cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
hardnox604008
Advisor

Which founders do you mean?

As far as things that are total BS but are permitted to pass.

 

The Tea Party has thoroughly convinced itself that it has a unique insight into the intentions of those white guys.

 

But taking the 2nd Amendment as an excellent example, I don't think you can possibly conclude other than that John Adams in particular and most of the New England delegation in general would have intended the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says- a militia regulated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (or their respective states).

 

So actually, Tea Party statements should be amended to defer to the wisdom of "primarily the Virginians"," Future Confederates" or something of the sort.

 

And in their regards, yes, they probably did want the malnourished and uneducated white rabble to be armed in case of a slave revolt or some tracking that needed to be done. And they were probably certain enough that they had enough control of the levers of local power that they were little threat to them.

 

Probably the only "founder" who you can really attach the "natural liberty" philosphy of the backcountry to would be Patrick Henry perhaps another one or two who I'm not aware of.

 

So maybe rather than "the Virginians" it should be limited to Patrick Henry tribute artists.

18 Replies
r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: Which founders do you mean?


@hardnox604008 wrote:

As far as things that are total BS but are permitted to pass.

 

The Tea Party has thoroughly convinced itself that it has a unique insight into the intentions of those white guys.

 

But taking the 2nd Amendment as an excellent example, I don't think you can possibly conclude other than that John Adams in particular and most of the New England delegation in general would have intended the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says- a militia regulated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (or their respective states).

 

So actually, Tea Party statements should be amended to defer to the wisdom of "primarily the Virginians"," Future Confederates" or something of the sort.

 

And in their regards, yes, they probably did want the malnourished and uneducated white rabble to be armed in case of a slave revolt or some tracking that needed to be done. And they were probably certain enough that they had enough control of the levers of local power that they were little threat to them.

 

Probably the only "founder" who you can really attach the "natural liberty" philosphy of the backcountry to would be Patrick Henry perhaps another one or two who I'm not aware of.

 

So maybe rather than "the Virginians" it should be limited to Patrick Henry tribute artists.


OK Nox, right there is where I stopped reading. Discussions of everything is not about race.

hardnox604008
Advisor

Re: Which founders do you mean?

Yeah, but the point being that it is harder for people of othr races and genders to pull off the Patrick Henry tribute performer thing.

hardnox604008
Advisor

and...

that means that you stuck your hands over your eyes before you got to the good part!

Samnospam
Advisor

Re: Which founders do you mean?

Now who is worried about a slave revolt?

Husker-J
Senior Contributor

Re: Which founders do you mean?


@hardnox604008 wrote:

As far as things that are total BS but are permitted to pass.

 

The Tea Party has thoroughly convinced itself that it has a unique insight into the intentions of those white guys.

 

I've seen Tea Party members of all colors, why are you singling out the white?

 

But taking the 2nd Amendment as an excellent example, I don't think you can possibly conclude other than that John Adams in particular and most of the New England delegation in general would have intended the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says- a militia regulated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (or their respective states).

 

I disagree.  It says the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed.   However, it does not say explosives (like grenades) tanks, etc.   I think it means arms, as in the arms you can personally carry.

If it means only under the guise of a militia, one can then make the argument that freedom of the 'press' is only for those who actually use a printing 'press'.

 

So actually, Tea Party statements should be amended to defer to the wisdom of "primarily the Virginians"," Future Confederates" or something of the sort.

 

From the discussions I have had with them, they are wanting to mean the Constitution as it was meant, when it was written, as opposed as a 'living breathing' Constitution, where the words can be changed to mean whatever the one interpereting it wants them to.   I tend to agree with that sentiment, that the law is the law, and should be followed AS IT WAS WRITTEN, and if there is a problem with the law, it needs to be annulled, or amended (or challenged in court, and found unConstitutional).   There are plenty of ways that the Constitution has been updated, as needed, with proper amendments.

 

And in their regards, yes, they probably did want the malnourished and uneducated white rabble to be armed in case of a slave revolt or some tracking that needed to be done. And they were probably certain enough that they had enough control of the levers of local power that they were little threat to them.

 

According to the History I learned, they wanted the people to be armed against Tyranny, wherever it was found.   I never found any reason that it was specifically put there to 'keep the black man down' (which is the jist of how I read what you wrote).

I might add, it worked pretty well, as later in history, when arms were needed quickly after a war broke out, the US had a policy of 'lend-lease', where the average citizen of the US, could 'lend or lease' a firearm to someone in another country, to fight off invading armies.   You can also look into history, where spies had commented that America would be the hardest country in the world to conquer, because it seemed that everyone had a gun.

 

Probably the only "founder" who you can really attach the "natural liberty" philosphy of the backcountry to would be Patrick Henry perhaps another one or two who I'm not aware of.

 

I'm not all that familiar with that.   Is 'natural liberty' anything like 'inealiable rights'????

 

So maybe rather than "the Virginians" it should be limited to Patrick Henry tribute artists.

 

 

 


 

johnaa
Advisor

Re: Which founders do you mean?

  You arguments are trite and worn out, you haven't been paying attention or ignoring facts like the Supreme Court's decisions.  No matter how many times prohibitionist repeat and pass back and forth lies, they are just absurd gestures signifying nothing. 

 

   Since you prefer by golly and by gosh to putting up some solid evidence; by gosh in those times most people lived in rural and relatively remote areas and by golly they depended upon game for food and needed personal protection because the conditions were ripe for lawlessness, the militia would most likely take days, communication systems crude at best.   There for; by gosh and by golly, like the SC said, the intent of the Constitution was assign no power nor authority and to specifically forbid the government any power and authority to disarm The People.   No matter how many times lies are passed back and forth it does not change reality.

 

  You are approximating the recent moronic circus in the Swamps of Virginia, by pretending to believe your flock of prohibitionist can lawfully disarm The People if you can Squawk and bleat enough to drown out reason and logic.  

 

   Your  stereotypes you are trying to conjure up are only childish-->>"malnourished and uneducated white rabble" and lame attempts to smear with vestiges of slavery get you nowhere, unless your purpose is to provoke and tease.

 

  You must be lonely.

hardnox604008
Advisor

Re: Which founders do you mean?

I'm just saying that's the history.

 

If you want a founder to dress up as you can be Patrick Henry but you really can't claim John Adams.

hardnox604008
Advisor

Re: Which founders do you mean?

And yes, by a Rothbardian standard the Puritans were rather statist.

 

In fact they could be pretty brutal in defense of their "City of God," (and also did the majority of the heavy lifting of the Revolution).

 

But they were among the founders.

 

hardnox604008
Advisor

Re: Which founders do you mean?

Also, like the Union cause in the Civli War, accomplished through the use of the most insidious of human inventions- paper money.