Support for the US Constitution and the Founding Fathers

Page 2 of 3 [ 41 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

AgentPalpatine
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,881
Location: Near the Delaware River

02 Jan 2013, 6:03 pm

Arran wrote:

Add to this list proportional representation in elections, abolishing the bizarre electoral college system of voting the president, a multi-party democracy rather than a two-party system, reforming the dysfunctional legal system such as having full trials rather than using plea bargaining, certain fiscal and economic reforms.

I for one like first past the post voting. It encourages candidates to make sure they have views that can capture a plurality of the votes, and it ties politicians to a geographic block of voters, rather than a central list that is easier to control by party bosses.

The Electoral College was created for a different time, and as part of a political deal. Neither party seems to want to give it up, since both sides see a benefit from it.

I personally am not too fond of the system that prefers plea bargains to trials, but I also understand that the system has evolved over the years to encourage a plea/settlement system for resolving criminal and civil cases, respectively. For what it's worth, I'm also of the opinion that the requirements for indictment by Grand Jury should be incorporated to the states.

Fiscal and economic returns are not related to the constitution, except to the very limited exceptions to the revenue and spending powers granted to the Federal government.

_________________
Our first challenge is to create an entire economic infrastructure, from top to bottom, out of whole cloth.
-CEO Nwabudike Morgan, "The Centauri Monopoly"
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (Firaxis Games)

Declension
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

02 Jan 2013, 6:08 pm

Jacoby wrote:

These rights are inalienable and endowed by our creator. They exist with or without the constitution.

I somehow doubt that God cares about the distinction between handguns and RPGs. And yet you (presumably) agree that the God-Given Right To Bear Arms means that you have the right to own a handgun, but not an RPG.

Seems to me that the way in which these "natural rights" are actually implemented relies entirely on human judgments.

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

02 Jan 2013, 6:12 pm

Jacoby wrote:

The US constitution protects our natural rights and tells the federal government what powers it does have. It does not grant rights These rights are inalienable and endowed by our creator. They exist with or without the constitution.

It seems this concept is pretty hard to grasp for certain children that frequent this forum.

Complete and utter BS.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

02 Jan 2013, 7:10 pm

GGPViper wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

Complete and utter BS.

In America we do not bow down before the god-kings.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

02 Jan 2013, 7:16 pm

Declension wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

These rights are inalienable and endowed by our creator. They exist with or without the constitution.

Don't make presumptions. We fight to arm rebels fighting against the government forces of Libya, Syria, etc but you balk at the thought of arming your own populace? We too have the right to defend ourselves against tyranny.

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

02 Jan 2013, 7:20 pm

Jacoby wrote:

GGPViper wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

The US constitution protects our natural rights and tells the federal government what powers it does have. It does not grant rights These rights are inalienable and endowed by our creator. They exist with or without the constitution.

It seems this concept is pretty hard to grasp for certain children that frequent this forum.

Complete and utter BS.

In America we do not bow down before the god-kings.

Not in plural, at the least.

Declension
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

02 Jan 2013, 7:47 pm

Jacoby wrote:

Declension wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

These rights are inalienable and endowed by our creator. They exist with or without the constitution.

What are you saying? Are you saying that US citizens actually should have the right to own RPGs? Well okay then. Let's up the ante.

I somehow doubt that God cares about the distinction between handguns and nuclear bombs. And yet you (presumably) agree that the God-Given Right To Bear Arms means that you have the right to own a handgun, but not a nuclear bomb.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Jan 2013, 9:31 pm

Declension wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

Declension wrote:

I somehow doubt that God cares about the distinction between handguns and nuclear bombs. And yet you (presumably) agree that the God-Given Right To Bear Arms means that you have the right to own a handgun, but not a nuclear bomb.

The right to keep and bear arms is a derivative or consequence of our absolute right to defending ourselves and our families. A-Bombs are NOT self defense weapons. They are weapons of war and mass destruction. RPG could be used for self defense (that is a stretch) but their design and purpose is for war combat, not self defense.

However pistols and rifles are plausible weapons of self defense along with knives, swords, hatchets, axes, spears, crossbows and bow and arrow. Also rocks can be used as self defense weapons along with clubs and nets.

ruveyn

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

02 Jan 2013, 9:45 pm

Declension wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

Declension wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

These rights are inalienable and endowed by our creator. They exist with or without the constitution.

Well unless you have trillions of dollars a couple decades time, I'm not too worried about it. The premise of what you're saying is that if we don't allow people to possess nuclear weapons, then why can't restrict people from possessing other weapons so I'm not going to bother differentiating nuclear weapons from other weapons since I reject your argument and don't feel like wasting my time going down a list of what should and shouldn't be allowed.

We have to right to defend ourselves and the right to bear arms is a integral part of that, period.

What gives government the right to have nuclear weapons anyways? They're the ones with the record of using and threatening to use them. Why should they be armed to the teeth?

arthead
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 26
Location: Ohio

02 Jan 2013, 10:25 pm

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52140#When:01:31:36Z

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Jan 2013, 10:38 pm

Jacoby wrote:

What gives government the right to have nuclear weapons anyways? They're the ones with the record of using and threatening to use them. Why should they be armed to the teeth?

Because we live in a lawless world. There is not true enforceable law binding nations. We have to rely on force or the threat of force. That is the way it is.

Within nations people live under laws (with very few exceptions like Somalia). But the nations live in a "state of nature" as described by Hobbes. In that state the life of man is nasty, brutish and short.

ruveyn.

Declension
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

02 Jan 2013, 10:43 pm

Jacoby wrote:

Well unless you have trillions of dollars a couple decades time, I'm not too worried about it.

The cost isn't really relevant. We are talking about principles which ought to be applicable even if something changes about the nature of warfare. For example, what if tomorrow some discovery makes it trivial for anyone to make a nuclear bomb out of the leaves of a certain plant? Would you be worried then? Would you try to restrict who gets to grow fields of this plant on their property?

Jacoby wrote:

The premise of what you're saying is that if we don't allow people to possess nuclear weapons, then why can't restrict people from possessing other weapons

Not at all. I think people should have the right to own handguns.

What I'm trying to say is that it's silly to talk about "natural rights" which are obvious and objective, as if they don't require interpretation and discussion. Saying "right to bear arms" is like saying "right to free speech". It sounds nice, but nobody can really understand what it means. It needs interpretation. In fact, it needs so much interpretation that by the time you're done interpreting it, there's nothing "God-given" about it. It's just a human compromise.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Jan 2013, 10:49 pm

Declension wrote:

What I'm trying to say is that it's silly to talk about "natural rights" which are obvious and objective, as if they don't require interpretation and discussion. Saying "right to bear arms" is like saying "right to free speech". It sounds nice, but nobody can really understand what it means. It needs interpretation. In fact, it needs so much interpretation that by the time you're done interpreting it, there's nothing "God-given" about it. It's just a human compromise.

The right to defend one's own life or the life of one's family is as close to a "real right" as we get. Regardless of what the Law is, people who -can- defend their lives, will defend their lives when threatened or attacked. The Law cannot deter this. It is natural and biologically wired into to most people to defend themselves from danger or attack. Either that, or run like hell.

ruveyn

NAKnight
Deinonychus

Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 387
Location: Gitmo Nation Elvis

02 Jan 2013, 10:52 pm

Fnord wrote:

1. Slavery (Cheap labor for the land owners).

2. Subjugation of women (Breeding stock).

3. Imperial expansion by genocide (i.e., As expressed by the hate-phrase as "The only good 'Indian' is a dead 'Indian'").

4. Denial of voting rights to anyone who was not considered a 'Man' (State laws of the time denied voting rights to women, Catholics, slaves, Jews, and Asians). Coincidentally (?) these principles are also Biblical. This gives you a whole, new meaning to the phrase "... all men are created equal ...", doesn't it?

The founding fathers were wealthy, protestant land-owners of European descent, and two-thirds to three-quarters of them owned slaves.

I would like to see how you arrived to those conclusions, you seem to have discourse with United States. I'm not in particular favor of it's current condition myself, but it's the lesser of two evils.

1. Slavery- I find this very hard to believe. I was raised in the "South" and I accept this was apart of the history. But from that, America became a state that focused upon unification.

2. Subjugation of Women- While this may be true, Women are now in more power and control then they were before. I personally consider a woman just as equal to myself, if not to a higher position than myself. Women deserve respect and I give that to them.

3. Imperial Expansion By Genocide- I really have nothing to say to this. The past has happened. It is what it is. America is not perfect and I don't expect it to be, but Europe is just as guilty.

4. Denial of Voting Rights- Nothing to add. It is what it is. I can't take blame for America's history.

Europe isn't any better. Socialized, droned and censored as crap. At least I still have my rights to speak my mind without being shot, censored or blacklisted. That, I am thankful for.

Best Regards,

Jake

_________________
In The Morning to all Hams on the air, ships at sea, boots on the grounds, drones in the sky and all the Human Resources charged up and ready to go just the way the Government wants you to be..

Pyrite
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,247
Location: Mid-Atlantic United States

02 Jan 2013, 11:26 pm

Arran wrote:

...The consequence of this is that it is difficult to be yourself in the US and the nation is stuck in a rut over certain issues where more progressive types who want to break with the past end up being seen as heretics or enemies of the state by a high proportion of the public who slavishly follow the Constitution and ideologies of the Founding Fathers?
.....

"Progressives" vs. The Constitution was favorite rant of Glenn Beck and is widely used on the far right but isn't really accurate.

Conservatives aren't really more "pro-constitution" than other people (although I'm not saying they are necessarily less so).

For instance when they began requiring laws to cite constitutional authority, many of them wanted the commerce clause and general welfare clauses to be ineligible (essentially no longer considered part of the constitution for purposes of future legislation).

Moreover, between the republican party platform endorsing a right to life amendment and republican support for a balanced budget amendment conservatives are the leading proponents of constitutional revision today.

Even the NRA, which champions the defense of "rights", only cares about one right, and in defending the second amendment recently called for infringing on the first.

Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

02 Jan 2013, 11:53 pm

In a way, it's still far ahead of its time and progressive. Typical "controlling" governments aren't progressive, they're archaic and no different to monarchies and dictatorships in effect (whatever laws that are in vogue at the time are the ones passed, no matter if they infringe upon individual freedom).

I agree with Jefferson and et al. in regards to individual freedom. I also agree that individual freedom is something that is innate; people just want to control it out of fear and/or selfish reasons.

Individual freedom = do whatever you want as long as you don't physically harm and/or abuse others (if you harm others, then your freedom is taken from you)

Free to own a RPG; free to own a musket; free to carry a sword; free to have sex with someone from your own gender and marry them; free to wear whatever you want; free to say whatever you want (bullying and abuse not included); free to live your life how you see fit; free to believe in whatever; free to smoke pot; just free

Free = do stuff without consequences imposed by others when you don't physically harm and/or abuse them

So yeah, freedom is progressive

Page 2 of 3 [ 41 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

Support for the US Constitution and the Founding Fathers Post Reply New Topic

Support for the US Constitution and the Founding Fathers