Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: The Founding Fathers could never have imagined....

  1. #1
    Regular Member WhistlingJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Posts
    45

    The Founding Fathers could never have imagined....

    “The Founding Fathers could have never imagined something like an AK-47”

    I hear this argument all the time when trying to discuss the rights outlined by the Second Amendment. Quite frankly, this argument is so stupid, it offends me that someone thinks I am such a simpleton that I would accept this statement.

    There are two points on this matter.

    The Founding Fathers and those of their era utilized muzzle-loading blackpowder firearms in hostile confrontations with the Native Americans. The Native Americans used bow and arrows, they used stone and bone arrowheads, they used other weapons made of stone and wood, until Europeans taught them how to work metal. The Founders were well aware of the fact that technology, especially weapons technology advanced over time. This is to say nothing of the fact that the quest to design a firearm capable of firing multiple rounds and doing so quickly; is in fact as old as the firearm itself….and firearms were around a long time before the American Revolution.

    The other reason this statement infuriates me is the astonishing lack of vision the one who speaks it conveys, and then assumes I am similarly limited. Someone who truly believes the above statement needs to put down the iPod, get off Facebook, turn off the TV, and crack open a book; and, perhaps, expand their own imagination.

    If Gene Rodenberry can imagine a handgun that disintegrates a person, or even many metric tons of solid rock on impact….if George Lucas can envision a space station that destroys planets with so much energy it would take our sun 6,000 years to produce the necessary power….you mean to tell me that the Founding Fathers, some of the wisest men who ever lived could not envision that one day high-capacity and automatic weapons would one day exist? That a group of men which included inventors, scientists, generals, and innovators could not forsee this?

    I know I'm just preaching to the choir here, but that statement said so many times recently by those trying to seize on tragedy for personal gain just infuriates me.
    Last edited by WhistlingJack; 08-15-2012 at 11:34 AM.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good"
    -George Washington

  2. #2
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Personally, if a person is going to make the AK-47 argument, they ought to take a step back, read The Federalist, The Constitution, and formulate a substantive argument as to the Founding Fathers mind at the time of their writings.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    98
    Introduce the AK-47 of the Founders time into the conversation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

  4. #4
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    I actually had something similar to this told to me a few weeks ago. Something like "the 2A was written back when people only had muzzle loaders. It was never meant to allow people machine guns."
    My response was "True, but think about it this way, they had the exact same weapons the government had."

    To think that anyone would believe that the 2A was meant to say that as weapons got better, people should only have the best weapon available at the writing of the 2A while the government only was allowed to have better weapons... well it's just stupid honestly.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  5. #5
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    The Founding Fathers never envisioned fax machines, email, the internet, 4Chan, telephones, Skype, IRC, or all the other inventions of the last 30 years. I'm not hearing any of the "modern weapons 'r' bad" crowd advocate going back to parchment and quill pens. Theirs is a disingenuous argument at best.

    The Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles of the Revolutionaries were probably better militarily than the Brown Bess musket of the Red Coats. When you can pick off your enemy and he can't get within range; he's pretty ineffective, militarily.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 08-15-2012 at 05:03 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    When someone thinking him/her self as intelligent and witty trys that line with me I say "The founders also never envisioned a newspaper published in NY being distributed in California the same day, full color magazines distributed the same day nation wide, never envisioned radio or television much less the internet. So you are saying the only protected free speech is for newspapers printed on a hand set, hand operated press and delivered by *******? In which case you would have a nice career".

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    The Founding Fathers could never have imagined....

    It is probably reasonable to say that the founders didn't envision handheld auto loading guns. If they had conceived cartridge-loading weapons, there was little barrier to develop them.

    That said, the way they phrased things makes me think that, if they meant musket, they would have said musket. The choice of words was deliberate.

    Whether they would have endorsed the idea of carrying a high capacity, high power personal defense weapon around a modern city is a question we should consider. Maybe, by accepting the Supreme Court's notion of fair restriction, we could arrive at an appropriate solution. All-or-none may result in all, or it may result in none.
    Last edited by nonameisgood; 08-15-2012 at 06:22 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    When someone thinking him/her self as intelligent and witty tries that line with me I say "The founders also never envisioned a newspaper published in NY being distributed in California the same day, full color magazines distributed the same day nation wide, never envisioned radio or television much less the internet. So you are saying the only protected free speech is for newspapers printed on a hand set, hand operated press and delivered by *******? In which case you would have a nice career".
    Excellent expression you have provided. I may use your words or a variant of them later.

    Photographs, film, digital cameras, radio, etc.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  9. #9
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by Barnett3006 View Post
    Introduce the AK-47 of the Founders time into the conversation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle



    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    If the 1776 armies had M16s, CETMEs, and G3s, the Americans would have had them as well. George Washington would have an armory at home to equip his slaves to defend the plantation, and he'd be rocking full-auto as well. People forget that G.W. was a landed gentleman and politically active.

    The WHOLE argument about any gun is pointless; as soon as the next development in arms technology gets loose, "full-auto" won't be the issue.

    The problem is that "The [sheep] People" don't understand what defensive use of a firearm is because they are largely uneducated and many are immature. The guys who fought in WWII didn't kill because they liked it. They killed because they had a job to do, and because the other guy was trying to kill them. It's not about murder. It's about staying alive.
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  11. #11
    Regular Member WhistlingJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    It is probably reasonable to say that the founders didn't envision handheld auto loading guns. If they had conceived cartridge-loading weapons, there was little barrier to develop them.

    That said, the way they phrased things makes me think that, if they meant musket, they would have said musket. The choice of words was deliberate.

    Whether they would have endorsed the idea of carrying a high capacity, high power personal defense weapon around a modern city is a question we should consider. Maybe, by accepting the Supreme Court's notion of fair restriction, we could arrive at an appropriate solution. All-or-none may result in all, or it may result in none.
    I disagree with you there. Just because you can envision something, doesn't mean you can envision how it works. Science Fiction authors have for decades forseen technological developments before they happened, but they did not invent them, someone else did down the road.

    Genius is often the ability to do something new, or improved upon something, using a relatively simply method (like creating self-contained cartridges)

    TL DR Just because you can envision it, and expect it to occur one day, does not mean you are the one capable of making it happen.
    Last edited by WhistlingJack; 08-16-2012 at 02:17 PM.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good"
    -George Washington

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    The Founding Fathers could never have imagined....

    I'm not suggesting that the development of the cartridge was simple, or that Franklin or Jefferson didn't conceive of or try to adapt such an invention. I am suggesting that there are inventions which change the fundamental aspects of some public policies. It seems to me that the intent behind the second amendment was to be sure people (and The People) were equipped to support the State, and to defend against it should tyranny again come to power.

    We probably need to have a reasoned debate about that, within the RKBA movement, so people can hear all sides. It is unproductive to berate people for holding a different view, and sticking to an extreme position without a good vetting of facts and views isn't healthy.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    I'm not suggesting that the development of the cartridge was simple, or that Franklin or Jefferson didn't conceive of or try to adapt such an invention. I am suggesting that there are inventions which change the fundamental aspects of some public policies. It seems to me that the intent behind the second amendment was to be sure people (and The People) were equipped to support the State, and to defend against it should tyranny again come to power.

    We probably need to have a reasoned debate about that, within the RKBA movement, so people can hear all sides. It is unproductive to berate people for holding a different view, and sticking to an extreme position without a good vetting of facts and views isn't healthy.
    It has been will continue to be discussed many times over.

  14. #14
    Regular Member WhistlingJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    It is unproductive to berate people for holding a different view, and sticking to an extreme position without a good vetting of facts and views isn't healthy.
    Care to elaborate on that?
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good"
    -George Washington

  15. #15
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    I'm not suggesting that the development of the cartridge was simple, or that Franklin or Jefferson didn't conceive of or try to adapt such an invention. I am suggesting that there are inventions which change the fundamental aspects of some public policies. It seems to me that the intent behind the second amendment was to be sure people (and The People) were equipped to support the State, and to defend against it should tyranny again come to power.

    We probably need to have a reasoned debate about that, within the RKBA movement, so people can hear all sides. It is unproductive to berate people for holding a different view, and sticking to an extreme position without a good vetting of facts and views isn't healthy.
    Are you trying to say we should discuss limiting firearms ourselves because if we don't, we have a good chance of losing all?

    No offense, I will respectfully disagree with you.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  16. #16
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    I actually had something similar to this told to me a few weeks ago. Something like "the 2A was written back when people only had muzzle loaders. It was never meant to allow people machine guns."
    My response was "True, but think about it this way, they had the exact same weapons the government had."

    To think that anyone would believe that the 2A was meant to say that as weapons got better, people should only have the best weapon available at the writing of the 2A while the government only was allowed to have better weapons... well it's just stupid honestly.
    This sir is the winning answer. The intent of the second amendment was not to provide Billy Bob a gun for squirrell hunting, but to provide the American citizen the ability to fight off an tyrannical government. Thomas Jefferson was credited for saying;

    Last edited by bigdaddy1; 08-16-2012 at 04:57 PM.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  17. #17
    Activist Member carsontech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Anderson, SC
    Posts
    531
    "The Founding Fathers could never have imagined..."

    What business is it of others if I own something the founding fathers "could have never imagined"?

    Why do so many seem to worship the founding fathers?

    Why should I worship anyone that helped setup a system that, ultimately, dictates what I can't do with my own life and property?

    Why should I worship a piece of paper that does the same?

    Why would I want a system that dictates what I can and can't do with my own life and property?

    Do I own my life and property, or does someone else?

    Why would I want someone else to own my life?

    Why do many anti-rights an pro-rights people bring up the founding fathers, as to theorize about there approval or disapprove, on a matter?

    Do those same people NOT want to own there bodies and make decisions for themselves?

    Do these people want to be slaves their whole lives?

    Why must others continue to enslave everyone with the perpetuation that someone has to be in control of everyone else?

    Why should others get to decide what I can or can't do/own?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    +100

  19. #19
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by carsontech View Post
    "The Founding Fathers could never have imagined..."

    What business is it of others if I own something the founding fathers "could have never imagined"?

    Why do so many seem to worship the founding fathers?

    Why should I worship anyone that helped setup a system that, ultimately, dictates what I can't do with my own life and property?

    Why should I worship a piece of paper that does the same?

    Why would I want a system that dictates what I can and can't do with my own life and property?

    Do I own my life and property, or does someone else?

    Why would I want someone else to own my life?

    Why do many anti-rights an pro-rights people bring up the founding fathers, as to theorize about there approval or disapprove, on a matter?

    Do those same people NOT want to own there bodies and make decisions for themselves?

    Do these people want to be slaves their whole lives?

    Why must others continue to enslave everyone with the perpetuation that someone has to be in control of everyone else?

    Why should others get to decide what I can or can't do/own?
    Those founding fathers you question affirmed those rights by writing on that piece of paper that those rights are not to be diminished. I don't believe anyone worships either of them but we do revere them. The Constitution of the United States is the foundation that our country was based on. With out law there is only anarchy. Even Adam and Eve had to obey God's law so there will always be those that dictate what you do. Most of your points can be refereed to these points.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  20. #20
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    the 2nd A didn't really have anything to do about firearms
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  21. #21
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    the 2nd A didn't really have anything to do about firearms
    Not sure what 2nd amendment your reading but the United States one reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I don't believe they were describing sleeveless shirts.
    Last edited by bigdaddy1; 08-16-2012 at 10:05 PM.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    Those founding fathers you question affirmed those rights by writing on that piece of paper that those rights are not to be diminished. I don't believe anyone worships either of them but we do revere them. The Constitution of the United States is the foundation that our country was based on. With out law there is only anarchy. Even Adam and Eve had to obey God's law so there will always be those that dictate what you do. Most of your points can be refereed to these points.
    Oh, my. How did you get from the foundational law of the current union to anarchy?


    Here are some points, in no particular order:

    Carsontech asks the right question. Why are the founders idolized? Most of the Framers were politicians and lawyers. Citing Founders is only useful if your listener has some pre-existing appreciation of them. But, citing Founders misses if the listener has no appreciation for them as, for example, many recent fedgov highest executives. But, it also misses with people who know a bit more about the Founders, the constitutional convention, and the history of ratification. Meaning, the more you know, the less you idolize them or the constitution.

    Carsontech's avatar is a dead giveaway for some readers here. The man pictured in the avatar is Lysander Spooner. In 1870 he posed the idea (paraphrase) that the constitution either gave us the government we have, or was powerless to stop it. Meaning, even in his time, the fedgov was turning into a bloated monster, breaking its parchment, nonselfenforcing chains. Even one of the Founders wrote, "what have we wrought?" in dismay for what the fedgov was becoming. My memory is a little foggy. I forget who wrote it when. Jefferson? Sometime between 1811 -1819? The point is, the fedgov promptly started shedding its restraints--the men supposedly restrained weren't. By promptly, I mean promptly. The Alien and Sedition Acts under the second executive--John Adams--contained a clear, obvious, and unmistakeable violation of 1A freedom of speech/press. A number of men were charged and convicted. So, the federal courts involved were co-conspirators. The constitution is just a piece of parchment. It cannot enforce itself. There are, have been, and will be men who wish to control others and will ignore it.

    The Founders were politicians and lawyers. The constitutional convention was initiated with deceit. The call was for a convention to tune up the Articles of Confederation. Many of the conventioneers ended up in the fedgov (like there was no conflict of interest there, right?)

    And the constitution that issued from the convention didn't say a damn thing about a bill of rights. Those Founders anybody wants to idolize tried to give us a constitution without a bill of rights, and it was only through the howling of men like George Mason and Patrick Henry who completely distrusted such a government that we got a bill of rights (which was promptly ignored and has been watered down bit and piece ever since.) The Anti-federalists raised such a fuss it threatened to completely derail the ratification of the constitution by the states. James Madison, the so-called father of the bill of rights wanted nothing to do with them, calling them odious or some such. He only collected the state recommendations and edited them into the Bill of Rights after ratification was on the ropes. Some father.

    Hamilton, that lying, conniving, monarchist bastard did everything he could to persuade against a bill of rights. Yeah. The same little weasel who said that freedom was written on the souls of men opposed the bill of rights and gave obviously specious arguments that the Anti-federalists didn't buy for one minute.

    In the only state to submit the constitution to a public vote, Rhode Island, the constitution was defeated by something like 11-1.

    For the record, the Anti-federalists were right. They were convinced such a government as created under the constitution would grow, grabbing more power and more influence and more tyranny as it went. It did. They were right.

    One of the primary Federalist arguments against a bill of rights in the constitution was that there was already no power in the constitution for the government to act in various areas. Since there was no power for congress, for example, to criminalize certain speech or press critical of government, then there was no need provide protection for the same. Yeah, right. The Alien and Sedition Acts proved that was a lie. And, we all know how carefully the government adheres to using only the powers given in the constitution. The "no power" argument for not adding a bill of rights was ridiculous and the Anti-federalists knew it.

    Even Ben Franklin was convinced the constitution would fail, and said so. See his closing address to the constitutional convention.

    John Adams put on airs of pomp and royality as president. He hated the idea of democracy and was mortified when Jefferson defeated him in the election of 1800. He was also a Federalist. The same bunch that tried to pass off a constitution with no bill of rights. And, he signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law. The weasel. The judges who sentenced citizens for violating those acts were Federalists. The judge who cemented judicial review when there was no such power mentioned in the constitution, John Marshall, was a Federalist who despised Jefferson. You see where I'm headed with this.

    You can't see what's there unless you pull back the curtain of reverence for the constitution, what Kenneth Royce aptly termed "parchment idolatry." Set aside the reverence for a moment and take a look. Alternatively, if you want to revere some people, select people like The Nazarene. Even if one cannot accept His divinity, its hard to argue against his compassion and the benefit of using his principles. Or, Bhudda (spiritual freedom, compassion) whose ideas helped bring civilization to a barbarous China. Or, John Locke who published in 1689 the analysis of rights found in the Declaration of Independence--"We hold these truths..." Or, Thomas Jefferson who, while not perfect in his application, was probably better than any other founder at actually applying principles of freedom. Or, Lysander Spooner, who wrote for rights and freedom. His 1870 essay No Treason is a penetrating critique of the constitution against which it is very difficult to argue with intellectual integrity. Meaning, if you must revere somebody, select men and women who proved their committment to freedom. Rather than men like Adams, Hamilton, & Co. (Federalists) who threw off a king and quickly started working on setting up things to benefit themselves, and that bore little more than lip-service resemblence to the liberty they told everybody else they were fighting for. Remember, those rights they didn't want to put in the constitution were also, mostly, the very rights of Englishmen they earlier claimed the king and parliament were not giving them.



    As for the anarchy comment, the absence of the constitution does not equate with anarchy. We had the governments of the individual countries (states). We had the Articles of Confederation that were not tuned up but could have been. And, that convention could have written a better constitution. For example, they could have actually finished Article Three (courts) rather than leave it up to congress to write the Judiciary Act to flesh out the rest of Article III. Which reminds me. More than one scholar has pointed out that the Judiciary Act of (1789?) was actually a constitutional amendment. But, it was passed by congress as a statute, not subject to the ratification process required by Article V. Another neat little machination and subversion.

    By the way, one of the New England states went for something like three years without a state government. No disaster. No terror or lawlessness in the streets. This was around the time of the Articles of Confederation if I recall.


    One last thought. If you just can't get past the idolatry/reverence for the founders and the constitution, ask yourself why the careful omission of the facts I mentioned above about the constitution and founders. Why is that stuff not taught in high school, in-depth. Who benefits from the population not knowing? Why isn't it mainstream knowledge instead of being usually found in college courses or out-of-the-way books. Cui bono? (Who benefits?) Who benfits from the population not knowing what actually happened, supplanting knowledge with reverence instead?
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-17-2012 at 12:15 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Lasjayhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    294
    Citizen, thanks for helping me pick an avatar.

    Just another guy from Kansas named John.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Oh, my. How did you get from the foundational law of the current union to anarchy?


    Here are some points, in no particular order:

    Carsontech asks the right question. Why are the founders idolized? Most of the Framers were politicians and lawyers. Citing Founders is only useful if your listener has some pre-existing appreciation of them. But, citing Founders misses if the listener has no appreciation for them as, for example, many recent fedgov highest executives. But, it also misses with people who know a bit more about the Founders, the constitutional convention, and the history of ratification. Meaning, the more you know, the less you idolize them or the constitution.

    Carsontech's avatar is a dead giveaway for some readers here. The man pictured in the avatar is Lysander Spooner. In 1857 he posed the idea (paraphrase) that the constitution either gave us the government we have, or was powerless to stop it. Meaning, even in his time, the fedgov was turning into a bloated monster, breaking its parchment, nonselfenforcing chains. Even one of the Founders wrote, "what have we wrought?" in dismay for what the fedgov was becoming. My memory is a little foggy. I forget who wrote it when. Jefferson? Sometime between 1811 -1819? The point is, the fedgov promptly started shedding its restraints--the men supposedly restrained weren't. By promptly, I mean promptly. The Alien and Sedition Acts under the second executive--John Adams--contained a clear, obvious, and unmistakeable violation of 1A freedom of speech/press. A number of men were charged and convicted. So, the federal courts involved were co-conspirators. The constitution is just a piece of parchment. It cannot enforce itself. There are, have been, and will be men who wish to control others and will ignore it.

    The Founders were politicians and lawyers. The constitutional convention was initiated with deceit. The call was for a convention to tune up the Articles of Confederation. Many of the conventioneers ended up in the fedgov (like there was no conflict of interest there, right?)

    And the constitution that issued from the convention didn't say a damn thing about a bill of rights. Those Founders anybody wants to idolize tried to give us a constitution without a bill of rights, and it was only through the howling of men like George Mason and Patrick Henry who completely distrusted such a government that we got a bill of rights (which was promptly ignored and has been watered down bit and piece ever since.) The Anti-federalists raised such a fuss it threatened to completely derail the ratification of the constitution by the states. James Madison, the so-called father of the bill of rights wanted nothing to do with them, calling them odious or some such. He only collected the state recommendations and edited them into the Bill of Rights after ratification was on the ropes. Some father.

    Hamilton, that lying, conniving, monarchist bastard did everything he could to persuade against a bill of rights. Yeah. The same little weasel who said that freedom was written on the souls of men opposed the bill of rights and gave obviously specious arguments that the Anti-federalists didn't buy for one minute.

    In the only state to submit the constitution to a public vote, Rhode Island, the constitution was defeated by something like 11-1.

    For the record, the Anti-federalists were right. They were convinced such a government as created under the constitution would grow, grabbing more power and more influence and more tyranny as it went. It did. They were right.

    Even Ben Franklin was convinced the constitution would fail, and said so. See his closing address to the constitutional convention.

    You can't see what's there unless you pull back the curtain of reverence for the constitution, what Kenneth Royce aptly termed "parchment idolatry." Set aside the reverence for a moment and take a look.



    As for the anarchy comment, the absence of the constitution does not equate with anarchy. We had the governments of the individual countries (states). We had the Articles of Confederation that were not tuned up but could have been. And, that convention could have written a better constitution. For example, they could have actually finished Article Three (courts) rather than leave it up to congress to write the Judiciary Act to flesh out the rest of Article III. Which reminds me. More than one scholar has pointed out that the Judiciary Act of (1789?) was actually a constitutional amendment. But, it was passed by congress as a statute, not subject to the ratification process required by Article V. Another neat little machination and subversion.

    By the way, one of the New England states went for something like three years without a state government. No disaster. No terror or lawlessness in the streets.
    Thank you for this post. Seriously, I enjoyed in; I'm not being a butt about it, I really enjoyed reading it.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Lasjayhawk View Post
    Citizen, thanks for helping me pick an avatar.

    Just another guy from Kansas named John.
    He looks like he has a deep brown tan.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •