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
Jim Rau - In thier own words.
buffalobo
Member Posts: 2,348 ✭✭✭✭✭
Jim, since I(and many others) am unrealistically idealist about our interpretation of the constitution will you please give me your idea of how the founders would view our society today?
Surely your reading has given you insight to thier ideas and beliefs beyond the constitution and well known qoutes. I believe that they would be appalled by the loss of freedom and the restrictions we endure.
I have pondered alot recently on what they would think should be done about it. First I think they would be very angry at the American citizen in general. We have done a poor job of preserving the freedom that many of them gave up all they had to secure. That would have to be galling to them. I know it would be to me if I were in thier place. They would then ask if we truly wanted to be free. The next steps would be up to us. If they felt we were sincere in our want to be free then they would tell us to do what was needed to be so. If they thought that we did not really believe our sincerity then the reply would be that we got what we wanted.
I state that they would in no way approve of where we are today and would not support our current path. Thier speech and actions would be even more radical and idealistic than what you accuse us of. They would tell people like you to either step up or step off. They were typically civil men, but they were straight forward in speech and action. They had plenty of thier own heated and often contentious debates(not just about the constitution). But in the end they knew what the price of freedom would be and they also knew that the average citizen would not be willing to pay that price. Even though the citizen wanted the freedom to direct thier own lives, they were fearful of the price and responsibility of that freedom.
Surely your reading has given you insight to thier ideas and beliefs beyond the constitution and well known qoutes. I believe that they would be appalled by the loss of freedom and the restrictions we endure.
I have pondered alot recently on what they would think should be done about it. First I think they would be very angry at the American citizen in general. We have done a poor job of preserving the freedom that many of them gave up all they had to secure. That would have to be galling to them. I know it would be to me if I were in thier place. They would then ask if we truly wanted to be free. The next steps would be up to us. If they felt we were sincere in our want to be free then they would tell us to do what was needed to be so. If they thought that we did not really believe our sincerity then the reply would be that we got what we wanted.
I state that they would in no way approve of where we are today and would not support our current path. Thier speech and actions would be even more radical and idealistic than what you accuse us of. They would tell people like you to either step up or step off. They were typically civil men, but they were straight forward in speech and action. They had plenty of thier own heated and often contentious debates(not just about the constitution). But in the end they knew what the price of freedom would be and they also knew that the average citizen would not be willing to pay that price. Even though the citizen wanted the freedom to direct thier own lives, they were fearful of the price and responsibility of that freedom.
Comments
ANY name calling will be poofed.
[:D]
Brad Steele
Jim, since I(and many others) am unrealistically idealist about our interpretation of the constitution will you please give me your idea of how the founders would view our society today?
Surely your reading has given you insight to thier ideas and beliefs beyond the constitution and well known qoutes. I believe that they would be appalled by the loss of freedom and the restrictions we endure.
I have pondered alot recently on what they would think should be done about it. First I think they would be very angry at the American citizen in general. We have done a poor job of preserving the freedom that many of them gave up all they had to secure. That would have to be galling to them. I know it would be to me if I were in thier place. They would then ask if we truly wanted to be free. The next steps would be up to us. If they felt we were sincere in our want to be free then they would tell us to do what was needed to be so. If they thought that we did not really believe our sincerity then the reply would be that we got what we wanted.
I state that they would in no way approve of where we are today and would not support our current path. Thier speech and actions would be even more radical and idealistic than what you accuse us of. They would tell people like you to either step up or step off. They were typically civil men, but they were straight forward in speech and action. They had plenty of thier own heated and often contentious debates(not just about the constitution). But in the end they knew what the price of freedom would be and they also knew that the average citizen would not be willing to pay that price. Even though the citizen wanted the freedom to direct thier own lives, they were fearful of the price and responsibility of that freedom.
They would probably start another revolution if they came back and saw what America was like today. IT IS A TOTAL MESS!!![V]
By the way to 99% of the people I know I am considered EXTREMLY radical!! Where does that place you and the CA's ( aka, the should be bunch)??????[;)]
I doubt it will matter to you, but I am disappointed that this was your reply to my OP.
quote:They would probably start another revolution if they came back and saw what America was like today. IT IS A TOTAL MESS!!!
By the way to 99% of the people I know I am considered EXTREMLY radical!! Where does that place you and the CA's ( aka, the should be bunch)??????
You put more effort into your zinger at me and the CA's than into the issue. Then again with your follow up post.
As to your extreme radicalism - huh?. From what I have read of your posts the last two years I would have thought you frequent someplace other than Alaska or Alabama. You need to get away from the collectivists that surround you.
Let me know when you have the time to have a discussion, argument or debate. I am interested at how you arrive at your conclusions.
As are many..............Jim......Wondering, were you com up with some of your stances...............
EDIT
quote:From what I have read of your posts the last two years I would have thought you frequent someplace other than Alaska or Alabama. You need to get away from the collectivists that surround you.
again I would concur..........lots of room for a civil discussion here just looking for something solid out of you Jim.........You keep coming back here, for some reason....... id like to think its because you are torn..............but not sure
Jim, instead of replying with zips and zingers for the CA's why not just "talk" to everyone. Sorry to put it on you, but you make statements about this and that and never give rhyme, reason or intellectual backup to your statements. That is something that most poeple cannot abide by(certainly not a CA). Hence you get blasted. Example, your post about reading founders material. Reading the material is great, but you didn't reference what you read that made/backed up your arguement. Thus the appearance you are talking out of your caboose or you are just mad at the fact that the CA's are usually in your face kinda guys and you don't like thier methods but can't refute the arguments.
I doubt it will matter to you, but I am disappointed that this was your reply to my OP.
quote:They would probably start another revolution if they came back and saw what America was like today. IT IS A TOTAL MESS!!!
By the way to 99% of the people I know I am considered EXTREMLY radical!! Where does that place you and the CA's ( aka, the should be bunch)??????
You put more effort into your zinger at me and the CA's than into the issue. Then again with your follow up post.
As to your extreme radicalism - huh?. From what I have read of your posts the last two years I would have thought you frequent someplace other than Alaska or Alabama. You need to get away from the collectivists that surround you.
Let me know when you have the time to have a discussion, argument or debate. I am interested at how you arrive at your conclusions.
Time is money. When I get a few minutes to get in here I use it as best I can. In other words I do not have the time nor the inclination to get into long discussions over 'academic' points. Sorry, this is my opinion based on what I have learned about this country and it's founders. If you wish to believe other wise that's your right. I wish I had more time to be more specific, but this 'box' is a VERY small part of my life and I want it that way.[;)]
When I was working in Alaska I had a lot more time and got into so long winded discussions, but thinks have changed since I 'got my life back'.[8D]
Your not one to just come out and say the truth, are you Jim?
You have more than enough time to express your views, but you don't have the facts you claim to, to back them up.
The phrase "intellectually dishonest" comes to mind every time I read your piss poor excuses.
When I was working in Alaska I had a lot more time and got into so long winded discussions, but thinks have changed since I 'got my life back'.
Jim, I was gonna use my few minutes here to refute the use of your time here(half of your time here was spent insulting other posters, isn't this what you accuse the CA's of? most of the rest of it was used to defend JBT tactics.) But I will save myself some and agree with Freemind.
quote:freemind Posted - 05/22/2010 : 4:12:57 PM
In other words, Jim refuses to defend his indefensable positions.
Your not one to just come out and say the truth, are you Jim?
You have more than enough time to express your views, but you don't have the facts you claim to, to back them up.
The phrase "intellectually dishonest" comes to mind every time I read your piss poor excuses.
And add FOS. Honest intellectual discussion with you is not possible. At least the collectivists over in politics can be convinced to attempt to defend thier positions.
In other words, Jim refuses to defend his indefensable positions.
Your not one to just come out and say the truth, are you Jim?
You have more than enough time to express your views, but you don't have the facts you claim to, to back them up.
The phrase "intellectually dishonest" comes to mind every time I read your piss poor excuses.
Read my above post, I know how you feel about me and why.
Have a nice day!!![;)] There is nothing to defend or refute. I have a different opinion than you, end of story!!!
Sure, without me spending years researching and reading about the founders of our country, if they happened to come by for a visit, I am sure they would feel shocked about what has happened to our country and the attitude of our liberal citizens. But without knowing any of the founders personally, I still would bet money that those founders would not grab their rifles and go to war with our out of control government right off the bat.. Because I don't think they were that stupid or suicidal. Heck, before they went to war with England, they gave the King chances for a peaceful solution. I believe they would instead at least try and start their "revolution" using the very tools they left behind for us if we did find ourselves in this situation we find ourselves in. Those tools would be encouraging citizens to vote in the right candidates, pressure those candidates to do the right thing, become candidates themselves, attempt to mold public opinion back to what it should be and things like that. IF THAT FAILED AFTER A REASONABLE TIME AND EFFORT, then they very well probably would have engaged in armed conflict with our out of control govenment.
But I am sure they would not have acted like some internet commandos, loudly bragging about how only they know what is right or wrong with this country and only they know what should be done about it. Nor would they create some little goofey internet club with a silly name like (well, you know what that silly name is) nor would they act like some kinda constitutional scholar who claims to know the REAL meaning of the bill of rights.
Nor would they purposely offend possible allies just because those allies do not completely and totally agree with them like some kind of Borg Colony.
It truly is not a question about who is right or wrong, nor is it about matters of opinion.
We are currently living under a government that exceeds the powers created for it by the Constitution. You are both of the opinion that this is necessary to some degree. Whether your opinion is right or wrong, it does not change the fact that it is wrong for a government to operate outside of its mandated limits.
If, Jim, our Founders did in fact believe as you suggest, we would have operative written proof of that belief, meaning that belief would have been written into the law of the land. Likewise, Mr. Fox, they would not, IMO, have continued to operate within a broken system; they would have most likely demanded an Amendment to the Constitution so that these presumed necessary changes were legal and recognized. Which is, obviously, the primary tool they left behind.
Brad Steele
Messrs Rau and Fox:
It truly is not a question about who is right or wrong, nor is it about matters of opinion.
We are currently living under a government that exceeds the powers created for it by the Constitution. You are both of the opinion that this is necessary to some degree. Whether your opinion is right or wrong, it does not change the fact that it is wrong for a government to operate outside of its mandated limits.
If, Jim, our Founders did in fact believe as you suggest, we would have operative written proof of that belief, meaning that belief would have been written into the law of the land. Likewise, Mr. Fox, they would not, IMO, have continued to operate within a broken system; they would have most likely demanded an Amendment to the Constitution so that these presumed necessary changes were legal and recognized. Which is, obviously, the primary tool they left behind.
Don,
I agree completely with your assessment of our current government![xx(]
But to say it is not a matter of opinions makes no sense. We can't talk first hand to the Founders so we can only speculate (form an opinion) from what we read about them, their beliefs, and history of what they would think or do if they were here now.
Food for thought, If King George the turd would have allowed the Colonies one set a piece in the House of Commons we may not even of had the Revolution!!![;)] Got to go!
I had a 120 pound bore in the trap today so got to get back to it and have hay to bail this afternoon.[:)]
Don,
I agree completely with your assessment of our current government![xx(]
But to say it is not a matter of opinions makes no sense. We can't talk first hand to the Founders so we can only speculate (form an opinion) from what we read about them, their beliefs, and history of what they would think or do if they were here now.
Food for thought, If King George the turd would have allowed the Colonies one set a piece in the House of Commons we may not even of had the Revolution!!![;)] Got to go!
I had a 120 pound bore in the trap today so got to get back to it and have hay to bail this afternoon.[:)]
How'd the boar and baling go, Jim?
Regarding the opinion comment. One can make the argument that the actual thoughts of the founders are a matter of opinion, though we have ample writings to guide those opinions rather precisely.
What is not a matter of opinion is what is written in the Constitution. In this case while it may be your opinion that there must be restrictions and regulations on what is guaranteed in the 2nd, that opinion cannot be supported by the words in the Constitution. Sadly, (IMO) we as a society have allowed our fears and opinions to supersede actual law. In doing so, we have set up the current situation whereby there is no law other than that which a majority in Congress contemporaneously dictates.
The ultimate lawless society is one where the government can decree any law it wants. We are close to that point today.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Don,
I agree completely with your assessment of our current government![xx(]
But to say it is not a matter of opinions makes no sense. We can't talk first hand to the Founders so we can only speculate (form an opinion) from what we read about them, their beliefs, and history of what they would think or do if they were here now.
Food for thought, If King George the turd would have allowed the Colonies one set a piece in the House of Commons we may not even of had the Revolution!!![;)] Got to go!
I had a 120 pound bore in the trap today so got to get back to it and have hay to bail this afternoon.[:)]
How'd the boar and baling go, Jim?
Regarding the opinion comment. One can make the argument that the actual thoughts of the founders are a matter of opinion, though we have ample writings to guide those opinions rather precisely.
What is not a matter of opinion is what is written in the Constitution. In this case while it may be your opinion that there must be restrictions and regulations on what is guaranteed in the 2nd, that opinion cannot be supported by the words in the Constitution. Sadly, (IMO) we as a society have allowed our fears and opinions to supersede actual law. In doing so, we have set up the current situation whereby there is no law other than that which a majority in Congress contemporaneously dictates.
The ultimate lawless society is one where the government can decree any law it wants. We are close to that point today.
Beautifully articulated, Don.