• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Open Carry with body armor ? Brady says no.

Hef

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
524
Location
Bluffton, South Carolina, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
MSC 45ACP wrote:
Actually, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a Democratic Republic. :idea:
Wrong again. We do not live in a Democratic Republic no matter what the Democrats tell you.


LOL


Funniest thing I've read in awhile. As if democrats have anything to do with a democracy. :lol::lol::lol:



This is, in fact, a democracy. It is a democratic republic, which is a form of democracy,in which the people vote and POPULARLY ELECTED candidates represent them.



democratic republic:
  • A political system in which a country is ruled by law, has representative government, and is democratic in nature.

We live in a Constitutional Republic. We elect representatives who make laws for us, and they are bound by limits set forth in our Constitution. It is not a true democracy, which would, in practice, be anarchy.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Hef wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
MSC 45ACP wrote:
Actually, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a Democratic Republic. :idea:
Wrong again. We do not live in a Democratic Republic no matter what the Democrats tell you.


LOL


Funniest thing I've read in awhile. As if democrats have anything to do with a democracy. :lol::lol::lol:



This is, in fact, a democracy. It is a democratic republic, which is a form of democracy,in which the people vote and POPULARLY ELECTED candidates represent them.



democratic republic:
  • A political system in which a country is ruled by law, has representative government, and is democratic in nature.

We live in a Constitutional Republic. We elect representatives who make laws for us, and they are bound by limits set forth in our Constitution. It is not a true democracy, which would, in practice, be anarchy.


Which makes it a form of democracy... in other words, a democratic republic... elected representatives.
 

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
MSC 45ACP wrote:
Actually, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a Democratic Republic. :idea:
Wrong again. We do not live in a Democratic Republic no matter what the Democrats tell you.


LOL


Funniest thing I've read in awhile. As if democrats have anything to do with a democracy. :lol::lol::lol:



This is, in fact, a democracy. It is a democratic republic, which is a form of democracy,in which the people vote and POPULARLY ELECTED candidates represent them.



democratic republic:

  • A political system in which a country is ruled by law, has representative government, and is democratic in nature.

Why do you think Democrats coined the moniker "Democrat"? Its because they prefer Democracy over a Republic.

The definition of Democracy:

[*]democracy - a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
Our supreme power does NOT lie with the people. It lies in the Constitution. The Constitution carries with it all the laws and rules for our society to exist. On top of that, it also enumerates how it can be modified with exact instructions. The People cannot just change it by a majority vote (but that has been happening now for quite some time). The Democrats want people to believe we're a democracy.

Anyone supporting the idea that we're a democracy is an enemy of the Republic.
 

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
Which makes it a form of democracy... in other words, a democratic republic... elected representatives.

People ELECT representatives in a Republic... it does not make it a democracy.

Just because people fly does not make them birds... you really need to learn what reason is. Your reasoning is flawed.

A democracy is rule of the people. A republic is rule by law. The whole BS idea of "of the people and by the people" was coined in the Gettysburg Address by Lincoln who was a Statist (like a modern day Statist). So many look at him as a hero, but he was not. Granted, the whole red herring of "We're doing it to end slavery" was a good one since slavery was evil, it was not the reason for the Civil war. The Civil War was fought over just what you and I are arguing now.

Are we a nation of individuals protected by a Constitution with a limited government or are we a Democracy (collective). Saying we're a democracy and saying we ELECT our representatives to make our laws is dangerous because it's not exactly what they're supposed to be doing up there. They've taken clauses out of the whole Constitution and given themselves unlimited power.... which isn't right... and they've worked now for over 150 years to convince the public we're a DEMOCRACY... which we're not.

So, if you haveone trait of something, itdoes not make you that something. We have two eyes... so does a cow.... ooop that must mean we're a COW/HUMAN.:quirky
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
imported post

Decent ballistic resistant vests can be had for as little as 250$.... cheap insurance if you ask me.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
Which makes it a form of democracy... in other words, a democratic republic... elected representatives.

People ELECT representatives in a Republic... it does not make it a democracy.

Just because people fly does not make them birds... you really need to learn what reason is. Your reasoning is flawed.

A democracy is rule of the people. A republic is rule by law. The whole BS idea of "of the people and by the people" was coined in the Gettysburg Address by Lincoln who was a Statist (like a modern day Statist). So many look at him as a hero, but he was not. Granted, the whole red herring of "We're doing it to end slavery" was a good one since slavery was evil, it was not the reason for the Civil war. The Civil War was fought over just what you and I are arguing now.

Are we a nation of individuals protected by a Constitution with a limited government or are we a Democracy (collective). Saying we're a democracy and saying we ELECT our representatives to make our laws is dangerous because it's not exactly what they're supposed to be doing up there. They've taken clauses out of the whole Constitution and given themselves unlimited power.... which isn't right... and they've worked now for over 150 years to convince the public we're a DEMOCRACY... which we're not.

So, if you haveone trait of something, itdoes not make you that something. We have two eyes... so does a cow.... ooop that must mean we're a COW/HUMAN.:quirky





You must have missed it...

democratic republic:


  • A political system in which a country is ruled by law, has representative government, and is democratic in nature.


Translation:

-constitution

-representative

-elections



A "constitutional republic" falls under the umbrella of "democracy," because the representatives are elected by popular vote. Many local level decisions and laws are also passed purely on popular vote in this country as well, but feel free to ignore that because it doesn't fit your beliefs.




Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people, as opposed to either autocracy or direct democracy.[1][/suP]

The representatives form more than what it used to be when it was an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives; that is, not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives.

In many representative democracies (Canada, Australia, UK, etc), representatives are most commonly chosen in elections by a plurality of those who are both eligible to cast votes and actually do so. A plurality means that a winning candidate has to win more votes than any other candidate in the race, but does not necessarily require a majority of the votes cast. While existing representative democracies hold such elections to choose representatives, in theory other methods, such as sortition (more closely aligned with direct democracy), could be used instead. Also, representatives sometimes hold the power to select other representatives, presidents, or other officers of government (indirect representation).

A representative democracy that emphasizes individual liberties is called a liberal democracy. One that does not is an illiberal democracy. There is no necessity that individual liberties are respected in a representative democracy.

Today, in liberal democracies, representatives are usually elected in multi-party elections that are free and fair. The power of representatives in a liberal democracy is usually curtailed by a constitution (as in a constitutional republic or a constitutional monarchy) or other measures to balance representative power:

The term republic may have many different meanings. Today, it often simply means a state with an elected or otherwise non-monarchical head of state



Why the United States is democratic in practice....
That is, the ability of the people to choose officials in government is checked by not allowing them to elect Supreme Court justices-- however in reality, such justices are appointed by the popularly elected president, and approved by the popularly-elected Senate.
 

TatankaGap

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
193
Location
Buffalo Gap, South Dakota, USA
imported post

Just like a firearm and ammo, if you need a vest, then you won't be able to go out and buy one when you need it - you gotta already have it.

When would that be? If SHTF, you might need a vest just to go to the bank or to take a drive down the highway.

If it's not SHTF, I figure for $400, I can have ballistic protection for certain work assignments that may be high risk - especially for court appearances and other requirements that I be in a 'gun free' zone for work -

(Remember back in the Appalachian Coal wars, the Sheriff who stood up for the people (was his name Hatfield or McCoy?) was falsely charged with a firearm offense in connection with shooting it out with the Pinkertons - and was gunned down on the courthouse steps? - they lured him into a gun free zone - bet he would have liked to have worn a vest, eh? ....)

I am checking out this company: http://www.go-net.co.il/ZFI/Pages/Products.aspx?CID=1 which seems to have the best deals -

And if you're looking for fashionable ballistic protection, I guess starting with Israeli products makes sense..... ;)

I wasn't impressed with the offers at bulletproofme.com compared to this ZFI company - I should have it soon (Executive Style) and will let people know feedback -

Because sometimes, moving away is not an option and standing your ground is the ony way to go....

PS - to the guy who is thinking about getting his .357 mag Marlin - I love mine - super fun to shoot, super accurate at 75-100yds and light and fun - and excellent for self-defense with 9 rds in the tubular chamber - tho, the Marin 1894 is not an easy find -
 

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
more sophistry...

Spoken like a true advocate for tyranny.

You know, smarter men than both of us have proved me right and you wrong. Walter E Williams, a trusted advocate of Libertywrote; "Our founders intended for us to have a limited republican form of government where rights precede government and where there is rule of law. Citizens, as well as government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society only to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. By contrast, in a democracy, the majority rules, either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is what ever the government deems it to be. Rights may be granted or taken away."

What the honorable Dr. Williams was saying is that you will never have freedom with democracy. Democracy is inherently tyrannical in nature.

James Madison explains in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined... [to] be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."

What James Madison was describing was not a democracy nor was it a representative democracy. It was a Republic. We have in our founding documents a Republic... not a democracy. You cannot find one mention of democracy in our founding documents... and there is a reason. We were never meant to be a democracy.

Again, anyone who advocates and pushes for democracy is an enemy of the Republic.


Oh, and just in case you think I missed it.... who do you think writes all the sophistry you use to regurgitate to me? Advocates of democracy and enemies of the Republic. They are those who support demagogues and desire democracy because sheep are so easy to manipulate. Republics are non-manipulatable if held to the letter of the law... people are easily mailable as you have proved so well here. You believe the pap you read and the definitions which are designed to lead our fellow citizens down a path to democracy, tyranny and an Oligarchy which is what has happened.

Yeah, AWD can consider himself PWNED!!!
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Oh, and just in case you think I missed it.... who do you think writes all the sophistry you use to regurgitate to me? Advocates of democracy and enemies of the Republic. They are those who support demagogues and desire democracy because sheep are so easy to manipulate. Republics are non-manipulatable if held to the letter of the law... people are easily mailable as you have proved so well here. You believe the pap you read and the definitions which are designed to lead our fellow citizens down a path to democracy, tyranny and an Oligarchy which is what has happened.



Do we, or do we not popularly elect our government officials? Correct answer: we do

We fall under the "democracy" category. Don't be so afraid of words.

Even a strict,republic, if popularly elected, falls under"democracy."



Again, since you don't actually read before spewing...

The power of representatives in a liberal democracy is usually curtailed by a constitution (as in a constitutional republic or a constitutional monarchy) or other measures to balance representative power:



That's what we have.

Don't be so afraid of words. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.
 

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
More sophistry

European Democracies are just that.... Democracies and they are quickly on the road to failure as is the Canadian Democracy.

The Senate is not supposed to be popularly elected, but the Statists used populism to fool people into changing the Constitution. The president is NOT popularly elected.... not democracy and should never be. The Courts were never meant to be elected positions.... and should not be.

You statists won't stop... and every time you're exposed for the frauds you are, you attack with the same old tired sophistry.

Your allies write those definitions... they write them to change the meanings of our original system of government. They do so because they have no respect for rights and believe that government should have all rights and hand them out like a privilege.

Again, you are a stated enemy of the Republic... you can deny it... but that's what you are. You fight for the very form of government that will end up destroying our liberty and what you fight for will also eventually take away your own RTKBA.

So what are you doing here? Why do you claim to stand for our Constitutional rights when you are an obvious enemy of the Republic which was erected to protect those rights (not grant, but protect)?
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Sorry AWDstylez, but you failed here.

There is a much better way to prove Washingtonian wrong, and it doesn't take a page and a half of back-and-forth.

Jefferson, one of the "founding fathers" being here discussed, referred to democracy often in his writings. He used it interchangeably with "republic". There was no "evil" Democratic Party at the time for Jefferson to oppose, semantically or otherwise.

The quote often attributed to Jefferson "A democracy is nothing more than a mob rule where 51% rule the other 49%" is unattributable to him. Rather, it is a misattribution.

Read the following:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/otj70.htm

A couple of quotes (lifted from that article for convenience):

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
[Our] object is to secure self government by the republicanism of our constitution, as well as by the spirit of the people; and to nourish and perpetuate that spirit. I am not among those who fear the people. They and not the rich are our dependence for continued freedom.


Thomas Jefferson wrote:
The mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights.


Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Democrats consider the people as the safest depository of power in the last resort; they cherish them, therefore, and wish to leave in them all the powers to the exercise of which they are competent.
Jefferson here claims for "Democrats" something which he said himself numerous times (see above). The only possible rationalization is that Jefferson considered himself a republican AND a democrat. (Besides, Republic ∈ Democracy.)



Jefferson even refers to direct ("pure") democracy as a "republic":

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Such a government [i.e., a pure republic] is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township.
(Clearly he is talking about direct democracy where every issue is placed to a vote of every citizen.)


Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men.


Thomas Jefferson wrote:
I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law.

Need I go on?
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

MSC 45ACP wrote:
Actually, we don't live in a democracy.  We live in a Democratic Republic. :idea:
Washingtonian has subscribed to the (false) theory that these terms are mutually exclusive. Or, rather, "Democratic Republic" is an oxymoron.


Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or
monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes,
exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did
not commit suicide." ~ John Adams
As for John Adams, he was a Federalist, which were the original Statist Party. No wonder he'd say something like that. :quirky

Jefferson, on the other hand, was an anti-Federalist, an anti-statist, a true liberal, a man of the people, and a philosopher of weight even today.



Edit: As to the source of the false distinction, I remember how the differentiation between "republic" and "democracy" interested me very much when I first hear Badnarik talking about it at some length. However, when I finally got around to exploring the idea further in my own research, it became immediately apparent that Badnarik was full of @#$%. The distinction is wholly a modern invention, and exists only in the minds of people who believe the "democracy" and "republic" used titularly by the two major political parties actually mean something.

In short, it's a way of saying "the democrats are even more wrong than the republicans, because we have a 'republic' and not a 'democracy'"!

Of course, the Democratic Party is hardly democratic, and the GOP is equally anti-republican. Together, they form two sides of a single coin of tyranny, with hardly a hoot of difference between the two.

And finally, the terms "republic" and "democracy" have meaning which extends far beyond the timeline of our modern parties, who have merely misappropriated the terms for their own nefarious purposes (disinformation).
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Well you managed to do that pretty concisely. I'll have to subscribe to the founding fathers "quote a day" emailing list. :lol:



Marshaul:
Edit: As to the source of the false distinction, I remember how the differentiation between "republic" and "democracy" interested me very much when I first hear Badnarik talking about it at some length. However, when I finally got around to exploring the idea further in my own research, it became immediately apparent that Badnarik was full of @#$%. The distinction is wholly a modern invention, and exists only in the minds of people who believe the "democracy" and "republic" used titularly by the two major political parties actually mean something.



Yea, that's basically it. I don't have much to add at this point.
 

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
imported post

As I think you both know, there is a giant difference between the two systems of government. One of the main fears at the Constitutional Convention of the United States was that the government they created would be too democratic (causing Alexander Hamilton to suggest a restricted monarchy), because it was quite obvious, then and now, that any majority could vote itself anything it wanted, be it property or executions. That is why it bothers me so much when ignorant people say that this country is a democracy; it does a tremendous disservice to all of the people whose thought went into creating our republic. There was a lot of thought put into the wording of our founding documents and even the idea of democracy was kept at arms length in fear of letting it infect the tenants of our Republic. Think about how our courts and convictions work... you need all 12 jurors to convict or you walk. All or none isn't Democracy, it is a legal limit found within the framework of a true Liberty protecting Republic. Also, what I said about electing judges earlier I stand by... no judge should ever be elected, only appointed and the appointment should be for life so he cannot be threatened or cajoled by public opinion.

But an even more sinister effect is that people actually begin to attribute and incorporate tenets of democracies into our republican structure slowly watering down our rights and allowing them to be papered over with “the will of the people”. Things like referendums and ballot initiatives. Prop 8 in California for example. These are not only reckless but entirely specious. What legitimacy is gained from getting a majority of voters to pass anything? If 66% of voters vote to ban gay marriage, does that make it right? If there were a referendum held to ban smoking with a victory of 50.5% to 48.3%, would that make it right? If 51% vote to tax the rich and give those taxes to the poor, does that make it right? If you don’t agree the answer to all those questions is no, you are not a supporter of a Republic. Truth isn't determined by how many people one can get to agree with you. This is why the idea of a consensus in science is such an anathema to real science. This is also why democracy should be fought off wherever it shows its ugly face, it can and will be used to justify anything a majority of voters want. The majority could choose tomorrow to ask that all guns be banned. If that majority was more than 2/3 of the public… do you think we’d win the argument? In this “Democracy” that you keep protecting, the right to bear arms will be lost. The right to free speech is already being taken in the name of curbing “Hate Speech” or “Racial Sensitivity” or “Gender Sensitivity” or some other excuse. Democracy is where Liberty dies and you two support it unquestioningly.

I’ve already shown in previous posts that most in government were not meant to be elected by popular vote. Not judges, not senators, and not the President. There were other safeguards put in place as well, like never mentioning democracy in any of our official founding governmental documents. Not the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, and not in the Constitution, written mostly by James Madison.

My premise is solid and I’ve backed it up with proof. Yours are banal and have no actual proof to provide. My proof is in our very founding documents; your proofs are insubstantial claims from people’s letters and correspondences.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a woman asked Dr. Franklin as he left the hall, “Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?” to which he replied. “A republic if you can keep it.” The talk back then was not of democracy, or at least it was not of having a democracy, but rather, having a Republic.

Again, there is so much to back up my assertions, and only modern definitions and random quotes taken out of context to start to even build towards validating yours… which will never happen.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
But an even more sinister effect is that people actually begin to attribute and incorporate tenets of democracies into our republican structure slowly watering down our rights and allowing them to be papered over with “the will of the people”. Things like referendums and ballot initiatives. Prop 8 in California for example. These are not only reckless but entirely specious. What legitimacy is gained from getting a majority of voters to pass anything? If 66% of voters vote to ban gay marriage, does that make it right? If there were a referendum held to ban smoking with a victory of 50.5% to 48.3%, would that make it right? If 51% vote to tax the rich and give those taxes to the poor, does that make it right?


There's NO reason that the will of people, since the people are the government (in theory, not so much as practice these days), should be made policy if it is not in violation of the constitution. That's how it's supposed to work. Nothing you listed is in violation of the constitution, so I see no reason that the PEOPLE (because that's who it's about) should be able to have the society they want. You see to think that if public opinion is taken out of consideration, then EVERYONE will be happy. In reality, you'll get what we have now and NO ONE will be happy.

What you're proposing is rule by the L33T ones. Us common folk are too stupid to understand government and law. So just give us some faux elections, send the L33T to Washington and they'll all take care of us lowely serfs. To support your ideas of L33T rule, you quote a bunch of authoritarians and people that were FOR big government. Of course they're going to bash any suggestion of democracy, it takes the power out of their hands and puts it where it belongs -with the people.

As you continuously ignore, all actions in this nation are supposed to be restricted by the constitution.


The power of representatives in a liberal democracy is usually curtailed by a constitution





But what you really don't seem to get is that our republic IS a form of democracy.
Jefferson, one of the "founding fathers" being here discussed, referred to democracy often in his writings. He used it interchangeably with "republic".
 

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
There's NO reason that the will of people, since the people are the government (in theory, not so much as practice these days), should be made policy if it is not in violation of the constitution.
Liberals like yourself always use these types of specious arguments. They don't hold water since you and your kind read many things INTO the Constitution that are not there... to you, it's a living and breathing document. You are true enemies of the Republic.

AWDstylez wrote:
Nothing you listed is in violation of the constitution, so I see no reason that the PEOPLE (because that's who it's about) should be able to have the society they want. You see to think that if public opinion is taken out of consideration, then EVERYONE will be happy. In reality, you'll get what we have now and NO ONE will be happy.

Um, to hell with the people's happiness! Your happiness and your neighbors happiness is not my problem... And every single thing I listed is a violation of Liberty and Freedom hence, a violation of our founding principals as laid out in our OFFICIAL documents unlike what you keep referencing.



AWDstylez wrote:
What you're proposing is rule by the L33T ones. Us common folk are too stupid to understand government and law. So just give us some faux elections, send the L33T to Washington and they'll all take care of us lowely serfs. To support your ideas of L33T rule, you quote a bunch of authoritarians and people that were FOR big government. Of course they're going to bash any suggestion of democracy, it takes the power out of their hands and puts it where it belongs -with the people.
Somecommon folk (as you put it) are pretty damn stupid... that is true. But people, as in a person alone do just fine if they don't try and control other people's actions and lives. The problem is that you Liberals are always trying to control other people's actions and lives.

Our representatives were to be limited in function to what was enumerated in the Constitution. If it is not in there... they cannot do it. That was SUPPOSED to be the way things worked.Your favorite person to quote, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Pennsylvania Rep. Albert Gallatin, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." Does this mean they can just make laws to fill in the blanks.... hell NO it doesn't. There is a reason for the Tenth Amendment and it is to STOP Congress from making laws in areasthat are not specifically granted to them in the Constitution. You do understand the meaning of specific don't you?

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." ~ Federalist Paper 45

Kind of spells out in more detail the 10th Amendment. You can read through the Constitution and find that Congress and the President are limited to mostly external objects (issues) such as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce... and this is where taxes will primarily be taken from (or that is how it was supposed to be done).

But you liberals don't like minimal control. And what's worse, you think you'll be a part of the majority making the rules. There is a reason why the 10th Amendment leaves much up to the States and/or the Individual... it's called LIBERTY... something you modern liberals have given up on long ago.

AWDstylez wrote:
As you continuously ignore, all actions in this nation are supposed to be restricted by the constitution.


The power of representatives in a liberal democracy is usually curtailed by a constitution
Usually curtailed... but not always. However, in a Republic, the power of the representatives is always curtailed by the Constitution. The representatives are not there as rulers or leaders, they are our proxies selected to negotiate, to deal with foreign commerce and to protect the Constitution and make sure States don't violate the Constitution either.

My Liberty is not up for a vote... and I'm willing toparticipate another war to make sure the liberals in this country understand that. But the moniker "Liberal" isn't really defining of people like you... you're really just a Statist and you are an enemy of the Republic and of Liberty and Freedom.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Again, there is so much to back up my assertions, and only modern definitions and random quotes taken out of context to start to even build towards validating yours… which will never happen. 
I recommend this. I have actually read this cover-to-cover, and I can assure you that, although those quotes were lifted from that article for convenience, nothing is misrepresented out of context. My post above quite accurately deconstructs the issue.

I advise you to do more original research, and take what others tell you with a grain of salt until independently verified.

For what it's worth, the "founding fathers" didn't agree on much of anything, and it's not surprising that Adams said what he did. However, his opinion was not universally held, and there is no merit to your assertion of the historical definition of these terms. A "republic" is a form of "democracy", and as such the terms were used interchangeably wherever the distinction was contextually made irrelevant.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
I’ve already shown in previous posts that most in government were not meant to be elected by popular vote.
You're quite right. However, such a system is even today called a "direct democracy", in contrast to a more general form of "democracy", which could be a republic, among other things.

That is to say, although direct popular vote would be one kind of democracy, it is not the only kind, and "democracy" is not defined as "direct popular vote" anywhere except in your world.
 
Top