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.
Truth be told, there is alot of things I wish we had a law against. On a personal level, I feel we abuse our "freedoms" way way way too much.
However, once you factor history and human nature into the mix, there really is no alternative. Using guns as a micro-example, many people say things like "I'm not looking to ban guns, just common sense laws". However, it almost never stops with "common sense" becuase to some, "common sense" means no guns at all....
It's the same with any other issue. When you live in a country with 300 million people from every corner of the globe representing every ideology, culture, income level, religon, bacground, etc, you simply are never going to have the type of societal cohesion of a place like Japan or Sweden. You'll end up with 300 million different answers as to what should and should not be allowed. Scream bigot all you want, but homogenty is what makes those places what they are and diversity is what makes us what we are. America has always been an ugly, dangerous, cutthroat place on a societal level. But to many, it's a land where anything is possible. Freedom to succeed is freedom to fail. Freedom to do good is freedom to do bad. Can't seperate the two.
There is something to what you are saying, but that doesn't obviate the need for weapons. Yes, the American Revolution is not going to happen again the way it did last time. What Bertrand Russell in regard to communist revolution in 1920 hold true for all other types of revolutions: they are not possible in an advanced democracy, because to succeed they would require the support of a proportion of the populace that would suffice to change the system non-violently. However, that does not mean the U.S. cannot degenerate in time into a Balkans-like situation. Many folks in the Balkans who found themselves without guns are lying in a mass grave somewhere.
Somewhere, but not in Kosovo. In fact, are we defining mass graves as 2 people or 7? I'm pretty sure NATO must have looked at it wrong. They escalated it. 100%. That was after we all of a sudden decided to move the KLA to our friends list. I can see how guns would have prevented this. Now either Milosevic put people down the shaft to destroy the evidence or he got the shaft to destroy the evidence.
It is not that I do not recognize the need for guns. It is that there is a romanticized notion of how to contend with what people believe that they are up against. It makes people feel secure, but realistically it is a whole nother ballgame.
How would the Constitution be interpreted, if the founders had given us all those freedoms, "but not if we abuse them."
Freedom of the Press, but not if we abuse it, by asking hard questions of the people who define abuse.
The Founders sat down in Philadelphia and wrote "We trust you American people to do the right thing". Maybe they were wrong. What do we do now?
Whoa, there.... someone has misled you.
The "founders" did not "give us freedoms".
Inalienable rights to life, liberty and private property ownership (euphemistically called "pursuit of happiness") are endowed by our Creator.
Governments are instituted among men to (a) secure rights, and (b) govern those who consent.
So all our natural and personal liberties existed BEFORE government.
And if we surrender those rights, powers, freedoms and liberties to a power hungry voracious parasitic government, we're bigger fools.
BTW - the U.S. Constitution is a compact for specific performance between the States united and the "United States, in Congress assembled".
All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy and policy requires consent.
All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy and policy requires consent.
Whoa there---I don't misle easily.
As I recall, the British crown took those freedoms away from us, and the founders were instrumental in returning them to us. Did I miss something?
How did this amazing law of yours protect the property rights of Indians? Or their pursuit of happiness, as you euphemistically mis-call it. Come on, boys and girls, let's all walk to Oklahoma and pursue our happiness there.
Kneel down beside your beddy-bye and pray to your god to bless grampa and your kitty, and leave the rest of us to discuss the real world.
As I recall, the British crown took those freedoms away from us, and the founders were instrumental in returning them to us. Did I miss something?
They didn't take them away; under British rule we never had them. Every British citizen was considered a subject to the king and the king could do whatever he wanted in terms of rights.
It was during the enlightenment period that philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke started to define what a social contract and inalienable rights are. The matter is not if we have them or not, the matter is if a government will recognize them or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
How did this amazing law of yours protect the property rights of Indians? Or their pursuit of happiness, as you euphemistically mis-call it. Come on, boys and girls, let's all walk to Oklahoma and pursue our happiness there.
Again, the colonies (and later on U.S. government) did not recognize the rights of the Indians. They have them, but they were not recognized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
Kneel down beside your beddy-bye and pray to your god to bless grampa and your kitty, and leave the rest of us to discuss the real world.
You are being condescending and disrespectful for no reason at all. Struck a nerve maybe?
You are being condescending and disrespectful for no reason at all. Struck a nerve maybe?
No, I have a very good reason. This is a serious forum where intelligent people discuss things, and to introduce divine intervention into the causation of world history is an insult to all of us.
Not to mention the picture of the founders, finally signing the documents, and the next day, slapping their forehead and saying "Private property ownership!!! Damn!!! That's the word I was trying to think of. Oh, well, Pursuit of Happiness will have to do. Never mind, jetgraphics will explain it to everyone".
No, I have a very good reason. This is a serious forum where intelligent people discuss things, and to introduce divine intervention into the causation of world history is an insult to all of us.
Then maybe you should take your own advice? When you are being condescending and foul for an unwarranted reason, it makes us think that you cannot debate intellectually without throwing in a few low blows. Maybe you should go back and read the rules of this forum to refresh your memory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
Not to mention the picture of the founders, finally signing the documents, and the next day, slapping their forehead and saying "Private property ownership!!! Damn!!! That's the word I was trying to think of. Oh, well, Pursuit of Happiness will have to do. Never mind, jetgraphics will explain it to everyone".
Actually, any picture drawn depicting the founding fathers is indeed a guess because we don't know what went down (other than being able to retrieve the diary of John Adam's I think). All we know is that the constitution came from their meeting. They were all sworn to secrecy and the doors were locked so the period that they were in there is basically up in the air. Furthermore, they used the pursuit of happiness because they believed it would go over easier with the colonies. In John Locke's social contract, he said that we have a right to life, liberty, and property, but our founding father's decided to spice it up and replace property with happiness. Simple as that really.
Then maybe you should take your own advice? When you are being condescending and foul for an unwarranted reason, it makes us think that you cannot debate intellectually without throwing in a few low blows. Maybe you should go back and read the rules of this forum to refresh your memory.
.
How can I be condescending, unless there is a poster to condescend to?
Many of us are sick and tired of taking the time and trouble to research and develop a premise, and then have it shot down by someone whose only argument is "You are wrong because God didn't make it the way you said it is."
If you want to argue that God gave us liberty, there is a Religion forum. That God gave us liberty has no more argumentative foundation than to assert that God blesses your pet bunny.
And then you argue that you know what the Founders were thinking, after already asserting that their deliberations were behind closed doors, and they did not say what you say they thought.
How can I be condescending, unless there is a poster to condescend to?
Many of us are sick and tired of taking the time and trouble to research and develop a premise, and then have it shot down by someone whose only argument is "You are wrong because God didn't make it the way you said it is."
If you want to argue that God gave us liberty, there is a Religion forum. That God gave us liberty has no more argumentative foundation than to assert that God blesses your pet bunny.
And then you argue that you know what the Founders were thinking, after already asserting that their deliberations were behind closed doors, and they did not say what you say they thought.
Dude.
What I'm saying is that is the premise of which our founding father's wrote the constitution with and what was in John Locke's social contract. They are the ones that came up with the philosophy of natural rights (rights given by God or endowed by a creator) and created a document from that philosophy. And please, don't put me in the same category as theist because I am not one.
Also, please don't forget that I said we have James Madison's (I said John Adam's earlier but that is wrong - I don't think he was even invited!) diary. We can surely draw some conclusions from there, can we not? We know that they most likely changed property to happiness because in the preamble it says just about the same thing as John Locke's philosophy but property is changed to happiness.
If you truly feel the need to condescend and act like a buffoon then I'm sure you will be welcomed with warm arms over at the P&C forum. I just can't seem to take your comments seriously when you are making snide remarks and off the wall comments for no apparent reason at all.
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.
