Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 32     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #121 
Thanks Bill.  I do have little to offer to this subject other than my long-held personal position.  I suppose it's time I step away from this difficult dilemma, as you aptly put it, and just watch it play out from here.
Wolfpackfan

Registered:
Posts: 1,918
Reply with quote  #122 

I read this morning that the UN wants to put up for a vote in March a Treaty limiting the exportation and importation of arm,s from the United States. I personally think letting any foreign body meddle in US domestic policy as extremely dangerous!! Now they wanted to put this up for a vote in July but the US asked for more time to study the Treaty, I fear with the Massacre in Newtown the US will blindly follow along.


__________________
Go Pack!!!!!!!!!!!
Wolfpackfan

Registered:
Posts: 1,918
Reply with quote  #123 
Dewey: Giving one's opinion without explaining that opinion does not  really add to a debate. Now you did say you would not ban six shooters (Revolver), this shows a limited knowledge of firearms and that's OK(there is a wide array of subjects that you are well versed that make me say Huh!!) but the liberal media is exploiting people's limited knowledge . 
I would gladly support a weapons ban (assault weapons are already illegal) if I thought it would stop mass murders but it is my opinion that it won't. The real problem is mental health and the desensitizing of Americas youth. I will support a weapons ban if we start holding the media responsible for sensationalizing these incidents, we start holding parents responsible from turning a blind eye on their children's problems and hold mental health officials responsible for turning these unstable individuals loose on society!!

__________________
Go Pack!!!!!!!!!!!
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #124 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfpackfan

I read this morning that the UN wants to put up for a vote in March a Treaty limiting the exportation and importation of arm,s from the United States. I personally think letting any foreign body meddle in US domestic policy as extremely dangerous!! Now they wanted to put this up for a vote in July but the US asked for more time to study the Treaty, I fear with the Massacre in Newtown the US will blindly follow along.



Little wonder they want to stop US arms, as we are the largest arms broker in the world, sometimes arming both sides in a conflict, including those belligerent to the US. Its absurd. The next big sales push is to Africa, where we are allocating more of our own military resources (personnel, weapons, etc), and where the big evil al-Queda is supposedly thriving. Wars for decades coming right up.

What's even more absurd is that while we are arming every Osama and Boko, we have anti-Constitutionalists like Fienstein trying to disarm Americans. Of course she's probably worried about the coming rebellion when California goes broke and people are starving.

As for UN meddling in US affairs, check out UN Agenda 21.

__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #125 
Wolfpackfan - I told Bill I should step aside because I don't really want to add to the debate.  My mind is made up, those on the other side have their minds made up and, as Bill pointed out, I'm not involved enough in this subject to be out campaigning or persuading those in the middle.  I just want our Representatives to debate it amongst themselves and move to a vote.  Yes, I hope they ban some of these weapons as this is my personal position. With that in mind, and after reading inside here for awhile, I had one question that I suppose I should have kept to myself...

"How come we find it acceptable to ban a hand grenade as one of those "arms" we have a right to bear and not a semi-automatic weapon with large magazine clip?"  I simply wanted to note banning arms is not unusual.

Since I stuck my toe in and you asked me, I'll say a couple of more things.  I have no idea if a ban on hand grenades has saved one life in this Country.  It doesn't matter to me.  I have no idea if banning some of these weapons being discussed today will save one life in this Country or not.  It doesn't matter to me.  I figure it surely can't hurt, as I think the ownership of some of these type weapons is unnecessary, and I'm confident banning some weapons in this Country will not interfere with anyone's right to protect their family or their opportunity to hunt.  More importantly,  I do not think it will interfere with a citizen's right to bear arms which I think we should keep in tact.  I respect those who don't think like me and I'm ready to vote on legislation to see where we stand as a Country.  I was ready long before this incident but sometimes people have to be shaken a bit before they consider addressing what some of us find to be problems.

PS:  Yes, we should also investigate mental health, availability, etc. etc.



Wolfpackfan

Registered:
Posts: 1,918
Reply with quote  #126 
Thanks for the input, We vastly disagree on the subject but I can live with that. I just feel when giving an opinion in a debate one should explain that opinion which you have.
__________________
Go Pack!!!!!!!!!!!
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #127 
Wolfpackfan - Thank you and I can live with that too.  Another member wanted to hurl so we're making gains.  In any event, from the position I sit, I felt the reasoning behind my opinion was obvious to all.  I think eliminating some of these weapons will make our society a safer place without interfering with a right to bear arms.  I have no proof or evidence of such but I sincerely believe my conclusion to be true. I didn't know what more to add.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 8,101
Reply with quote  #128 
I hurl Dewey, when "your" Senator wants to register and fingerprint the legal owners of legal firearms. She wants to restrict the 2nd amendment of the Constitution, and restrict the ownership of many different types of long arms, and pistols. She will restrict my 2nd amendment right to bear arms, and defend myself and family, while she and her family, are protected behind gated walls, by those same weapons, or even fully automatic weapons. Hypocrisy makes me want to hurl, and yes, the Socialist like your "more equal than other animals" Senator, want a disarmed compliant citizenry.
__________________
Anarcho Capitalism. Get some, and no you can't have any of my money to live off of you Socialist Democrat.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
woody

Registered:
Posts: 8,101
Reply with quote  #129 
Hey Dewey, here is your Senator from 1995 reminding you of her agenda. Stay tuned for her quest to disarm American citizens in January. She has armed security details, that carry the same weapons, that she wants to prevent you from owning. She even has a concealed handgun, but doesn't want you to have the same right. Why? Because she is more important than you or me. She is more equal, and knows whats best for us. These are your elected officials. They do not care about the constitution, they trample our freedoms, and liberties. They are tyrants, and will lead to a split in our nation not seen since the civil war. Hear my words, those that would shred our constitution, and rule as a monarchy, or dictatorship, are tyrants, and traitors to America. Yet the Dems elect them. Why would you vote for a traitor, and a tyrant? 

http://www.infowars.com/video-dianne-feinstein-says-prepare-to-turn-in-your-guns/

__________________
Anarcho Capitalism. Get some, and no you can't have any of my money to live off of you Socialist Democrat.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 4,336
Reply with quote  #130 
Interesting numbers from CA.
Gun sales and ownership up, injuries and deaths down.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/5079151/california-gun-sales-increase.html#storylink=cpy
Won't hear these numbers from the good Senator since the data does not support her goal.
fhoenix

Registered:
Posts: 4,943
Reply with quote  #131 

No one gives numbers or talks about incidents that hurt their cause. Anyone here posting numbers or re-posting articles that support the opposition in a debate or argument?
No...you simply find data and articles that support your views and post those. It is the oppositions responsibility in a debate to find date and info to support their view.

They are never going to take away guns. It is going thru the same hoops that first amendment right do (speech, religion, press).
Ironic that some of the same people arguing about their rights in one instance are arguing to regulate thr rights of others in another instance....because we have people that want to have their freedoms but want to make sure yours are regulated. Most people want a nanny state---a nanny state that enforces their view and morality. What you can eat, what firearms you can own, smoking, alcohol, adult material, entertainment, who you can marry, etc....and many rights step on someone else's rights. What you say, how you dress, nudity or showing too much, etc. Someone non-christian wants their prayers allowed in school along with christian prayers and atheists want no prayers. So no prayers unless we had have all prayers and allow those who aren't religious to leave the room. Imagine christian prayer followed by muslim prayer then jeish prayer. Everyone's religious rights clash in school and workplace so organized public prayer is gone. Moral majority and political correctness. We don't care what other americans do as long as it does not effect us and we do not have to tolerate it. Our self-important, me first, let others pay my way society has us telling each other what is best for us and what we can or cannot say or do....because our views and morality are right and we are doing what is best for you. The nanny state. Regulating the rights of other citizens. Nut not removing them---so guns won't go away. Some states may clamp down on having guns in public and more businesses and places will not allow you to bring them in...but they will never dissallow legal, mentally stable, non-felon citizens from owning firearms.


__________________
‎"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." -- Abraham Lincoln
woody

Registered:
Posts: 8,101
Reply with quote  #132 
Perhaps owning a single shot .22 pistol would be acceptable? Do you think Senator Feinstein will be guarded by this type of weapon, or is she more equal than other animals??  Perhaps we would only be allowed to carry a pea shooter, but only after a thorough background check, mental and phsycological evaluation, payed for by the citizen, fingerprinting, registration, and a 10 year waiting period. Is this the regulation you don't see happening?
__________________
Anarcho Capitalism. Get some, and no you can't have any of my money to live off of you Socialist Democrat.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
fhoenix

Registered:
Posts: 4,943
Reply with quote  #133 
It is all talk...like 90% of politics.
Obama and dems have talked change and hope yet the only change is person in white house with him hoping things get better on their own.
On the other side we have beck, rush, malkin, and fox news hosts and shows riding obama like he is silver and they are the lone ranger. Yet for all the talk and negativity from them nothing changed..except their ratings went thru the roof, advertisors jumped onboard, and many books were sold. Same with far left who put on chapstick and kiss obama's butt.

The money is in the medicine not the cure. That is politics. You don't need a solution just point out the other side's plans and views suck. Tell people what they want to hear. Sell the sizzle not the steak.
The 2 most popular politicians of 2008 were all sizzle--obama and Palin. The election seemed more like voting for class president of high school.
Which brings me back to Guns.............it is all talk about regulating. Cigarettes, porn, alcohol, and guns survive all attacks.

And guns aren't the problem nor solution in schools. Security is. You don't want an armed intruder in your school. I don't care if he is armed with a gun, explosives, or a baseball bat. Srip clubs have cameras, alarms on windows and doors if break-in and security on perimiter to keep you out and guards inside if you get in. Why are the politician kids safe in elite schools? Because secret service knows and sees everyone approaching the school before they get to a window or door they have been spotted and will be met by security before they get in. Agents aren't in classrooms with the kids. They keep bad guys from getting in the school.
Irony is all the anti-gun talk has increased gun sales and ownership. Libs should have learned from anti-obama talk that adversity rallies people towards not away.

__________________
‎"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." -- Abraham Lincoln
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,122
Reply with quote  #134 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fhoenix

Irony is all the anti-gun talk has increased gun sales and ownership. Libs should have learned from anti-obama talk that adversity rallies people towards not away.


Increased by +2 handguns in my household since the election.

I am sure woody can attest to this, ammo shelves were empty before Christmas.  At our most popular sporting goods chain with everyone stuffing extra ammo in stockings for the family.

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,122
Reply with quote  #135 

FBI: Gun Purchasers Set New Record in December

 
The number of FBI background checks required for Americans buying guns set a record in December, as the Connecticut school massacre stirred interest in self-defense and prompted renewed talk of limits on firearms, according to FBI data.

The FBI said it recorded 2.8 million background checks during the month, surpassing the mark set in November of 2 million checks. The number was up 49 percent over December 2011, when the FBI performed a then-record 1.9 million checks.

Consumer demand for guns appears to have accounted for the uptick in activity. There were no changes in FBI background check procedures that would have affected the December numbers, FBI spokesman Stephen Fischer said.

However, December is typically the busiest month of the year for checks, due in part to Christmas gift sales.

The figures do not represent the number of firearms sold, a statistic the government does not track. They also do not reflect activity between private parties, such as family members or collectors, because federal law requires background checks only for sales from commercial vendors with a federal license.

Someone who passes a background check is eligible to buy multiple firearms.

FBI checks for all of 2012 totaled 19.6 million, an annual record and an increase of 19 percent over 2011.

The FBI system - known as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) - "processed transactions following normal established protocols," Fischer said.

The national debate on guns has grown louder since Dec. 14 when Adam Lanza forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children and six adults before committing suicide in one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history, investigators said. Lanza also killed his mother, the registered owner of the guns used in the killings, before going to the school.

Interest in guns tends to increase after a mass shooting, as customers fear for personal safety or worry that lawmakers might ban certain firearms.

U.S. President Barack Obama has committed to pushing new legislation, possibly including a proposed ban on some semi-automatic weapons, this year.

© 2013 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

 

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #136 
DHS buys 200,000 more hollow point bullets bringing total to over 1 bil purchased in the last 9 months but yet they want to take away our rights.  I dont think so.
__________________
Susan
DietCoke

Registered:
Posts: 2,035
Reply with quote  #137 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal

FBI: Gun Purchasers Set New Record in December

Interest in guns tends to increase after a mass shooting, as customers fear for personal safety or worry that lawmakers might ban certain firearms.


Unfortunately (IMO) that is what has happened after each tragedy.  Many of the sales are to current (and hopefully competent) gun owners.  But many are also first-time gun owners.  Many of whom will be poorly or inadequately trained but will be carrying and thinking they can react in an emergency situation.  This is what's really scary.  In reality, they will probably put themselves at greater risk as well as bystanders. 

Interesting clip.  I'm sure some of you will criticize it, but I do think the reactions are pretty accurate.  Not everyone has the genetic makeup to carry a gun and use it when needed.  Training - lots of it - is needed to be able to react appropriately.


__________________
“The hand of help has no color. The face of caring has no shape. The language of love has no accent.” - Unattributed
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,122
Reply with quote  #138 
Quote:
Interesting clip.  I agree I'm sure some of you will criticize it, No criticism here but I do think the reactions are pretty accurate. I agree again, thanks for sharing



Quote:
Not everyone has the genetic makeup to carry a gun and use it when needed.  Training - lots of it - is needed to be able to react appropriately.
Again, spot on.  CHL is not for everyone.

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #139 
good info.  

http://www.fb.me/2ek3NzNSa

more info.
http://www.fb.me/SEx2Xii8


__________________
Susan
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #140 
One need only look at Chicago to see how effective gun control is.

As for the newspaper listing names of registered gun owners, why not also lists of people on public welfare, and those who have publicly-funded abortions, and everyone's criminal records, and anyone (including schoolchildren) on psychiatric pharmaceutical drugs?

__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
woody

Registered:
Posts: 8,101
Reply with quote  #141 
I agree, that there are some people that I wouldn't want carrying and using a cell phone, much less a weapon. I see them every day. I saw that anti gun piece when it first aired. The idea being forwarded, is that average citizens aren't capable of self defense, and only trained officers should use a gun to protect themselves. Better to have a cell phone, run, or play dead. I get it, thanks for that dose of "reasoned" propaganda, in advance of the next attempt by Leftist politicians to limit the 2nd amendment rights of citizens. I bet the segment is re aired when Feinstein and her ilk start proposing new controls, and restrictions on private gun ownership. Funny how the press seems to interject itself into the lawmaking process don't you think? 

I noticed the fact that the "bad guy" in the clip new exactly where the armed "air soft" expert was seated, each time, and that only that 1 person had a weapon. I would have like to seen what happened if 3-4 of the "students" were armed, and not sitting in the center front row as expected. Also, I wasn't aware that all the mass shooting suspects, would be highly trained tactical shooting instructors, as was the case in the clip.

__________________
Anarcho Capitalism. Get some, and no you can't have any of my money to live off of you Socialist Democrat.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #142 
Woody - A serious question - When the second amendment was written, what was its purpose and where did that purpose come from?  Does that same purpose for carrying guns exist now?      Frank
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
woody

Registered:
Posts: 8,101
Reply with quote  #143 
The founding fathers had just fought a war using civilians as a military. They succeeded in expelling a monarchy backed army. They also had a very divided country, with many loyalist that supported the king, who were being run out of the country. The founding fathers realized that the newly founded country, could again slip into a dictatorship. To safeguard against this, aside from strongly, and intentionally limiting the role of the Federal Government, and relegating the power to individual states, amendments to the constitution were specifically introduced that would not only guarantee citizens the right to free speech, freedom of assembly, a free press, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness specified in the Declaration of Independence, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure by a strong central government. They insured that the "people", the same people that won the country's freedom, could safeguard their rights, by being armed, and able to overthrow any future tyrannical government, that would deny any of the other freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. The founding fathers were revolutionaries. They had gone to war and killed people that were taking their property, imprisoning their countrymen, and oppressing the population. They knew that the only way to insure against an overreaching government in the future, was a well armed population, of individuals, that not only could, but certainly would take up arms, and revolt against any government that attempted to limit individual rights. They also realized that an armed population, could, and would fend for itself, and not be preyed upon. 

I think the need for the 2nd amendment protection of all our rights is needed more now than ever. Our freedoms are being taken away step by step by a strong centralized authoritarian government. Republican traitors took away some of our rights with the Patriot act. Our second amendment rights, and our liberty, and the ability to defend our families while in public, and at home, will once again be attacked by a tyrannical government, led by hypocritical Socialist Democrats. These traitors to our nations freedom, are what the founding fathers were protecting us from, when they introduced the 2nd amendment into our constitution. The founding fathers were wise men, forward looking, and deep thinkers. They foresaw what is happening to the citizens of our country today, and gave the citizens a way to bluntly say no to an authoritarian government. Authoritarian governments like an unarmed population, it is much easier to control individuals, and groups, when they are unarmed.

We live in a population of sheep, that would give away their individual freedoms, bought by the blood of true patriots, for a check in the mail.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin (one of those forward thinking guys from back in the day)

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. 
George Washington 

__________________
Anarcho Capitalism. Get some, and no you can't have any of my money to live off of you Socialist Democrat.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,122
Reply with quote  #144 
Contrary to post #121 where JG again fawns over some of dewey's gibberish, I believe woody to be eloquent and well versed. 

woody, you knocked that assignment out of the park.  You are a great American

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #145 
Ditto.  Very nice Woody!
__________________
Susan
fhoenix

Registered:
Posts: 4,943
Reply with quote  #146 
The George Washington Quote--
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizen's firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes— we need them every hour.

It is in the George Washington Wiki and several other sites as:
Spurious quotations---Statements which evidence indicates are fabrications, never actually said by anyone prior to their being attributed to Washington.

This quote popped after it was in the book "A gun Owner's Rights" written in 1981 and several variations of the quote since. There is no record of it every being said in any official archives. It is reposted by sites that gather quotes since those sites just grab quotes not look them up for authenticity. The quote has been changed alot too...I just posted the full quote. The praire wagon did not come about until mid 1800s and praires did not come into being until 1803--washington died in 1799....muskets were the common firearm so why mention just rifle and pistol. George washington was an eloquent writer and this was butchered. The person posting that originally tried to cover alot of topics in one statement using terms and language not from that time.

Next post---Washington has to send in the feds to put down armed rebellions

__________________
‎"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." -- Abraham Lincoln
fhoenix

Registered:
Posts: 4,943
Reply with quote  #147 

Founding was far from smooth and the founders agreed as much as republicans and democrats agree now.....

Washington twice as president had to raise militia and send them to put down rebellions. The militia idea worked on paper but few volunteered so they had to institute a draft. Shay's rebellion in 1786 and the wiskey rebellion of 1791 in western penn. Here is a farmer quote before the shay rebellion---"I have been greatly abused, have been obliged to do more than my part in the war, been loaded with class rates, town rates, province rates, Continental rates and all rates ... been pulled and hauled by sheriffs, constables and collectors, and had my cattle sold for less than they were worth ... The great men are going to get all we have and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors nor lawyers". Fought in 2 major battles of the war, didn't get paid, goes home to a mountain of debt and more taxes than before the war against england. The shay rebels beat up tax collectors, refused to pay taxes, and went place to place causing trouble for courts and shutting them down. Their numbers grew but so did the militia oppsoing them when they got to their next courthouse so they protested instead of fighting. Their numbers grew to 800 so they went for a federal armory and were met by militia and after the 2 cannons fired grapeshot killing 4 of them and wounding 20 of them they scattered to the winds. No musket fire from either side. Just the opening cannon shots. The militia caught some of them and they group never rebanded.

The wiskey rebellion had ex-soldiers/farmers trying to make ends meet by making wiskey as a medium for exchange...and the government decided to tax them on it. D'oh. Alot of taxes and political bs from the feds and 500 men gathered their arms and went to tax collectors home and many skirmishes with local officials. Their numbers grew to 600, they proclaimed their independence, lots of mob violence, and lots of others stuff happened. They were unhappy with the new country. Most were ex-soldiers and farmers. To cut the lkong wiskey rebellion story short the rebels were waiting to see federal response and when they saw George washington leading an army of almost 13,000 militia they fled before troops got close (and except for cannons range was extremely short and it was fire, clear, reload, powder, tap, aim, fire). If outnumbered by alot you will never get a second shot off and cavalry will run you down as you try to flee. That batlled established that the feds could and would stop rebels from rampaging with strength of force.

After the war there was much chaos in the new country. The wealthy had the power and land and the soldiers and farmers got the shaft.
The founding fathers did not agree and were as varied as politicians today. The only thing they cooperated on was fighting england. The only reason George washington stayed for second term was because his right hand and left hand men were vicious towards each other and if he stepped down america would divide into two parties. They both stepped down during his scond term and each formed their own part. Jefferson was for farmers and working class and small government and hamilton was federalist and pro-government. Washington warned against it yet it happened.

For awhile, James Madison, putative father of the Constitution and major author of the Federalist Papers, upheld Hamilton. But Hamilton's pro-business, pro-banking policies, his coziness with land speculators who were swindling veterans out of their bounty lands, quickly drove Madison into Jefferson's camp. At the end of the First Congress in the spring of 1791, ostensibly on a vacation tour of the Adirondacks and Vermont, Jefferson and Madison decided to launch a political party to oppose Hamilton's, ergo President Washington's, fiscal policies.

To suppress the challenge of a second party, Washington's successor, Federalist John Adams, signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, making it a federal crime to criticize the president or his administration's policies. Supreme Court justices became circuit-riding inquisitors, trying, fining and imprisoning some 25 editors and printers who subscribed to the Jeffersonian party line.

it started ugly and got worse.............imagine a politician getting shot in a duel today over things said about another polititician. Then again maybe that would be the answer.............


__________________
‎"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." -- Abraham Lincoln
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #148 
Real - Excuse me while I "fawn" over Woody's excellent reply and come up with a question.  Woody - In your second paragraph are you suggesting that by arming individual citizens we protect ourselves against government tyranny that would tend to take away our original freedoms?  Are you suggesting that "the citizenry" today would ever be strong enough, even with guns, to revolt and face down our government?  How did that work out during the days of fighting for or against Civil Rights when the National Guard was called in?       Frank
PS - Real - In your mind, what is a "great American"?  Do you have a favorite "great American"?  Mine is Thomas Jefferson considering when he lived and what he thought. Ben Franklin, rogue that he was, is another of my favorites.  I also favor Teddy Roosevelt.   

__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #149 
fhoenix - Well done - and thank you.     Frank
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
fhoenix

Registered:
Posts: 4,943
Reply with quote  #150 
Some say jefferson was a socialist-----

In his turn, when Jefferson became president he instituted what later became known as the spoils system. With his idea of even-handedness, he dismantled the Federalist Party. He fired half of all federal officeholders, the top half. He kept Federalists only in low-level clerical, postal and customs service jobs. Jefferson effectively deprived the Federalists of any chance of rebuilding a power base by excluding them not only from the federal payroll but from political and administrative experience. The Federalists never won another election. Their party died.

Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans became Andrew Jackson's Democrats. They held power, except for a single term, for 60 years. And then it was Abraham Lincoln's turn. His new Republicans were ushered into the White House by the nearly terminally-divisive Civil War. To oppose the governing party again became treason, Lincoln's critics rounded up and incarcerated, the writ of habeas corpus suspended. No Democrat would be elected president for another generation. The GOP of Abraham Lincoln held sway, with only two brief interruptions, for nearly 80 years until Franklin Delano Roosevelt

the point--there was alot of things that went into the constitution and amendments. Most of it came from english laws (common law, magna carta), great laws of peace from native tribes, and already established state laws. The rebellions are said to have influnced the bill of rights. The ability to gather an armed militia was vital in each rebellion. The "bad guys" will always be armed so you had to have armed militia to fight them. without armed militia the rebels would have overrun federal armories and financial insitutions and courts.
The founding fathers fought more than politicians today. They did not agree on most things. Difference is they were fighting wars on american soil vs english, then french indian wars. You were your own security and protection. The founders stopped fighting long enough to fight england then back to politics. Same as now. A tragedy or crisis happens and we come together. As soon as it ends politics are back to normal. We come together for things of national pride (like olympics, vs terrorism or in support of our favorite team). I didn't mention wars since when I served and now there are still a portion of people who take every opportunity to criticize or knock the military. Especially in 70s and 80s. Ungrateful pukes who enjoy the benefits of other people's sacrifices. 

Notice that neither pro nor anti gun advocates mention the wild west times of america when everyone carried guns nor the roaring 20s, prohibition and mobsters when most people carried guns (especially in chicago), making sure newly freed slaves could not own guns in many states and areas, etc. No changes to the amendment then yet regulations and restrictions still existed. Nomatter what laws have been in place to stop firearm sales, alcohol sales in dry counties, sex, or drug sales there has always been someone rich and powerful that worked around it and formed a black market. You have always been able to get sex, firearms, drugs, and alcohol in america since day 1 from the black market. This means nomatter what laws or regulations the "bad guys" will be armed. Most people do not want to get into a firefight nor will they but in other instances it is better to reach for a gun when a knife armed person is approaching you violently than just your wallet. And it is better to reach for your firearm when someone breaks into your home than just call the police and wait for them to get there and write a report of the crime scene with you possibly being part of it. We can all debate what the founding fathers intended to support our argument but the fact is guns came over on the mayflower, this country started with guns, was founded with guns, west was won with guns, and guns are a part of our culture. Guns will never be federal banned but since day 1 of founding there have been states, towns, counties, etc. that banned them in public places, types you could carry, etc. and since it has always been that way it will always stay that way. The shop I got my guns from is one of many guns shops that fuel the fire of "they are trying to take away our guns".....it increases their sales. There has been no proposed legislation asking for ban on all guns nor has any president asked for total ban on guns. They will regulate as they have since day 1 but never take away.


__________________
‎"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." -- Abraham Lincoln
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: