In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Some of you - my version of topic
buffalobo
Member Posts: 2,348 ✭✭✭✭✭
quote:Jim Rau
Advanced Member
USA
2768 Posts
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 09:26:18 AM
quote:
Originally posted by buffalobo
Jim, I have already stated my opinion on this thread, but I have a question. Not trying to be argumentative but do you have any info about the restrictions on rights the founding fathers supported?
To answer your question would be speculation, BUT the point I am making is the Founders were realistic, common sense people who knew there has never been and will never be a 'perfect/ideal' system with ZERO restrictions on the rights spelled out in the Constitution. I believe they would use the same test I use to consider what will work and not unnecessarily restrict the rights of the people. I could speculate how they would handle the current problems we are facing with our out of control government, and it would not be pretty!!
quote:buffalobo
Senior Member
USA
1193 Posts
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 12:07:24 PM
I think you are wrong. If you read what the founders themselves wrote outside their work on the constitution. I believe they tended to lean towards a hands off approach and to penalize individual bad actors. Just look back through individual qoutes for the various founders. Majority advocate restricting govt. not citizens.
You cannot seriously believe Jefferson would have advocated the restriction of a person to have to ask permission to be allowed to purchase a gun? This does not add up in any reality. His reply would be the same as you have gotten from many here. If you are safe to be among the citizens then your rights should not be abridged. If you are not then why are you free and not incarcerated or dead.
He would put the judicial system and juries back in the hands of the citizens as it was meant to be. Bad actors would be dealt with and citizens rights would be protected.
Jim, look forward to your reply.
Everybody else, uh, stay on topic.[:D]
Advanced Member
USA
2768 Posts
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 09:26:18 AM
quote:
Originally posted by buffalobo
Jim, I have already stated my opinion on this thread, but I have a question. Not trying to be argumentative but do you have any info about the restrictions on rights the founding fathers supported?
To answer your question would be speculation, BUT the point I am making is the Founders were realistic, common sense people who knew there has never been and will never be a 'perfect/ideal' system with ZERO restrictions on the rights spelled out in the Constitution. I believe they would use the same test I use to consider what will work and not unnecessarily restrict the rights of the people. I could speculate how they would handle the current problems we are facing with our out of control government, and it would not be pretty!!
quote:buffalobo
Senior Member
USA
1193 Posts
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 12:07:24 PM
I think you are wrong. If you read what the founders themselves wrote outside their work on the constitution. I believe they tended to lean towards a hands off approach and to penalize individual bad actors. Just look back through individual qoutes for the various founders. Majority advocate restricting govt. not citizens.
You cannot seriously believe Jefferson would have advocated the restriction of a person to have to ask permission to be allowed to purchase a gun? This does not add up in any reality. His reply would be the same as you have gotten from many here. If you are safe to be among the citizens then your rights should not be abridged. If you are not then why are you free and not incarcerated or dead.
He would put the judicial system and juries back in the hands of the citizens as it was meant to be. Bad actors would be dealt with and citizens rights would be protected.
Jim, look forward to your reply.
Everybody else, uh, stay on topic.[:D]
Comments
They were also 'believers' who put there fate in the hands of God. They did their best and they relied on the Power of God for assistance.[^]
As an avid reader I would appreciate your recommendations on a few titles.
They may have foresaw much of what has happened, but they still would not condone much of our response. I have seen little that would lead me to believe they would agree with the practice of us throwing away our liberty in fear of responsibility.
As an avid reader I would appreciate your recommendations on a few titles.
Nor do I agree with 'throwing away our liberty in fear of responsibility'.
BUT those who refuse to 'adapt' will fail in the real world. Our founders were aware of this from their VERY real experiences.[;)]
Adapt, improvise, and OVERCOME!!!!![^]
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
They may have foresaw much of what has happened, but they still would not condone much of our response. I have seen little that would lead me to believe they would agree with the practice of us throwing away our liberty in fear of responsibility.
As an avid reader I would appreciate your recommendations on a few titles.
Nor do I agree with 'throwing away our liberty in fear of responsibility'.
BUT those who refuse to 'adapt' will fail in the real world. Our founders were aware of this from their VERY real experiences.[;)]
Adapt, improvise, and OVERCOME!!!!![^]
Jeez loueeez Jim, please post some thing from the founders showing where they would justify the restrictions of individual liberty as common sense or realistic solutions to... (for want of a straight answer) pretty much anything.
Give me a break. The last 4 or 5 posts referencing founders you have failed to give any support to your arguement from what the founders said. I am more than willing to listen to the other side of the debate. But you gotta do more than above statement.
First of all the founders did not fail in their goal of bringing individual liberty to this country.
What adapting did they do to accomplish this goal?
Was it not the refusal to adapt to the will of the king that brought it all about in the first place?
I do believe they did much improvisation and ultimately overcame to win the hearts and minds of enough men to create a free country based upon individual liberty and freedom.
BTW your use of "in the real world" is intellectually dishonest obfuscation. Use of that statement has no intellectual value as it is meant to bias the argument. To try make the other guys argument illegitimate implying it is not real.
This is the real world and the govt and nannies in society are trying to take away our liberties without legitimate cause. If you want to argue legitimate cause please do so. But in the real world only one third of the populace supported the revolution and it still happened. Just because you say society won't go along or won't allow it don't mean it can't happen or that it shouldn't be attempted.
Jeez loueeez Jim, please post some thing from the founders showing where they would justify the restrictions of individual liberty as common sense or realistic solutions
All behaviors are controlled by the individuals unconscious mind, fo rthe most part. Or IF we develop a treatment directly to the unconscious, as we should is common sense is to rule, then criminality that is not accompanied by mental illness should be a behavior that is treatable.
Of course for any who would call themselves Americans to choose to restrict indiviual liberty BEFORE seeing medicine use every thing at their disposal to treat criminals and others exhibiting destructive behaviors, is un American, hypcritical.
I've tried very hard to see this get done, and only find corrupt courts and confused people.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=434277
There is a good reason for the societal, professional and governmentla failure to use common sense. Can any guess?
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
Jeez loueeez Jim, please post some thing from the founders showing where they would justify the restrictions of individual liberty as common sense or realistic solutions
All behaviors are controlled by the individuals unconscious mind, fo rthe most part. Or IF we develop a treatment directly to the unconscious, as we should is common sense is to rule, then criminality that is not accompanied by mental illness should be a behavior that is treatable.
Of course for any who would call themselves Americans to choose to restrict indiviual liberty BEFORE seeing medicine use every thing at their disposal to treat criminals and others exhibiting destructive behaviors, is un American, hypcritical.
I've tried very hard to see this get done, and only find corrupt courts and confused people.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=434277
There is a good reason for the societal, professional and governmentla failure to use common sense. Can any guess?
WTH? How does your post have anything to do with the topic being discussed? Please be courteous enough to at least stay close to the topic and keep the psycho babble to the thread you started for that purpose.
WTH? How does your post have anything to do with the topic being discussed? Please be courteous enough to at least stay close to the topic and keep the psycho babble to the thread you started for that purpose.
Oops, my mistake. There was a thread with a similar topic/title that was locked and thought this was a continuation.
Several of us did not agree with the "some of you" thread being locked(for wandering off topic)and sounded off about it. This thread is a continution of one of the off shoots and am trying to keep it narrow.[;)]
The Founders were 'real people', just like MOST of us![:)]
I have to many 'irons in the fire' to get to involved with a long discussion here, but I will get back to you about some of the thinks I have read and am currently reading. The point I was making is we need to see the 'big picture' and adapt, and not overly complicate the issues.
The Founders were 'real people', just like MOST of us![:)]
Yeah, those books were so memorable you can't recall title and author. Yet you can tell us what they said.
Yet you have the time to type this message.
Yeah. Ok.
None of what the founders advocated was overly complicated. In fact it appears to me it was pretty simple, which when practiced, simplicity tends to eliminate complexity.
Amen Brother! That is what I have been saying all along![8D]
But they knew, from their predictions, this is a very dynamic and ever changing world. They knew we would have to 'stick to our guns' figuratively and literally if we want to not only survive but prevail. They would be the first to say we must be principled, but this does not mean we must be ridged and unadaptable!!![;)]
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
None of what the founders advocated was overly complicated. In fact it appears to me it was pretty simple, which when practiced, simplicity tends to eliminate complexity.
Amen Brother! That is what I have been saying all along![8D]
But they knew, from their predictions, this is a very dynamic and ever changing world. They knew we would have to 'stick to our guns' figuratively and literally if we want to not only survive but prevail. They would be the first to say we must be principled, but this does not mean we must be ridged and unadaptable!!![;)]
And another post without any references to ANY books you have been talking about.
Are you and Trfox related?
The Founders were 'real people', just like MOST of us![:)]
Why do I think, Jim, that had the Founders actually fit your description of 'real people', that there never would have been a revolution in the colonies?
Rhetorical; only Jim Rau realists would have accepted the status quo.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The Founders were 'real people', just like MOST of us![:)]
Why do I think, Jim, that had the Founders actually fit your description of 'real people', that there never would have been a revolution in the colonies?
Rhetorical; only Jim Rau realists would have accepted the status quo.
Apologists. Quislings. Pretenders. Poor Self Images. Denial.
If any person were to actually do just a little research on the topic, it would instantly be abundantly clear that Jim has not. If you were to read just the Bill of Rights with no concordance, then MAYBE you could twist it a little, MAYBE. But if you read the papers and letters that were written by men like Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Madison, etc., then you would gain a wonderful insight into their intentions. Read the history. Read the entire Constitution and research each line. Read the Federalist Papers. Read the communications that went back and forth. The information is there and there is no doubt as to their intent.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The Founders were 'real people', just like MOST of us![:)]
Why do I think, Jim, that had the Founders actually fit your description of 'real people', that there never would have been a revolution in the colonies?
Rhetorical; only Jim Rau realists would have accepted the status quo.
Well are 'we' here not 'real people'??? I can tell you if I were there then I would have been a part of the Revolution! do thing the people who have sacrificed then and throughout our history were not 'real' people?????
You obviously don't know me or you would not make these ridiculous statements about me. I do not accept 'your' status quo or we would not be having this discussion.[;)]
I can tell you if I were there then I would have been a part of the Revolution!
Oh bullsnit. You would have tried to convince them that(thought to yourself) they were not being realistic, that the the goals they achieved were unachievable. I'm growing sick of your endless non-reality. Remember when you left? Do it again. If you come back again, do it without your BS blinders.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The Founders were 'real people', just like MOST of us![:)]
Why do I think, Jim, that had the Founders actually fit your description of 'real people', that there never would have been a revolution in the colonies?
Rhetorical; only Jim Rau realists would have accepted the status quo.
Apologists. Quislings. Pretenders. Poor Self Images. Denial.
If any person were to actually do just a little research on the topic, it would instantly be abundantly clear that Jim has not. If you were to read just the Bill of Rights with no concordance, then MAYBE you could twist it a little, MAYBE. But if you read the papers and letters that were written by men like Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Madison, etc., then you would gain a wonderful insight into their intentions. Read the history. Read the entire Constitution and research each line. Read the Federalist Papers. Read the communications that went back and forth. The information is there and there is no doubt as to their intent.
Your attempt to insult me will not work. It only shows your lack of knowledge, not mine![}:)]
I have been doing A LOT of research in the past few years, and the folks here all are a big part of my motivation. When I came to this web site several years ago I saw all the miss information being put forth by well meaning people (like you[;)]) and it made me start looking into this. Most of the reading I have done has been on line. But I have a copy of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence I use often. I try, unlike many of you, not to 'loose site of the forest for the trees'!!
The book I am currently reading and would recommend is "A patriot's history of the United States" by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen.
I would also recommend your read the original "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine. This was a real eye opener to me.
Most here take things out of context, or use a 'quote' to try and support their point(s). This is normal, but wrong. The totally of the circumstance is what I use. [;)]
The problem is, I have a life and I don't have as much time as I would like to research and discuss these maters, put I will try and spend some time doing so. There is MUCH miss information here and on other wed sites which needs addressing!!!
P.S. Don't insult the memory of the intellectually honest (unlike you) person of Thomas Paine, with your twisted perception. It's disgusting![:(!][xx(]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I can tell you if I were there then I would have been a part of the Revolution!
Oh bullsnit. You would have tried to convince them that(thought to yourself) they were not being realistic, that the the goals they achieved were unachievable. I'm growing sick of your endless non-reality. Remember when you left? Do it again. If you come back again, do it without your BS blinders.
Then ignore my post or try and contribute some constructive posts (if you have this ability????). This crap you post now is, as you would say is "BS"![}:)]
Then ignore my post or try and contribute some constructive posts (if you have this ability????). This crap you post now is, as you would say is "BS"![}:)]
No Jim, your twisting and perverting is the very definition of wasting bandwidth. Take it somewhere they might like it, like Boulder.
Whatever, you are completely full of snit.
P.S. Don't insult the memory of the intellectually honest (unlike you) person of Thomas Paine, with your twisted perception. It's disgusting![:(!][xx(]
I will do as a please! I guess if you, or people like you, were in power (oh they are in power now[V]), you would try and quash all those who do not agree with you. You are a progressive, just like the Obama bunch!! [;)]
You need to go back and reeducate yourself!!! You obviously do not believe in individual rights or freedoms or you would not attack me the way you do!!!![xx(]
I do not always agree with people, but I will support their right to say what they wish with out personally attacking them. If you have some 'information' to counter what I have said I am all ears Mr. Wolf!!![;)]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Then ignore my post or try and contribute some constructive posts (if you have this ability????). This crap you post now is, as you would say is "BS"![}:)]
No Jim, your twisting and perverting is the very definition of wasting bandwidth. Take it somewhere they might like it, like Boulder.
No thanks! I left CO because of the 'Boulder types' who do not believe in an individual rights (like you).
Besides, I love you guys. You (the 'should be bunch' aka CA's) are on the right track. As I have said many times, I wish it could be the way you all want it to be!!![^] But your constant attacks on EVERYONE who does not follow you in 'lock step' really gets old and only hurts your 'cause' by undermining your credibility!!!
No thanks! I left CO because of the 'Boulder types' who do not believe in an individual rights (like you).
Besides, I love you guys. You (the 'should be bunch' aka CA's) are on the right track. As I have said many times, I wish it could be the way you all want it to be!!![^] But your constant attacks on EVERYONE who does not follow you in 'lock step' really gets old and only hurts your 'cause' by undermining your credibility!!!
More bullsnit. My attacks on you are based souly on the ridiculous doubletalk you spout. Stick to a league that can believe your crap, 3 year olds and Boulderites (you know, Jim Rau's). Bullsnitter.
Well are 'we' here not 'real people'??? I can tell you if I were there then I would have been a part of the Revolution! do thing the people who have sacrificed then and throughout our history were not 'real' people?????
You obviously don't know me or you would not make these ridiculous statements about me. I do not accept 'your' status quo or we would not be having this discussion.[;)]
It is good to see you are reading Mr. Paine, Jim. I would also recommend 'Democracy in America' by de Tocqueville. I am re-reading it after 30+ years, and his observations of America in the early 1800s will, I think, open your eyes as what actually existed at one point in our history.
Regarding the Revolution and my statement regarding real people. It was the idealists that fed the flames of revolution and idealists who led the effort. Realists knew the British could not be beaten, and were either neutral or stood by their British brethren. By definition our Founders were not realists in the context you put forth. You state that the position I and those like me take is the ideal, but as it has never existed it can never exist, so get on with gettin along. The fact is that this ideal did once exist.
Conversely, independence from Britain had factually never existed for the American Colonies. Any realist would know it was simply a fool's errand to try and change that.
Brad Steele