DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You don't see what "some dude said back in 1792" has to do with today? Perhaps it might be more important if the guy was, say, involved in the crafting of the documents that frame our present-day government? Or, maybe one of the guys that wrote the Federalist Papers explaining why the Articles of Confederation were inferior to the needs back then, why the proposed US Constitution improved on those Articles of Confederation, and how a Federal Government under that same US Constitution would work, might matter more than just some old guy's opinion?
Yes, push that 'one sided' viewpoint of the founding fathers. Since all of them viewed the world exactly as you do. We won't let 'facts' and 'reality' get in the way that the founding fathers never knew you or of you. Or that their views needed to match yours exactly. After all, you are simply rewriting history to justify your viewpoint. Unfortunately for you, the facts, evidence, and reality are against you. If your going to push the 18th century onto Americans, than lets go with the full deal right? Every person with a firearm is automatically drafted without exception into their local militia. They will be expected to abide by....ALL....the regulations. They will drill for four hours every other Saturday, rain, shine, sleet, snow, or global thermo nuclear war! Their weapons will be kept in excellent shape and their homes can be inspected at any time for any reason to make sure.....ALL....regulations are being followed. An if your attitude goes so far as an inch out of line, your firearm(s) are removed. You want to play the 18th century card? I can keep going here. There are many reasons why we don't do thing the '18th century way'. Need another? 18th century military doctrine stated that troops would form a long line and march towards the enemy. You are aware DS, that mankind invented something called 'a general purpose machine gun', right? And you know what it made obsolete?
Yawn. You questioned my "one sided viewpoint" of the Founding Fathers, but bring up zero counterpoints to support your questioning. The FF's viewpoints don't have to match mine exactly. I make no claim that they do. And, considering I wasn't around much back then, it would be my viewpoints that would be aligning with theirs (theirs certainly did come before mine). There is a reason for that, too. I base much of my arguments of what our Federal Government should be on their writings. Why? Because they were the ones that built the framework. They also used some terms that weren't specific (like "arms") so as to not pigeonhole future generations. Notice they did not specify that every has the right to keep and bear muskets, bayonets, pistols, and cannons. Why? Because they weren't going to limit future generations to those weapons. Brilliant, eh?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yeah, the Federal Government has been twisted well away from the vision of the Founders. I truly believe in the US Constitution (a conservative interpretation of it), and the possibility of getting back to the Federal Government intended by the Founders. I would much rather see a non-violent means of getting there. If push comes to shove, I'll be barely more than a speed bump against the US Government. Maybe the bullet(s) I take saves the patriots that finally right the "Ship of State." That's the best I can legitimately hope for if there is an uprising.
Frankly if you existed back in the 18th century, my money would be that you would have been a Tory. Because creating something new, dangerous, exciting, and fresh; are not the words typical of the definition of 'conservative'. I believe 'boring, dull, following authority, and without creative spirit' do. Conservatives by definition....hate....change. So switching government types from 'Monarchy' to 'Democratic Republic' is pretty damn liberal (go look up the word). So the US Constitution by itself in those days was a real departure from how most folks understood their government. Can you tell me what the 3rd amendment is without looking it up? Back in those days, most colonists understood it very well. It doesn't come up to often in modern US Supreme Court battles like the 1st and 2nd.
Gimme a break. I have stated in many posts that the Founding Fathers were liberals, in the classical sense. They aren't liberals in today's terms. If you read and comprehend the Federalist Papers, you'll note that the original intent of the US Constitution was a very conservative interpretation. That is, it was intended to be a limited compact, not one that granted near omnipotence over it's Citizens.
quote:
The founding fathers actually intended that future generations of Americans would know how best to run government. They never wanted this nation to see them as reverted figures like say, Jesus Christ. Respected and remembered were good in their viewpoint. They knew well enough that a religious view on life was counter productive to the maintaining of liberty. To use a more modern analogy, they would have felt it a bad idea to push an ideal that forced others to view that same ideal. Kind of what your pushing on your fellow Americans. You have no problem pushing a conservative viewpoint (by pen or blade), but get angry on liberal viewpoints. But the liberals are not the ones pushing for a return to the 18th century way of doing things. Since the 21st century has problems and ideas that never existed in the 18th. How would the founding fathers have handled a distant place like Syria, if they had full access to the awesome firepower of the US Military?
Regarding pushing ideals onto future generations: There is a method, built in no less, to amend the US Constitution so future generations can update the framework upon which the Federal Government is built. Nifty sonsabitches, no?
Regarding Syria: They likely wouldn't have jumped into the fray. They likely would have gone after al Qaeda. They probably wouldn't have gone into Iraq. They probably wouldn't have interfered in Iran, Iraq, or Afhganistan, as previous Presidents did, either.
quote:
You have this silly notion that the founding fathers would sit down with you at the bar and have a beer. Counting you as their equal because your 'values' match their 'values' on a one to one basis. They are often used these days as political fodder by conservatives. Its nothing but disrespectful in my viewpoint.
At what point have I ever said that I was their equal, or that they'd sit with me and have a beer? Most of the Founding Fathers would have been modest men, not the vain politicians we have now. My values and beliefs may match theirs on a one-to-one basis, but that only means that I agree with them. Nothing else.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: On Property - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread