The Founding Fathers

[-Demosthenes-]

I can't imagine anyone believing that. The man was a genius. One of the few in history who spent his entire life moving forward, always learning, and contributing to the betterment of society along the way.

It's worth mentioning that he was quite the ladies man.

 

[Donkey1499]

M14 Shooter, your signature is confusing.

 

[dragonslayer]

In order to have freedom, you must be willing to fight for it. The founding fathers understood this concept. They fought and won their freedoms and have tried the best they could to pass those same freedoms, that they fought and won, onto us. However, over time, people will take their freedom for granted and so government will exploit it as an opportunity to take those freedoms away. The theory of the founding fathers was that government is the enemy of freedom, yet the purpose of the country they founded was suppose to be freedom. They recognized that they must restrain government with checks and balances, but they also recognized that these checks and balances could be circumvented. The second amendment, in my view, was placed into the constitution to provide a last resort means for the American people to fight a possible, future government that turned tyrannical and sought to take away their freedoms. Freedom must be earned and fought for, and if you must fight for your freedom, then you must also have the means to do it with. Our independence, our Bill of Rights, turning our principles of freedom into reality was achieved through the force of arms. Thomas Jefferson's views on the second amendment was that, so long as the people were armed, the people will always rule. Take away the means for the people to resist tyranny, then the people no longer rule nor have a hope to be able to control their own destiny, because they are at the mercy of those people who are armed.

That's not to say, that the force of arms is the only way or the first resort. It is an absolute last resort. But, in the end, to keep freedom, you must be willing to fight for it and earn it.

Yes I agree with you.

We must stay armed and ready to fight to the death against the Neo Conservative tyrants that are destroying the United States Constitution. I recently purchased another AR15, 8/30 rd magazines and 2000 thousand rounds of Ammo. Down with the lying tyrant, George Bush.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14 Shooter, your signature is confusing.

Whats confusing about it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I recently purchased another AR15, 8/30 rd magazines and 2000 thousand rounds of Ammo. Down with the lying tyrant, George Bush.

Lightweight.

 

[George_Washington]

Sorry dude I forget to check back on this thread...

I've actually never heard of this (at least not put this way). Jefferson and his contradictions... Modern maxism uses a powerful centralized government. Jefferson supported weak de-centralized government. Was his idea some sort of strong local socialistic government or what?

It is true that Jefferson supported a weak, decentralized government (to an extent, bare with me) but it was also true that he was against the formulation of capitalism or at least corporations on a grand scale. He once wrote that he thought the state was a means to an end. With his anti-military rhetoric, it makes sense (at least to me) that his views would have developed into modern Marxism had he been alive to witness Karl Marx and the rise of industry. I think once he saw industry on a massive scale, the pollution and the persecuted labor, etc. he would have advocated socialism. Had he lived long enough, I think he would have supported government intervention in order to eliminate both industry and a government, as those were the two things he seemed mostly against. Again, I think if he had lived long enough to read Karl Marx's writings, he would have agreed with a lot of them. I think Jefferson wanted a weak government only to the extent that he wanted to combat the Federalist Papers and preserve the state's rights. I think his true desire was to have the state eleminate itself completely-something Marx called for. Keep in mind that Marx didn't call for a strong central goverment in the traditional sense. His vision for the state to first abolish capitalism but then to "disappear" once everyone was equal and the workers rose up.

Of course this is my interpretation to many of his writings and some people might not agree with me :::shrugs:::.

 

[Donkey1499]

Whats confusing about it?

You have two weapons that look exactly the same, except under the one it says "This is an assault weapon" then it says "This is not. Any Questions?" under the other one. That is how I'm confused.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You have two weapons that look exactly the same, except under the one it says "This is an assault weapon" then it says "This is not. Any Questions?" under the other one. That is how I'm confused.

They dont look exactly the same. One is just a little different, and that difference is what classifies it as a mean, dangerous, nasry, good-for-nothing-but-killing-large-numbers-of-people 'assault weapon' - as compared to the other rifle, which is isnt an 'assault weapon' and therefore perfectly fine.

See it yet?

You;ll note that under the front sight of the 'assault weapon', there is a little nubbie thats not present on the other rifle. That nubbie is a bayonette lug. That bayonette lug makes it an 'assault weapon'; the other rifle, sans bayonette lug, isnt.

 

[Donkey1499]

They dont look exactly the same. One is just a little different, and that difference is what classifies it as a mean, dangerous, nasry, good-for-nothing-but-killing-large-numbers-of-people 'assault weapon' - as compared to the other rifle, which is isnt an 'assault weapon' and therefore perfectly fine.

See it yet?

You;ll note that under the front sight of the 'assault weapon', there is a little nubbie thats not present on the other rifle. That nubbie is a bayonette lug. That bayonette lug makes it an 'assault weapon'; the other rifle, sans bayonette lug, isnt.

Ok, I see it now.

Bayonets kick a$$!!!!!!!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course this is my interpretation to many of his writings and some people might not agree with me :::shrugs:::.

The problem here is thgat your argument contradicts itself.

You cannot support the idea of a weak, decentralized government and Socialism at the same time.

 

[George_Washington]

The problem here is thgat your argument contradicts itself.

You cannot support the idea of a weak, decentralized government and Socialism at the same time.

You can if you mean to dissolve the state through the application of socialism. Isn't that basically what Marx advocated?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can if you mean to dissolve the state through the application of socialism. Isn't that basically what Marx advocated?

Thats the end Marx desired. Supposedly.

However, dont you think Jefferson, being as brilliant as he was, and holding a 'weak, de-centralized government' preference, would see the dangers of the Marxist path, and correctly predict that human nature, both in terms of absolute power corrupting absolutely and that people will always do what they think is in their own best interest, guarantees that marxism will fail?

He'd see the danger of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and run (not walk) away.

 

[George_Washington]

Thats the end Marx desired. Supposedly.

However, dont you think Jefferson, being as brilliant as he was, and holding a 'weak, de-centralized government' preference, would see the dangers of the Marxist path, and correctly predict that human nature, both in terms of absolute power corrupting absolutely and that people will always do what they think is in their own best interest, guarantees that marxism will fail?

He'd see the danger of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and run (not walk) away.

Well, not neccessarily. I mean think about it. He didn't see the danger of his writings in the anti-federalist papers. If you accept the reality that he honestly thought that the Articles of Confederacy would work, then it really isn't so unrealistic that he could have also thought that Marxism would work.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you accept the reality that he honestly thought that the Articles of Confederacy would work, then it really isn't so unrealistic that he could have also thought that Marxism would work.

I doubt he would ever approve of the idea that for several steps along the way the people would live under an authoritarian government, the purpose of which is to "educate" people on the "correct" way of thinking.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

It is true that Jefferson supported a weak, decentralized government (to an extent, bare with me) but it was also true that he was against the formulation of capitalism or at least corporations on a grand scale. With his anti-military rhetoric, it makes sense (at least to me) that his views would have developed into modern Marxism had he been alive to witness Karl Marx and the rise of industry. think once he saw industry on a massive scale, the pollution and the persecuted labor, etc. he would have advocated socialism. Had he lived long enough, I think he would have supported government intervention in order to eliminate both industry and a government, as those were the two things he seemed mostly against. Again, I think if he had lived long enough to read Karl Marx's writings, he would have agreed with a lot of them. I think Jefferson wanted a weak government only to the extent that he wanted to combat the Federalist Papers and preserve the state's rights. I think his true desire was to have the state eleminate itself completely-something Marx called for. Keep in mind that Marx didn't call for a strong central goverment in the traditional sense. His vision for the state to first abolish capitalism but then to "disappear" once everyone was equal and the workers rose up.

Of course this is my interpretation to many of his writings and some people might not agree with me :::shrugs:::.

Oh, okay, I can see that. Although I think that "marxism" would be a bit of a strong word, maybe liberal leaning in relation to big buseness. I think that maybe he might have believed in some form of state controled socialism(state meaning a state in the U.S. not the general term "state"), marxism just has too much government control, right?

You cannot support the idea of a weak, decentralized government and Socialism at the same time.

Just trying to put a name on what he believed.

 

[dragonslayer]

Lightweight.

I actually own an MIA. and I love it.

they do look like an M14, and I liked your pictures too.

Down with Tyranny , Down with the fascist neo conservative pigs.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Oh, okay, I can see that. Although I think that "marxism" would be a bit of a strong word, maybe liberal leaning in relation to big buseness. I think that maybe he might have believed in some form of state controled socialism(state meaning a state in the U.S. not the general term "state"), marxism just has too much government control, right?


Just trying to put a name on what he believed.

Marxism isn't about big government, its a theory and philosophy. Marxism itself isn't much of an idealogy or how to run governments.

And even so Marxists generally want the abolition of the state.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And even so Marxists generally want the abolition of the state.

As has been demostrated SO clearly by every Marxist to ever come to power.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

:rofl

Truly, communist governments (based on marxism) had big governments, so it would be pretty easy to equate the two, or confuse them.

 

[George_Washington]

:rofl

Truly, communist governments (based on marxism) had big governments, so it would be pretty easy to equate the two, or confuse them.

True marxism doesn't have a big government; The true application of the theory says that the state will eventually fade out of existance. However, in practice marxism has resulted in big government, although this was not Karl Marx's vision.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

True marxism doesn't have a big government; The true application of the theory says that the state will eventually fade out of existance. However, in practice marxism has resulted in big government, although this was not Karl Marx's vision.

Hence:

Truly, communist governments (based on marxism) had big governments, so it would be pretty easy to equate the two, or confuse them.

Here's another quote from Bowen's "Miracle at Philadelphia":

It was the fashion of the century to look toward posterity, asking quite frankly for it's support and applause. "That the world my know, in all present and future generations," John Adams ... had writen ... Often, on the floor of the [Constitutional] Convention, delegates so confessed, "We should consider," said James Wilson, "that we are providing a Constitution for future generations and not merely for the circumstances of the moment." ... Elbridge Gerry ... reminded the Convention that "something must be done or we shall disappoint not only American but the world."

Strange words for propertied gentlemen, intent as some historians have hinted, only of commerce and their own financial security.