Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, Thomas Jefferson may have been the author of the Declaration of Independence and the third US President, but he was not technically a "founding father." Jefferson was not even in the country when the founding document, the US Constitution, was written. In fact, Jefferson wrote that he opposed the original US Constitution as ratified by the States.
Second, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists about the "separation of church and state" referred to the prohibition of government creating an establishment of religion. Since the First Amendment was originally taken from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which Jefferson wrote, he could be considered the authority on the subject.
A traditional congressional benediction is not the "government creating an establishment of religion." A politician evoking a religious deity in a speech is not the "government creating an establishment of religion." A valedictorian speech evoking a religious deity in a public school is not the "government creating an establishment of religion."
Only through the enactment of laws can government create an establishment of religion.
"but he was not technically a "founding father".
I, and many others would disagree.
"Although Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence. Later his actions as the first secretary of state, vice president, leader of the first political opposition party, and third president of the United States were crucial in shaping the look of the nation's capital and defining the powers of the Constitution and the nature of the emerging republic."
"Jefferson played a major role in the planning, design, and construction of a national capitol and the federal district. In the various public offices he held, Jefferson sought to establish a federal government of limited powers. In the 1800 presidential election, Jefferson and Aaron Burr deadlocked, creating a constitutional crisis. However, once Jefferson received sufficient votes in the electoral college, he and the defeated incumbent, John Adams, established the principle that power would be passed peacefully from losers to victors in presidential elections. Jefferson called his election triumph "the second American Revolution."
Sorry, but no. You need a license for the 2nd Amendment because you are purchasing a deadly weapon along with ammunition for said weapon.
It's the only amendment that deals with a tool used to kill people. Get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adiosToreador
Conceal Carry Permit, buddy. Thanks.
Get over it.
I see you get snarky when challenged and proven wrong.
You did NOT say you need a license to get a CC in your original post. You said, "You need a license for the 2nd Amendment because you are purchasing a deadly weapon along with ammunition for said weapon.
Again you are wrong in your "clarification" statement.
Having a CC has NOTHING to do with buying weapons and ammo.
Instead of being condescending, "get over it", maybe YOU should do some research before making such a fool of yourself.
I like the theory that you need a license because the weapon is deadly. A kitchen knife, a 7 iron, a chainsaw, and a 10 pound sledgehammer are all deadly if employed for killing. Why do none of them require a license? I drive 10 penny nails into the head of a bat, I just created a Louisville Slugger morning star. So licenses are required for ranged deadly, not melee deadly? OK, I guess?
Now, back to licensing ranged. Why? What purpose does it serve? Does the license make the ranged weapon any less deadly? Does a 3 day waiting period and background check make someone more skilled with the weapon, more thoughtful in its use? People actually have to take practical and written tests to get a license to operate a motor vehicle, yet cars result in roughly 3x the amount of deaths that guns do. Guess licenses don't make cars less dangerous, since apparently government paperwork can't repeal the laws of physics.
So why the license need for a gun? It's OK, everyone knows....
Licenses/registrations are for the government's intel database. It gives them a bead on who poses a threat to them, who is a troublemaker, and who might resist tyranny. Every gun control law in existence exists to protect the government from the people. I don't care what the law says, what the cheer leaders imagine, or whatever. If there is a law in any way diminishing your natural right to own the tools of self-defense, it is so that the government never loses their tactical and material superiority over the citizenry.
"Although Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence. Later his actions as the first secretary of state, vice president, leader of the first political opposition party, and third president of the United States were crucial in shaping the look of the nation's capital and defining the powers of the Constitution and the nature of the emerging republic."
"Jefferson played a major role in the planning, design, and construction of a national capitol and the federal district. In the various public offices he held, Jefferson sought to establish a federal government of limited powers. In the 1800 presidential election, Jefferson and Aaron Burr deadlocked, creating a constitutional crisis. However, once Jefferson received sufficient votes in the electoral college, he and the defeated incumbent, John Adams, established the principle that power would be passed peacefully from losers to victors in presidential elections. Jefferson called his election triumph "the second American Revolution."
I am very familiar with all of Jefferson's accomplishments. He was not able to influence the Constitutional Convention at all. While he did indeed receive correspondence from Madison concerning the convention, that information would have been several months old by the time Jefferson received it. If Jefferson wished to reply, his correspondence would not have been received by Madison until after the Constitutional Convention was over.
The only input Jefferson had over the US Constitution is reflected in the First Amendment which was added in 1791. Jefferson did not approve of the US Constitution until after the Bill of Rights were added.
The only input Jefferson had over the US Constitution is reflected in the First Amendment which was added in 1791. Jefferson did not approve of the US Constitution until after the Bill of Rights were added.
This.
Of note, most of the political class of Virginia did not approve of the Constitution, some even after the Bill of Rights was added. Patrick Henry NEVER got on board (and I say that knowing he allied with Hamilton and Adams later in life with the VA-KY Resolutions), and Virginia is still the only state to elect federal representatives running on the anti-Constitution platform.
Essentially, the Constitution happened not just because of some people, but also in spite of plenty of others. Read the Anti-Federalist Papers by Brutus and just about anything Patrick Henry said or wrote on the subject. It was not a universally well received thing, not at all.
Last edited by Volobjectitarian; 12-20-2013 at 09:22 AM..
Of note, most of the political class of Virginia did not approve of the Constitution, some even after the Bill of Rights was added. Patrick Henry NEVER got on board, and Virginia is still the only state to elect federal representatives running on the anti-Constitution platform.
That is certainly true. Virginia only ratified the US Constitution if their 20 proposed amendments were included. New York proposed an additional dozen or so amendments for their ratification of the US Constitution. As did a few other colonies. In total there were around 47 amendments proposed for the US Constitution before ratification. Those 47 proposed amendments got boiled down to the first ten amendments to be added in 1791.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
Essentially, the Constitution happened not just because of some people, but also in spite of plenty of others. Read the Anti-Federalist Papers by Brutus and just about anything Patrick Henry said or wrote on the subject. It was not a universally well received thing, not at all.
The proposed US Constitution "was not a universally well received thing" by the attendees of the Constitutional Convention either. I am reminded of the very last sentence of Benjamin Franklin's speech at the end of the convention just before the vote.
"On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument." --- Benjamin Franklin, September 17, 1787.
Thomas Jefferson had a significant influence on the founding of the nation; albeit his ideas were not adopted by the framers of the Constitution. Jefferson was serving as Ambassador to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention; and except for his correspondence with some of the delegates, what resulted was largely the work of James Madison. (Even his draft Constitution and Declaration of Rights for Virginia was rejected in favor of the model of George Mason.) Jefferson’s main contribution was the Louisiana Purchase, which opened the way to westward expansion, and the rise of America to become one of the great nations of the world. The epitaph on his tomb recites: "Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom, & Father of the University of Virginia." He died bankrupt; but he nevertheless left a rich legacy for all of us.
The proposed US Constitution "was not a universally well received thing" by the attendees of the Constitutional Convention either. I am reminded of the very last sentence of Benjamin Franklin's speech at the end of the convention just before the vote.
"On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument." --- Benjamin Franklin, September 17, 1787.
To that I would add:
Quote:
"This, sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility, and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves".-First Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention --- Patrick Henry, 5 June 1788
And echoed in Federalist #86, where even though Hamilton was a proponent of the universal big government, his objection to the Bill of Rights was in the prediction of the future mischief that has obviously been shown to be quite accurate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
