Let’s Have A National Conversation

“We need to have a national conversation on…”

We hear this often now, don’t we? There is apparently a great need for America to begin having conversations. It’s as if people have never spoken to each other. The call for a “national conversation” is almost an insult. They may as well say, “Hey, you! Stop drooling and start talking!”

Beyond this humorous side to it, there are more sinister aspects. First, the call for a national conversation is made from a minority position.
The call for a conversation is made because the minority is being ignored. Why? Because the majority rules, and in most cases the law of the land defends the majority. Basically, there is no national conversation because the majority has spoken. The conversation is over.

Trending: Duck Duck Go’s far-left political donations and abuse of user data have users FUMING

Logically, the minority ought to be satisfied to live in harmony with the majority. However, when the minority is Leftist it cannot stand its own minority standing. Being a minority is an insult to the Leftist minority! Yet, how can the minority be a strong voice, in control, when it is a minority? Answer: when the minority gains control and becomes fascist.

take our poll - story continues below

Has Big Tech Gone Too Far Banning the President?(2)

  • Has Big Tech Gone Too Far Banning the President?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Regarding the right to bear arms, the majority opinion is in. Most people want to defend themselves, and by any means necessary. It is not only majority opinion; it is basic instinct to protect oneself. And, because self-defense enslaves no one, it also is a natural right and a human right. The Constitution recognizes this majority opinion, this instinct, and this right. The Second Amendment acknowledges the natural right to bear arms. The Third Amendment makes clear that such arms must be up-to-date and powerful. The Ninth Amendment clarifies further that such right exists outside of the Constitution. In terms of conversations, these are great ice-breakers!

The only ones who want to have a conversation are those who disagree. They disagree with the majority, with human instinct, and with the Constitution! By disagreeing with the majority, they reject their own precious democracy. By disagreeing with human instinct, they reject their own ideas of evolution and survival. By disagreeing with the Constitution, they are within their rights, but they are hypocrites.
For when told the conversation is over, they invoke an absolute right to free speech. But when they hear invoked the right to bear arms, they act as if rights are alien to them.

Therefore, those who call for national conversation don’t actually desire conversation. When they say “national conversation,” they mean “I will talk, you will listen.” They mean a “national lecture.” Why do they believe they are right to act in this fashion? Because they think they are oppressed. They believe themselves victims. Thus, when their lectures cause yawning, they are offended! Then they begin a “national haranguing,” and a “national demagoguery.”

This brings us to the truth. These people don’t really want a national conversation. Such a conversation is not going to go very well for them.
The majority are already against them. The Constitution is already against them. No, what they really want is a captive audience, bound, gagged, and drugged.

Isn’t it strange? The same people who claim to be for 100% free speech don’t want to hear it! They don’t want a national conversation because they will not like what they hear. Nor do they want a national argument because they will lose every time.

And they are sore losers. When they lose, they try to stifle the opposition from speaking. In the name of pretending to care they try to limit certain words as hate speech. In the name of fairness they try to limit public religious worship. In the name of stopping violence they try to limit gun ownership.

Violence, you say? What about drones? Maybe they want to take my guns so I can’t shoot down their drones. Maybe they want my guns because they plan on taking over my private property. Maybe they want my guns because an economic collapse is coming. Maybe they want my guns so that I won’t be able to fight back. But in no way will taking my guns lead to any less madness or violence in the world. And because that’s true, no one is taking my guns.

How’s that for a conversation?

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

You Might Like
Previous Anti-NDAA Legislation Making Waves Around The Country
Next Isn’t ObamaCare another step towards socialized medicine?

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don't see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.

Sorry. No data so far.