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.
And when Adams said that our form of government was suitable only to a moral and religious people? How do you reconcile your position on church & state with that?
Jefferson's statement is in the same spirit as the language in the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law..." It's not the government's job to dictate what you can and can't believe. Wall.
"was suitable only to a moral and religious people?"
"was suitable only to a moral and religious people?"
Moral and religious are NOT inclusive.
You can be "moral" and NOT "religious" at all.
Morality universally springs from religion. You don't have to be a believer to live by a moral framework built on religious principles, but it helps to understand why you do what you do.
Your first statement is incorrect. Your second statement is correct as written, but your reasoning is flawed.
ETA: Oh, and for the record, you're challenging one of the most famous quotes from Adams. It's famous for a reason. Perhaps you should consider that before dismissing it so cavalierly.
No, it's about 20% loony lefties vs 80% sane people. That 80% includes a lot of "normie" Democrats; it's not a D/R thing.
Societies are built on moral foundations. Morals come from religion. You can't separate the two, nor can you have a civilized society without morals, and you can't have morals without religion.
John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." By that, he meant that only a moral and religious People could be self-governing, because it requires a certain level of self-discipline of the People in order to function. People who think they're supreme over nature tend to think they're supreme over other people, too, and tend to be somewhat ungovernable.
[Side note for the ASSumers out there: I'm agnostic.]
Free speech absolutist. All speech is legal. Only actions are illegal. If I incite a riot, incitement is the charge. I'm not charged with speaking forbidden words. Understand the difference.
There's no such thing as "hate speech." There's only speech that YOU hate. Try not to hate so much. It's an extremely negative emotion and will destroy you, eventually.
Speech is an extension of thought - we think by collecting information and evaluating it, and quite a lot of that collection process involves talking with other people. Ideas are combined and create an ideas greater than the sum of their parts. This is how we grow and thrive as a society. Restricting ANY speech is restricting thought. There's no difference.
That's not true, AT ALL.
Every death is tragic. The double digit numbers coming out of Chicago every weekend are awful. What's more awful is that they're ignored by the people who claim to stand for those victims, while they try to strip me and my friends of our lawfully purchased and owned private property. I would engage them, if they weren't so nakedly disingenuous.
That said, BY FAR, governments have killed more innocents than all gun crime in U.S. history, combined.
One might say that I should give up my guns because someone in Baltimore or Fresno will somehow be safer for it. Any evidence provided will be thin and obviously cherry picked. It's the pattern of how these things go.
I say that we're ALL safer when the People are armed, and my evidence is the history of the 20th century.
I agree with you. It's actions, like needlessly inciting panic, that should be illegal.
I've always thought it should be legal to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater. If the villain in the movie needs to be shot quickly by a hesitant 'damsel in distress', we must be free to call out, "FIRE!". In that context, calling out 'Fire!' would not start a panic.
"Notice it doesn't mention Cannons at all, it doesn't mention any type of "arms""
Private citizens owned cannons at the time. They ALSO owned warships. the writers made no, zero, zilch, mention of the citizens NOT being allowed to own them. Which speaks for itself.
In those days, the people were the government.
Nameless, faceless, omnipresent government wasn't a thing, like it is today.
It sometimes feels that people view the framers as all knowing and almost god like beings. They knew the future and attended to happenings of 200 years hence with their pronouncements. Sure a lot of it is great stuff, but seriously, treating them as though they are carved in stone commandments is a religious position.
The Constitution wasn't written to limit our rights. It was written to limit the authority of the government to protecting our rights to life, liberty and property. That's it.
"Notice it doesn't mention Cannons at all, it doesn't mention any type of "arms""
Private citizens owned cannons at the time. They ALSO owned warships. the writers made no, zero, zilch, mention of the citizens NOT being allowed to own them. Which speaks for itself.
Yup, where the hell did Biden get the lie from, that the Constitution listed guns which people could not own, and banned the sale of cannons???
Apparently to the Democratic-Socialists, "shall make no law prohibiting, abridging, and shall not be infringed," are too vague on not specific enough for the Democrats.
Location: Somewhere gray and damp, close to the West Coast
20,955 posts, read 5,547,998 times
Reputation: 8559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
Yup, where the hell did Biden get the lie from, that the Constitution listed guns which people could not own, and banned the sale of cannons???
Apparently to the Democratic-Socialists, "shall make no law prohibiting, abridging, and shall not be infringed," are too vague on not specific enough for the Democrats.
The Constitution wasn't written to limit our rights. It was written to limit the authority of the government to protecting our rights to life, liberty and property. That's it.
Location: Somewhere gray and damp, close to the West Coast
20,955 posts, read 5,547,998 times
Reputation: 8559
Here's the line. If you don't like the Constitution the way it was written, feel free to step over the line into your own country and write your own.
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.
