The "bad" asserting that they should be granted more rights for being bad.
I am not going to get into the who is who of it right now. But perhaps attempt to touch on a trend that might have helped create it.
What happens when you free a man from prison but you say that he can no longer have a gun? Essentially you are asserting that man (or woman) is bad and will always be bad.
And you are also granting them freedom at the same time. Being free from prison and the right to be bad at the same time. That is right! By freeing them you declared that they have the right to be bad. Again, because they no longer are allowed to have a gun you are indeed asserting that they are bad and always will be bad. Hence you granted them the right to be bad and free.
Oh big deal you say. Well perhaps on an individual level with regard to making that decision it seems right? However on a larger scale application and I would even go so far as to use the terminology "empirical evidence" it is destructive to a democracy to allow the bad to be bad, and assert that they should have more rights because they are bad.
Do we destroy all the guns? Then we have no national defense. As much as you don't want that blatant fact to be true it is true. So how do you prevent a freed criminal from getting a gun? There is no way to. What if you removed their hands? That would do it. That would do it wouldn't it. Just a horrible thought I know. I know it is. But I am only saying it to prove a point. You would say that they couldn't work if you did that?
Someone who will end up back in prison isn't going to be good and work. I would assert that the bad can not be good. They needed to start off being good in life and stay that way. And perhaps there is a bad element of the Kings Religion in this country that facilitated the untruth? The Lutheran false idealism that it doesn't matter how you live your life as long as at the hour of your death you ask to be saved. That is patronizing the bad. Perhaps it works in England where the wealthy live in fenced in castles and the poor amongst themselves in a pool of liver?
So what you have their is the wealthy out of touch with the lives of the "We the people"
For a Democracy to survive it needs to be comprised of good people and have good people as its leadership.
You can't have leaders that frequent with prostitutes or legalize satanic religions as charity. That is bad. Who does a person like that have commonality with? You know can't we be a little more fair to the human race than that? "What does that person have commonality with?"
Good leadership recognized when crimes are committed by someone that doesn't have a soul. Bad leadership asserts that the problem is the people who don't have a soul need equal or greater rights than "We the people."
A little edgy diatribe. To be sure, it is.
But back up to the hands mention. The only way that you could truly assure that evil does no evil is... But in doing so you are asserting that they are truly evil.
Luddite comes from the word leadite? Someone that was lead poisoned? Someone that hates technology because they don't understand it? Someone who would view all powertools as being dangerous because they would never be able to understand "the ins and outs of them?" (Oh Jesus Christ, what image of an imbecile does that form in your mind?) So are some of those who opt for gun control really luddites? Imposing that lesser backward standard on the rest of a Democracy that thrived by using tools, not for doing evil, but for developing a nation and thereby creating wealth.
And a Computer is a tool. But when you see Computer hackers? That China is hacking our entire infrastructure? How do you prevent an ex software pirate criminal from being one? Do you know that the once wealthiest man in the United States was initially guilty of that? That he later went on to be knighted by the Queen of England? As yourself what George Washington would have said about that? Black people probably blindly hate him, don't they? He owned slaves? Yesterday was Presidents Day. White people love George Washington because he fought against a nation that wanted to enslave them. He fought against a nation that believed an asserted genetically superior blood lines should rule as Divine Right Kings. And you had a foreign nation to them rise up and do the same in conflict in WW2. Divine Right for those of you who chewed gum and couldn't sit still in history class, is where one does not think about their actions but just uses the defense for everything that they do as being, "God talks or acts directly through them." The Catholic Church used to propagandize that belief to. They used to tell you that god talked to priests and acted through them. The truth is they committed thousands of soulless criminal acts throughout the world. I worked at a prestigious investment firm in Chicago, located at the 96th floor of the Sears Tower at that time. The secretary to the President told me that at parties the Catholic Priests were all openly gay there. Deceit is bad to me, is it bad to you? I view bad as bad.
We also see it with the Christian faith, they will approach you and just beg you that Jesus Christ be your savior? My good soul is what saves me.
I know what someone wants to do. They want to find something I wrote somewhere. One line in perhaps 5 million words, point their evil crooked finger at it, and think, "I will contrive a way to condemn you for this!"
First Amendment right to free speech. Basically, all of our rights need to be expanded and not constricted. Ooh, there is one isn't it! "Rights Constrictors."
I would spell and grammar check this but my cursor has a tendency to go wild and erase things. Remember that paragraph about computer hackers?
No comments:
Post a Comment