[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
… it would not be worth it to have guns but have students taught creationism, having sex ed banned in schools, and then getting back alley abortions when the court supported all of those things. [/quote]
I thought so. Indeed a telling revelation on your part.
So “this overturning of the gun ban is a wonderful, wonderful thing. The right to keep and bear arms is an essential one to the liberty of this, and all, countries,” is really nothing special to you? Not in the big scheme of things anyway.
This “essential right to keep and bear arms” is much less “essential” than the “right” not to have to learn creationism, huh? Less than the “liberty” to take an innocent’s life in the womb? Less…less…less…F.I., frankly, your passion for gun rights doesn’t impress me much because I have my doubts you really know what they amount to.
[/quote]
As I’ve said many times on this board, I truly don’t give a fuck what you think.
I am glad they turned over the ban because I support gun rights, but the rest of the conservative agenda is frightening to me. That’s all there is to be said.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< I am glad they turned over the ban because I support gun rights, but the rest of the conservative agenda is frightening to me. That’s all there is to be said.[/quote]
Which items in the “conservative” agenda do you feel would have frightened the attendees of the first constitutional convention. I’m not even saying there aren’t any. I’m just asking.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< I am glad they turned over the ban because I support gun rights, but the rest of the conservative agenda is frightening to me. That’s all there is to be said.[/quote]
Which items in the “conservative” agenda do you feel would have frightened the attendees of the first constitutional convention. I’m not even saying there aren’t any. I’m just asking.[/quote]
I’m not going to presuppose what they would and would not have agreed with.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< I am glad they turned over the ban because I support gun rights, but the rest of the conservative agenda is frightening to me. That’s all there is to be said.[/quote]
Which items in the “conservative” agenda do you feel would have frightened the attendees of the first constitutional convention. I’m not even saying there aren’t any. I’m just asking.[/quote]
I’m not going to presuppose what they would and would not have agreed with. [/quote]
You don’t have to. It was only a couple hundred years ago. They left us a rather well stocked collection of their recorded thought. So, again. What today, even in the agenda of so called “religious right” is found in that record to be frightening to those who forged our founding documents and set this nation in motion. I repeat. I am simply asking.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You don’t have to. It was only a couple hundred years ago. They left us a rather well stocked collection of their recorded thought. So, again. What today, even in the agenda of so called “religious right” is found in that record to be frightening to those who forged our founding documents and set this nation in motion. I repeat. I am simply asking.[/quote]
To what end? So both you and I can try and find quotes, from the same men, supporting how we think they would have thought about one issue or another? When in reality, you can’t tell how they would have felt about many of the things going on now because they don’t live in this time or this type of society?
I repeat, I don’t have any idea what they would have thought about many of the issues today, and I’m not going to presuppose by the writings that they left us that DO NOT address these things.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You don’t have to. It was only a couple hundred years ago. They left us a rather well stocked collection of their recorded thought. So, again. What today, even in the agenda of so called “religious right” is found in that record to be frightening to those who forged our founding documents and set this nation in motion. I repeat. I am simply asking.[/quote]
To what end? So both you and I can try and find quotes, from the same men, supporting how we think they would have thought about one issue or another? When in reality, you can’t tell how they would have felt about many of the things going on now because they don’t live in this time or this type of society?
I repeat, I don’t have any idea what they would have thought about many of the issues today, and I’m not going to presuppose by the writings that they left us that DO NOT address these things.[/quote]
I contend there is very little going on today that is beyond the reach of the clear principles they left us in their writings and therein lies their genius, but OK.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I contend there is very little going on today that is beyond the reach of the clear principles they left us in their writings and therein lies their genius, but OK.[/quote]
I’m sure you were. And I, unlike you, am not going to pretend that writings on other entirely different subjects speak for them on the issues of today.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I contend there is very little going on today that is beyond the reach of the clear principles they left us in their writings and therein lies their genius, but OK.[/quote]
I’m sure you were. And I, unlike you, am not going to pretend that writings on other entirely different subjects speak for them on the issues of today.[/quote]
Ya know what’s interesting about you? You can say so much without actually intending to say anything at all. I’ll be generous and call it a talent.
Hey, bud, it’s your words not mine. You said, “I repeat, I don’t have any idea what they would have thought about many of the issues today.”[/quote]
If they didn’t write about the issues today that they did not have to contend with back in the 1700s, why would you assume that you could accurately piece together their beliefs from statements made about entirely different subjects?
All it would take is one who was something of an anamoly- say, who believed in gun rights but also a woman’s right to choose, to shoot your whole reconstructionist theory down. So again, I won’t rely on what they wrote for a matter like this.
Honestly, it was a red herring in the first place, and a complete change of topic, by tribulus anyway, so I don’t know why this is being addressed here.
Hey, bud, it’s your words not mine. You said, “I repeat, I don’t have any idea what they would have thought about many of the issues today.”[/quote]
If they didn’t write about the issues today that they did not have to contend with back in the 1700s, why would you assume that you could accurately piece together their beliefs from statements made about entirely different subjects?
[/quote]
This is why Push cuts you to pieces. You simply ignore anything that does not appeal to your ideals.
The founding fathers of the US clearly thought that the right to bear arms were a “god given” right.
Right up there with freedom of speech and all the other rights set down in the bill of rights.
The fact that you involve other aspects like abortion and say “Oh now we can’t possible know what the founding fathers thought” is down right inane. Abortion is not some radical new topic. It has existed in a more crude form for well over a thousand years.
As such it is evident they did not consider it a supreme right like the right to bear arms.
It ain’t no new inventin just done last centry now is it?
Edit: Damn, I really can’t pull off that hick drawl.
This is why Push cuts you to pieces. You simply ignore anything that does not appeal to your ideals.
[/quote]
haha. ok.
I’ve not argued against the Second Amendment at all, here or on any thread like it.
But you find me where the founding fathers wrote specifically about abortion and what direction the country should go on it.
And really- the founders of this country were not of all one mind on every issue. Some beleived in God, some didn’t, some believed government should have a larger role, some didn’t, some believed slavery should be abolished, some didn’t.
To group them all together and say, “This is what ‘they’ thought” does all of them a great disservice.
And as I said to push- how many do I need to go against him on an issue for it to be reasoned that they wouldn’t have liked it? One Founding Father? Two Founding Fathers? Half of the 56 that signed the Declaration of Independence? Or 3/4 or the Constitutional Convention?
It’s a silly question and a red herring in this thread.
What the fuck is that? Did you fall into a door on your way back to the computer?
Anybody who can read our founders and imagine that any one of them would have supported the barbaric act of killing one’s own unborn child as a legal right needs to be looked after forthwith lest they unintentionally harm themselves or others.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Anybody who can read our founders and imagine that any one of them would have supported the barbaric act of killing one’s own unborn child as a legal right needs to be looked after forthwith lest they unintentionally harm themselves or others.[/quote]
There were quite a few that supported the mildly barbaric act of enslaving a race of people while slaughtering the Indians, no?
Oh I forgot. They were all perfect angels. Flawless men.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
But you find me where the founding fathers wrote specifically about abortion and what direction the country should go on it.
[/quote]
My point was that the founding fathers knew about abortion. It wasn’t a foreign concept. Perhaps some supported it. Perhaps some were against it. It doesn’t matter.
Aka at least as far as the founding fathers were concerned abortion was not a matter for the federal government. They don’t need to explicitly say such a thing.
And as far as they were concerned firearm ownership was a right. Abortion was not.