M14 Forum banner

81 - 100 of 130 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,222 Posts
You can't sue anyone from it, correct
That. Is. What. I. Said. Period. Not sure why people are trying to make it different. But I was questioning the assertion that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness were rights. They are not. Because the Declaration is not a legal document enumerating our rights. Life/Liberty are, however, protected in various ways through other laws.

They knew big government needed to be controlled and could become tyrannical
There was no fear whatsoever against "big government." That term is unbelievably modern. Like 60 years old as opposed to 240+ years old. There was fear of dictatorships and royalty. There was no such thing as big government anywhere on earth. There was no political class, there was a ruling class who were nearly always some form of heriditary caste. Politicians were just clerks and nearly powerless. They feared big government as much as microwave ovens, which also didn't exist and they couldn't possibly know about.

but probably never thought anyone would question the right to life, liberty or pursue happiness here as God given rights.
Dur. It was questioned in 1776. Which is why women couldn't vote and slavery was legal. That's certainly not liberty. And it's certainly not taxation without representation. The crux of the Declaration of Independence, like it's name very obviously suggests, was to free ourselves from England. Freedom and Liberty for blacks wouldn't come for another approximately 87 years (4 score and 7 years) and taxation without representation for women until another 50ish years.

And of course they questioned God as well. Franklin and Jefferson being standout examples. Though they changed thoughout their lives.

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source ever in College either.
Well, good thing I've read dozens of books about the Founding Fathers. And good thing the sources are annotated.

As for lawyers, how many "Lawyers" are politicians?
Lots. Kind of like many of our Founding Fathers. This is the most lawyer-bound country on the planet because it was created by lawyers. Though tallies vary depending on who you ask, because the profession wasn't like it is today--and they were busy and wide-ranging guys.

Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 25 were lawyers. Of the 55 framers of the Constitution, 32 were lawyers.
The delegates practiced a wide range of occupations, and many men pursued more than one career simultaneously. Thirty-five were lawyers or had benefited from legal training, though not all of them relied on the profession for a livelihood. Some had also become judges
http://www.usconstitution.net/declarsigndata.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/constframedata.html
 
Joined
·
5,445 Posts
We're straying from the topic now... screw King George!

Back to picking apart California!

GI2


I'm pseudo-kidding of course (ref: "picking apart California"). There's plenty of stuff I love about this state... it's just that the negatives now outnumber the positives and that for me is a sad thing considering I remember this state some forty years ago and it was a more hospitable place (than it is today).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Laws, regulations, and so on in California make me appreciate living in West Virginia more each day. Only yesterday at local range, some 5 miles from my house, there were dozen or more of us shooting everything from sporting rifles, pistols/revolvers, etc. and much conversation about how fortunate we were. It is well known among our "politicians" that any attempt to pass useless restrictions on firearms is not condusive to their careers as politicians. We don't have the weather, ocean views, Disney Land, Hollywood, and such as California, but we are not bankrupt either and yes as all good "rednecks" do, we "cling to our guns and the Bible..."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
At the risk of boring some people to death with an old tale, I want to point out just how far this hand wringing, wimpy, attitude that most Californians (and other large metropolitan area dwellers) have, has gone.

I was fired from my federal job about three years ago for having caused my coworkers to feel physically threatened.

Did you seek a legal remedy for unfair termination?

http://www.fedemploymentlaw.com/Articles/Illegal-Firing-in-the-Federal-Workplace-Uncle-Sam-Can-Be-a-Bad-Boss.shtml
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,519 Posts
As a caveat, I must say we have some great (R) representatives here in CA. We have Darrel Issa (R). He seems to fight the gun grabbers here.
m14brian
Overall (the big picture) the differences between R and D aren't all that great.

Here's an example of just how out of touch both parties are, fighting over "solutions" that truly aren't even close to being solutions at all. Take the Debt/Fiscal Gap for example...

My Troubled Relative

I need your advice. I have a relative who is in financial trouble. He makes $50,000 a year, but he spent $74,591 last year, and his prospects of making $50,000 this year look kind of bad. There's a good chance he will get a pay cut.

Unfortunately, he’s been overspending for quite a while and has charged $295,632 on credit cards. He’s been lucky enough to get low teaser rates, and when those have expired, he’s been able to transfer the balances to other low-rate cards. So he keeps charging $24,591 per year beyond his income. If he can’t keep rolling over his debt at super low rates, the interest will quickly eat him up.

But, that's not his worst problem. He convinced his family he was a great investor. His parents gave him a portion of their income for many years, and he promised he would make regular payments to them and cover their medical care when they got too old to work. The problem is, he spent all the money. He also has dependents who are poor, and he promised to help them out, too. To cover those promises, he should have $2,372,953 sitting in a bank account earning an interest rate that keeps up with inflation. But the money is all gone.

So what should he do? Well, his Republican friends, who say they are responsible with money, have decided he must really cut spending to get things under control. There are lots of things he can live without, so they say he should reduce spending by $1,292 per year. His Democrat friends say that’s too much. They feel it would be a great hardship for him to cut spending that drastically, so reducing it by $137 should be about right.

So here’s the picture:

$50,000: Income
$74,591: Expenses
$24,591: Deficit
$295,632: Short-term revovling debt at artificially low rates
$2,372,632: Unfunded promises
$1,292: Republican friends budget cuts
$137: Democrat friends budget cuts


So, what does the future look like for my Uncle Sam? Do you think he can keep going like this much longer? What about his family who are counting on the promises he made to them? Do you see any possible solution other than bankruptcy?

Multiply the above numbers by 47,620,000, and you get the fiscal picture for the United States Government in 2010:

$2.381 Trillion: Revenue
$3.552 Trillion: Budget
$1.171 Trillion: Deficit
$14.078 Trillion: Debt
$113 Trillion: Unfunded Liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid)
$0.0615 Trillion ($61.5 Billion): Republican proposed budget cuts
$0.0065 Trillion ($6.5 Billion): Democrat proposed budget cuts
Link to article here
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
Laws, regulations, and so on in California make me appreciate living in West Virginia more each day. Only yesterday at local range, some 5 miles from my house, there were dozen or more of us shooting everything from sporting rifles, pistols/revolvers, etc. and much conversation about how fortunate we were. It is well known among our "politicians" that any attempt to pass useless restrictions on firearms is not condusive to their careers as politicians. We don't have the weather, ocean views, Disney Land, Hollywood, and such as California, but we are not bankrupt either and yes as all good "rednecks" do, we "cling to our guns and the Bible..."
Amen. I'm a West(left) coast transplant and really enjoy the pro-gun/pro-2A attitude here in WV. I was at Public Range #1 just north of Beckley the other day. There was everything from lever actions to bolt guns, revolvers & pistols, AR's (and not a single "bullet button" to be found), etc... I had my son's 30-30 out sighting it in as well as my M21 wannabe doing some final adjustments to its zero. What was awesome is that everyone got along great, admired each others choice of firepower and in general just a very relaxed atmosphere. Our conversations too turned to our politicians and the 2A. Funny how WV (D) legislators have introduced and passed 3 very pro-gun/pro-2A bills this year. Quite the contrast from the power grabbing wannabe tyrants out there in Cali. Then again folks here seem more concerned about working, raising families and in general keeping government out of our lives.

California has awesome natural beauty and some cool manmade attractions but unfortunately too many of it's citizens have allowed themselves to be neutered in the name of political correctness. This recent legislative abortion passed by their representatives is just the latest example of just how screwed up that state has become.

WV may be home to a bunch of "hillbillies" but I'll take a "hillbilly" any day of the week over the wrist wringing types that have taken root in places like Ca, Il, NY, NJ, etc...

Off my soapbox now. Time to go make some more beer, shoot a few rounds in my backyard then some fishing and trash talking, beer drinking man time with friends down at the New RiverGI2.

Peace my friend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
Here we go.

That. Is. What. I. Said. Period. Not sure why people are trying to make it different. But I was questioning the assertion that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness were rights. They are not. Because the Declaration is not a legal document enumerating our rights. Life/Liberty are, however, protected in various ways through other laws.

It doesn't matter if they're legally rights or not, they're still rights. The same people who wrote our Constitution are the same people who signed the Declaration. They believed these rights were God-given, and that no man had the authority to take them away.

There was no fear whatsoever against "big government." That term is unbelievably modern. Like 60 years old as opposed to 240+ years old. There was fear of dictatorships and royalty. There was no such thing as big government anywhere on earth. There was no political class, there was a ruling class who were nearly always some form of heriditary caste. Politicians were just clerks and nearly powerless. They feared big government as much as microwave ovens, which also didn't exist and they couldn't possibly know about.

Dictatorships and royalty ARE "big governments", by definition. What makes a government big is its control over your life. The Founders rejected democracy for the same reason; throughout history, every democracy evolved into a big government where the majority tyrannized the minority. They weren't just looking at the world around them, they did extensive research on the governments going all the way back to the ancient past. They wanted to prevent us from following the path of Rome but knew we were prone. "A republic, if you can keep it," said Franklin. Well, we're following the exact path of Rome. And Rome became quite the enormous government, even before turning into empire.

Dur. It was questioned in 1776. Which is why women couldn't vote and slavery was legal. That's certainly not liberty. And it's certainly not taxation without representation. The crux of the Declaration of Independence, like it's name very obviously suggests, was to free ourselves from England. Freedom and Liberty for blacks wouldn't come for another approximately 87 years (4 score and 7 years) and taxation without representation for women until another 50ish years.

Women couldn't vote because they designed the voting system to be one vote per household. Only landowning males could vote. Yes that sounds like bigotry today, but back then they actually had this concept of "morality" and "principles" that seems to have largely gone out the door in Kalifornia. Back then, the woman's place at home was more important than the man's place at work (which was often at home). Hence the "republican mother" concept. It was not about subjugating women to the whims of men. Nowhere did the Constitution bar women of holding public office- no amendment was needed for that. That doesn't work today because of the breakdown of the family system, which ironically may be partly due to women getting the vote. I said partly.

And they wanted landowners because those who did not own land were not tied to the future of the country like the landowners were. In today's world, this does not work as well, but what we have now doesn't work either.

Slavery continued because the Founders knew the most important thing at the time was to keep the states in a union so they would not be torn apart by foreign powers. In order to do that, they knew they would have to leave slavery legal for another generation to fix. They did, however, put in place the ban on importation of slaves agead of time, and enact the 3/5ths clause. The 3/5ths cause was designed to reduce the power of slave states to keep their institution in place; if they had slaves count as a full vote, those very slaves would never be freed. In fact, the reason Jefferson wrote "pursuit of happiness" instead of Locke's "property" is because of slavery. Slaveowners considered their slaves property, and Jefferson did not want to give them fuel. They did, however, harass the pro-slavers about the fact that slaves were property to them until it came time to count people for registration- suddenly, they were just like you and me.


And of course they questioned God as well. Franklin and Jefferson being standout examples. Though they changed thoughout their lives.

Franklin and Jefferson questioned God but ultimately always believed in God and followed his law the best they could. Neither was an atheist or a true deist. And they both knew that religion, whether true or not, was absolutely necessary for a free people: http://wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=58


Well, good thing I've read dozens of books about the Founding Fathers. And good thing the sources are annotated.

Most/all of those books are based on revisionist crap. Go back and read 19th century school textbooks and you will see a world of difference. This is largely Woodrow Wilson's fault.

Lots. Kind of like many of our Founding Fathers. This is the most lawyer-bound country on the planet because it was created by lawyers. Though tallies vary depending on who you ask, because the profession wasn't like it is today--and they were busy and wide-ranging guys.

Yes, lawyers back then did other things than sit around in courtrooms all day. And in fact, it was not even considered a decent, honorable profession the way it (mostly) is today. Abigail Adams' parents did not like John because he was a lawyer, which they did not see a profession worthy of marriage to their daughter.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,222 Posts
It doesn't matter if they're legally rights or not, they're still rights. The same people who wrote our Constitution are the same people who signed the Declaration. They believed these rights were God-given, and that no man had the authority to take them away.
Dur. The people who wrote our Declaration did not put the "rights" that were listed in that document into our ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION (which people conviently forget came first) OR into our Constitution. So they were either morons who forgot. Or the Declaration of INDPENEDENCE was a declaration of independence and not a declaration of rights.

Dictatorships and royalty ARE "big governments", by definition.
No, it's not. Every founding father who was president, expanded the reach and size of government dramatically. A dictatorship is 1 guy, that's it's definition. Royalty is a tiny subset, that's its definition.

Only a portion of the Founding Dudes were concerned about the tyranny of the majority. Which is why we had the Great Compromise. Because some people WANTED the tyranny. I.e., the big states wanted big votes. The small states wanted say as well, however. So we came up with 2 houses of Congress, one based on population, the other a fixed #. Ironically again, those same guys came up with the Electoral College, because they didn't trust the unwashed masses to elect people. And theoretically, the EC can vote completely against what the people wanted (and in a handful of occassions, they have).

Women couldn't vote because they designed the voting system to be one vote per household.
Uh. No, they didn't. When they wrote the Declaration there was no voting system. At all. It was still those same guys (BIG GOVERNMENT, OH NOZE!) who controlled everything. As you may know, George Washington was never elected as our first president. He was selected by BIG GOVERNMENT.

Yes that sounds like bigotry today, but back then they actually had this concept of "morality" and "principles" that seems to have largely gone out the door in Kalifornia.
I know it seems like a wise idea to talk smack about an entire state with like 12% the population of our country and about 12% of it's GDP, but it's simply ignorant. There's like 37 MILLION people here. Believe it or not, we're not all the same.

Hence the "republican mother" concept.
The party didn't exist until the mid-1800s. And it's platform, the main core of its existence, was anti-slavery. Republican mother would mean someone interested in the rights of others. Something that seems to have been lost.

And they wanted landowners
Some did. Some didn't. But the overwhelming majority of the country back then were engaged in some kind of farming. If you exclude the fact it already cut out women and slaves and non-whites from voting, it wasn't such a high hurdle. I've seen figures 10-16% but that's the entire population (of which women and non-whites couldn't vote regardless).

Slavery continued because the Founders knew the most important thing at the time was to keep the states in a union
Aka, the southern states said they wouldn't sign if it included slavery. Jefferson wanted it to.

The 3/5ths cause was designed to reduce the power of slave states to keep their institution in place
It was because it was stated it took 3 white men to equal the work of 5 slaves. And the north felt counting people who couldn't vote was disingenous. And the south obviously wanted as many as they could get.

In fact, the reason Jefferson wrote "pursuit of happiness" instead of Locke's "property" is because of slavery.
No. Because Jefferson and Franklin simply weren't extremely materialistic and didn't feel it was the role of government to promote it.

Franklin and Jefferson questioned God but ultimately always believed in God and followed his law the best they could. Neither was an atheist or a true deist.
They didn't always believe in god. They certainly didn't follow "his law" because they both hated organized religion and you're only going to get his law from some kind of doctrine (unless you got a personal phone line to the big guy). I think they were agnostic like good scientists. But they eventually became quasi-deists.

Most/all of those books are based on revisionist crap.
I find it very creepy you are hanging out in my bedroom reading my books. Aka you have no fudging idea what I'm reading so don't pretend to lecture me on something of which you have no earthly concept.

Yes, lawyers back then did other things than sit around in courtrooms all day.
Cuz it was a smaller country and not a whole lot of suing going on. There weren't medical doctor's in hospitals either, that doesn't mean it's inherently bad. And not a lot of scientists in labs. Basically, there wasn't a lot of people NOT involved in farming in some way. The fact the overwhelming majority of the people who created this country placed a very high premium in knowledge of the law and law concepts should tell you about its importance. Trying to make laws without understanding law is awful hard. I have to suspect trying to make a country is even harder.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
This argument is getting too large to me to keep responding to, today in particular I have things I need to get done before I move.

I will leave you with this:

"Republican motherhood" has absolutely nothing to do with the party.

Founders on slavery (including Jefferson): http://wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=122

On the 3/5ths compromise (starting at "AL GORE, GEORGE BUSH, AND THE THREE-FIFTHS CLAUSE"):http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=132

Most importantly, on John Locke's influence upon this country and its founders (it even contains language linking the Constitution to the Declaration... GASP!): http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=99156

And to say you have to be agnostic to be a "good scientist"... well, that's plain ignorant. But so is the rest of your argument.

And why did I use the same source every time? Because it was founded by this guy:http://www.wallbuilders.com/SCHbioDB.asp

Who has access to all this:
David is the author of numerous best-selling books, with the subjects being drawn largely from his massive library of tens of thousands of original writings from the Founding Era.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,072 Posts
Laus.....really we(meaning people on this board) have had these discussion with "Duke" in the past, don't bother wasting your energy typing.

"It was because it was stated it took 3 white men to equal the work of 5 slaves".

Now that gave me good laugh.

And the 3/5th's clause was about apportionment of Congressional Representatives, period. Why, to lessen the political strenght of the south / slave states. But, the winners write and re-write history and it's being re-written daily.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,222 Posts
"Republican motherhood" has absolutely nothing to do with the party.
Then don't give it that label. That creates a reason for comparison. If you call a bird a bluejay but it's yellow, expect some confusion.

On the 3/5ths compromise
I was wrong on 3/5ths. I was taught that in school, but if someone said it, it's not immediately popping up.

John Locke's influence
I'll see your john locke and raise you a Thomas Paine. Whose pamphlet Common Sense helped push us to war. Who was a deist and against all organized religions. He made Jefferson look conservative.

And to say you have to be agnostic to be a "good scientist"... well, that's plain ignorant. But so is the rest of your argument.
Oh, no, you called me a poopy head! Scientists don't make claims without proof. To quote the good Dr. Franklin:
“To Follow by faith alone is to follow blindly.”
"The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason."

Our first money ever minted as a united states, authorized by the founding fathers, spoken of by George Washington in his address to Congress, picked up by then Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, had a very simple inscription: Liberty the parent of science and industry.

No references to god whatsoever.

And why did I use the same source every time? Because it was founded by this guy
Because he is ultra-conservative. Yes. The internet offers an exciting ability to view opinions that differ from yours. Which is one reason I'm here. But you can also use it to surround yourself with people who agree with you and never challenge your preconceptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GARRARD

·
Inquisitor
Joined
·
11,356 Posts
Discussion Starter #94

·
Premium Member
Honorary Forum Lifer
Joined
·
16,202 Posts
I think we need more people quoting people for this topic to take off
I second.

Philz M1A, you are also absolutely correct that there is almost no discernable difference between the (R) and (D) anymore. I think it was Pat Buchanan that said the two parties are just two feathers of the same bird (paraphrased). I believe in what the (R) used to stand for, those ideals. I mean, what true Republican bans guns and raises taxes let alone support the UN?
m14brian
 
Joined
·
5,445 Posts
What I find interesting is the fact folks still debate what America's "Founding Father's" intentions were...

Here's what America's "Founding Fathers" would say right now on this very day:
"Big Government"= "King/Tyranny" in this the 21st Century.
 

·
Inquisitor
Joined
·
11,356 Posts
Discussion Starter #98
What I find interesting is the fact folks still debate what America's "Founding Father's" intentions were...
I don't. People still argue about what the Gospels say. To many, politics are a religion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philz M1A

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,604 Posts
.
It was because it was stated it took 3 white men to equal the work of 5 slaves.
LOL1LOL1LOL1LOL1LOL1LOL1LOL1LOL1LOL1LOL1LOL1

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous and at the same time hilarious assertion. Ranks right up there with a claim I once heard about how YT men used YT women to lure Africans onto ships to bring them over.
 
81 - 100 of 130 Posts
Top