Calderon urges Congress to reinstate ban on assault weapons
224 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Billiam;22114926]Generally, when a person says that the government is like fire and that it is a necessary evil at best they mean that the government should be minimized.
Pretty much all of the most recognized Founding Fathers acknowledged that the more government a nation has the less freedom they'll have. There was a nifty quote back in this thread by Benjamin Franklin about trading in freedom for security.
Yeah, they hated the government.
The Constitution was created so that power a single member of the government had would be watered down. A government like ours was created so that maximizing government would be impossible.
Plus, they lived in a time where their governments abused them and imposed laws that they felt were tyrannical and necessary. I'd imagine they;d be a lil' sore after that.
Hahaha, oh wow.
And I'm retarded?
[editline]10:25PM[/editline]
Uh, sorry to inform you, but...
Libertarianism has a broader spectrum like all political viewpoints.[/QUOTE]
I'm just going to answer all your prerogatives at once.
The founding fathers did not believe in the destruction of authority: they believed in the questioning of authority. They didn't trust governments, but they didn't hate them. They knew that security was necessary to protect freedom.
They understood that too much freedom leads to an oligarchy, as shown through the Russian revolution, the cuban revolution, and hitlers rise to power. They knew that too much freedom was uncontrollable in the hands of all, and that it was necessary to control that freedom. However, it was necessary to maintain freedom, and thus, they needed to control the government. So they used a political center idea of government, in which the freedom maintains the government and the government maintains the freedom, leaving nobody with absolute power. They knew that people with too much power (freedom) will abuse it. they knew that governments with too much power (fascism) will abuse it. So they gave power to a single, incorruptible body. A body that, through a system of checks ans balances, will never go wrong. this body is known as the law, and it is to ensure that nobody in this nation has power. Not even the people.
kid you got it all wrong and thats not what fascism is oh man oh man what do they teach kids in school these days o man
[QUOTE=Idi Amin;22115127]kid you got it all wrong and thats not what fascism is oh man oh man what do they teach kids in school these days o man[/QUOTE]
GB2 4chan troll, because there's no way that anyone is so stupid that they don't know that fascism is when the government has absolute power
what is GB2? is that the new street fighter game?
can we please stop arguing about how you believe the founding fathers were spineless cowards who wanted security and totalitarianism.
[QUOTE=Idi Amin;22115157]what is GB2? is that the new street fighter game?[/QUOTE]
Go back to
[editline]02:41AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Idi Amin;22115157]can we please stop arguing about how you believe the founding fathers were spineless cowards who wanted security and totalitarianism.[/QUOTE]
Definitely a troll
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22114611]so now you want to argue semantics? technically all weapons are assault weapons. why do you think they call it [B]assault[/B] with a deadly weapon?
and aren't you 13? what is a 13 year old doing with "assault" weapons?[/QUOTE]
No.
[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;22115068]The founding fathers did not believe in the destruction of authority: they believed in the questioning of authority. They didn't trust governments, but they didn't hate them. They knew that security was necessary to protect freedom.[/QUOTE]
I'm not arguing that the Founding Fathers felt that the government was unnecessary, but judging from the period in which the lived, the form of government they chose, and their writings and personal letters it appears they dislike government.
[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;22115068]They understood that too much freedom leads to an oligarchy, as shown through the Russian revolution, the cuban revolution, and hitlers rise to power. They knew that too much freedom was uncontrollable in the hands of all, and that it was necessary to control that freedom.[/QUOTE]
Except that through their writing you can tell that they felt that freedom above all was the most integral component in their newly formed nation.
[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;22115068]However, it was necessary to maintain freedom, and thus, they needed to control the government. So they used a political center idea of government, in which the freedom maintains the government and the government maintains the freedom, leaving nobody with absolute power. They knew that people with too much power (freedom) will abuse it. they knew that governments with too much power (fascism) will abuse it. So they gave power to a single, incorruptible body.[/QUOTE]
A small government still has the power to regulate and enforce the law.
Read into Thomas Jefferson's works, the people and government are symbiotic, but the people are suppose to have the upper hand.
[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;22115068]A body that, through a system of checks and balances, will never go wrong. this body is known as the law, and it is to ensure that nobody in this nation has power. Not even the people.[/QUOTE]
They were definitely in favor of the people, but yeah they knew that government was necessary. When a group of people feel it is necessary to overthrow the government once in awhile and when they instate a Federal system instead of a centralized one, it's clear that they are in favor of the people.
[QUOTE=Billiam;22115380]I'm not arguing that the Founding Fathers felt that the government was unnecessary, but judging from the period in which the lived, the form of government they chose, and their writings and personal letters it appears they dislike government.
Except that through their writing you can tell that they felt that freedom above all was the most integral component in their newly formed nation.
A small government still has the power to regulate and enforce the law.
Read into Thomas Jefferson's works, the people and government are symbiotic, but the people are suppose to have the upper hand.
They were definitely in favor of the people, but yeah they knew that government was necessary. When a group of people feel it is necessary to overthrow the government once in awhile and when they instate a Federal system instead of a centralized one, it's clear that they are in favor of the people.[/QUOTE]
They didn't dislike a government, they distrusted it. They were along the Socrates idea of thinking, not the Beckian idea. They were in favor of the people, but they achieved the security of people life liberty and pursuit of happiness with a federal government broken into 3 sections to maintain the checks and balances. they called this government a Republic
[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;22115423]They were in favor of the people, but they achieved the security of people life liberty and pursuit of happiness with a federal government broken into 3 sections to maintain the checks and balances. they called this government a Republic[/QUOTE]
This still doesn't conflict with Libertarianism.
And distrust of government pretty much a principle in Libertarianism.
[QUOTE=massn7;22115331]No.[/QUOTE]
is that your rebuttal
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22115571]is that your rebuttal[/QUOTE]
you never even acknowledged me mister when I shot down your fears
[editline]10:17PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;22115423]They didn't dislike a government, they distrusted it. They were along the Socrates idea of thinking, not the Beckian idea. They were in favor of the people, but they achieved the security of people life liberty and pursuit of happiness with a federal government broken into 3 sections to maintain the checks and balances. they called this government a Republic[/QUOTE]
I think you're late for spanish class bioshock
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mqJ_4yafYE[/media]
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22115571]is that your rebuttal[/QUOTE]
[quote=Leon Trotsky]so now you want to argue semantics? technically all weapons are assault weapons. why do you think they call it assault with a deadly weapon?
and aren't you 13? what is a 13 year old doing with "assault" weapons?[/quote]
Rebuttal to what? You're wrong.
An assault weapon, by definition, is a small, lightweight selective fire weapon with high capacity magazines that fires an intermediate cartridge. Your argument is based upon an extremely broad charge used in courtrooms. Assault with a deadly weapon? I could have used a hammer, a chisel, a saw, a knife, a firearm, anything. Anything can be a deadly weapon, but not every weapon is an assault weapon.
As for him being 13, I really see no problem with him owning a weapon. As long as he knows the proper safety procedures for each of his firearms and a general knowledge of firearm safety, he's fine.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0[/media]
Watch it.
Learn it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.