian. That can often be hard to tell.

But the nation that they founded was not founded as a Christian nation. Those wise men went to some lengths to make sure it was a secular nation.

Not according to history books .. I honestly don’t think America is the country for you.. sorry buddy

According to the US Constitution, it is not. And this country is exactly the country for me. Get used to me. I am not going to live anywhere else.

I do find it amusing that you claim it was founded for white Christians, and you claim to be a patriotic American. Hard to believe you identify as a Christian.

White Christians did build America our values our culture all stem from them.White Christians did build America our values our culture all stem from them ..But I remain open to having other ethnicities assimilate to our values.. all I’m saying is that if you opened up 20 Muslim schools and 20 Catholic schools there would be a line out the door for the Catholic schools

I disagree. If we allowed America to be multicultural, the non-white Muslims would take over and demand that everyone obey Sharia Law.

In order to make us live by Sharia law, there would have to be a constitutional amendment to remove the 1st amendment.

 

[Jitss617]

IM2 THIS POST IS JUST FOR YOU

In another thread, you asked me a question that I had hoped we and other posters could discuss. It was the primary reason I started this thread. Hell, these people want to talk about religion, guns, drugs, but not the OP. I want to respond directly to you in a thread aimed at this one topic.

I am not saying whether the founding fathers were Christian. That can often be hard to tell.

But the nation that they founded was not founded as a Christian nation. Those wise men went to some lengths to make sure it was a secular nation.

Not according to history books .. I honestly don’t think America is the country for you.. sorry buddy

According to the US Constitution, it is not. And this country is exactly the country for me. Get used to me. I am not going to live anywhere else.

I do find it amusing that you claim it was founded for white Christians, and you claim to be a patriotic American. Hard to believe you identify as a Christian.

White Christians did build America our values our culture all stem from them.White Christians did build America our values our culture all stem from them ..But I remain open to having other ethnicities assimilate to our values.. all I’m saying is that if you opened up 20 Muslim schools and 20 Catholic schools there would be a line out the door for the Catholic schools

I disagree. If we allowed America to be multicultural, the non-white Muslims would take over and demand that everyone obey Sharia Law.

In order to make us live by Sharia law, there would have to be a constitutional amendment to remove the 1st amendment.

Yea tell that to Minnesota.. again you don’t under we the people.

 

[WinterBorn]

The difference between us is that I will admit I am wrong if I am proven wrong. You won't. You just dance and try to say I twisted your words.

The difference between us is that I will admit I am wrong if I am proven wrong. You won't. You just dance and try to say I twisted your words.

View attachment 299961

YOu keep posting as if I am anti-Second Amendment. That is obviously not true. Quit lying to try and play the victim.

Lol no your not you have stated you love the over regulation of the bill of rights.. you hate America

That is a lie. I don't consider not allowing violent convicted to own guns "over regulation" at all. And neither does the SCOTUS.

And considering you think the Bill of Rights is subject to the whims of a local community, you are the one showing hatred for the nation.

you mean “we the people” lol

I mean you demanding that individual communities have the right to throw out parts of the Bill of Rights. I do not mean "We the people of the United States of America" I mean your claim that "We the people of east Podunk" can disassemble the US Constitution.

 

[Jitss617]

View attachment 299961

YOu keep posting as if I am anti-Second Amendment. That is obviously not true. Quit lying to try and play the victim.

Lol no your not you have stated you love the over regulation of the bill of rights.. you hate America

That is a lie. I don't consider not allowing violent convicted to own guns "over regulation" at all. And neither does the SCOTUS.

And considering you think the Bill of Rights is subject to the whims of a local community, you are the one showing hatred for the nation.

you mean “we the people” lol

I mean you demanding that individual communities have the right to throw out parts of the Bill of Rights. I do not mean "We the people of the United States of America" I mean your claim that "We the people of east Podunk" can disassemble the US Constitution.

Give me your honest opinion about three people what that means to you and how pissed off that makes you feel lol

 

[WinterBorn]

IM2 THIS POST IS JUST FOR YOU

In another thread, you asked me a question that I had hoped we and other posters could discuss. It was the primary reason I started this thread. Hell, these people want to talk about religion, guns, drugs, but not the OP. I want to respond directly to you in a thread aimed at this one topic.

Not according to history books .. I honestly don’t think America is the country for you.. sorry buddy

According to the US Constitution, it is not. And this country is exactly the country for me. Get used to me. I am not going to live anywhere else.

I do find it amusing that you claim it was founded for white Christians, and you claim to be a patriotic American. Hard to believe you identify as a Christian.

White Christians did build America our values our culture all stem from them.White Christians did build America our values our culture all stem from them ..But I remain open to having other ethnicities assimilate to our values.. all I’m saying is that if you opened up 20 Muslim schools and 20 Catholic schools there would be a line out the door for the Catholic schools

I disagree. If we allowed America to be multicultural, the non-white Muslims would take over and demand that everyone obey Sharia Law.

In order to make us live by Sharia law, there would have to be a constitutional amendment to remove the 1st amendment.

Yea tell that to Minnesota.. again you don’t under we the people.

Are Christians being forced to live under Sharia law? Or are select groups accepting Sharia law for themselves. I have no problem if a group has its own rules for their religious order, and the individuals accept those rules. Is Sharia law being forced on anyone in Minnesota?

 

[WinterBorn]

YOu keep posting as if I am anti-Second Amendment. That is obviously not true. Quit lying to try and play the victim.

Lol no your not you have stated you love the over regulation of the bill of rights.. you hate America

That is a lie. I don't consider not allowing violent convicted to own guns "over regulation" at all. And neither does the SCOTUS.

And considering you think the Bill of Rights is subject to the whims of a local community, you are the one showing hatred for the nation.

you mean “we the people” lol

I mean you demanding that individual communities have the right to throw out parts of the Bill of Rights. I do not mean "We the people of the United States of America" I mean your claim that "We the people of east Podunk" can disassemble the US Constitution.

Give me your honest opinion about three people what that means to you and how pissed off that makes you feel lol

What? You want my honest opinion about 3 people? What 3 people?