The Founding Fathers of the United States

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Because of the bill of rights, please tell me you didn't skip over that. It's because we still have that bill of rights, were the first ones to have one, and have it now, and treat it with respect. Nowadays people will exchange freedom for little bit of security.

Now just to annoy you even more

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."

"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither."

"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security."
Ben Franklin

And That is why they are ahead of their time.

Gergar12:
Because of the bill of rights, please tell me you didn't skip over that. It's because we still have that bill of rights, were the first ones to have one, and have it now, and treat it with respect. Nowadays people will exchange freedom for little bit of security.

And even more people will exchange it for a little bit of convenience, which leads me to the next quote.

"Quoting long-dead individuals isn't profound, and whoever trades freedom for convenience is in no position to quote Franklin on liberty and security."
~Vegosiux

Plus, the house I grew up in is older than that bill of rights. It's not like everyone lived in the dung ages before that document was written. And, well I like being secure in knowing I won't be murdered the moment I step outside, so I'm pretty happy to trade away my freedom to murder people in exchange for that.

newfoundsky:
Why is God always having to Save the Queen?

we keep making her do stupid things like sail down the Thames in an open top boat during a thunderstorm aged 87...

Gergar12:
were the first ones to have one

*ahem*

"It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

The Declaration of Arbroath. a declaration of the rights of men in relation to how they are ruled. 1320. then there's the Magna Carta. 1215...both of these are featured on monuments in DC afaik..because of the debt the USs founding documents/principals directly owe to them...

Gergar12:
Because of the bill of rights, please tell me you didn't skip over that. It's because we still have that bill of rights, were the first ones to have one, and have it now, and treat it with respect. Nowadays people will exchange freedom for little bit of security.

Now just to annoy you even more

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."

"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither."

"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security."
Ben Franklin

And That is why they are ahead of their time.

I really can't agree with mister Franklin and the ones quoting him on this.
Sacrificing freedom for security is something we do all the time. Its called the law.

Hades:

Gergar12:
Because of the bill of rights, please tell me you didn't skip over that. It's because we still have that bill of rights, were the first ones to have one, and have it now, and treat it with respect. Nowadays people will exchange freedom for little bit of security.

Now just to annoy you even more

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."

"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither."

"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security."
Ben Franklin

And That is why they are ahead of their time.

I really can't agree with mister Franklin and the ones quoting him on this.
Sacrificing freedom for security is something we do all the time. Its called the law.

Its a balancing game. You don't know what your restrictions are unless they are there, and if nothing is wrong to do then nothing is right to do with either. Granted most laws now seem like they exist because some idiot did something stupid so the government are covering themselves and going to weird extremes, but most I think make sense.

Again there has to be some sane restrictions (don't drink and drive; meth is illegal; need to have your firearms registered) and some I do not (IT is illegal to hunt whale on horseback in Utah; setting off a nuclear devise in Chico city limits warrants a 5$500 fine; its is illegal to have oral sex in San Francisco).

Gergar12:
Because of the bill of rights, please tell me you didn't skip over that. It's because we still have that bill of rights, were the first ones to have one, and have it now, and treat it with respect. Nowadays people will exchange freedom for little bit of security.

Out of interest, what parts of the Bill of Rights have the US government not decided to overlook or creatively interpret at some point or other?

Currently there is a big argument over the interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Most people, including the Founding fathers, were weary of government (the first one the revolutionaries tried failed because it lacked enough power, among other things).

The Point of bearing arms was a to solve a two part issue: allow the people to mobilize into a militia to defend themselves and if the country failed to take it over.

At least from one point of view. Right now its a discussion of weather or not things will get better or worse depending on how severe things are.

There are countries with super strict gun laws like Japan and Australia that have had relative success, and then you have had massacres such as with the Armenians in Turkey or people Stalin didn't like during his tenure in the USSR.

And then you have debates over the freedom of speech.

Most of the time I believe its a bunch of idiotic jerks who think that the freedom to say what you want excludes them from consequences. Others haven't realize that hate speech (racial or ethnic slurs for example) or saying things that could be dangerous (such threatening someone with their life, yelling fire in a movie theater). Basically any number of things that could get you a perma ban on this site.

saint of m:

Most of the time I believe its a bunch of idiotic jerks who think that the freedom to say what you want excludes them from consequences. Others haven't realize that hate speech (racial or ethnic slurs for example) or saying things that could be dangerous (such threatening someone with their life, yelling fire in a movie theater). Basically any number of things that could get you a perma ban on this site.

Freedom is consequence free action. I do not think that people should be able to say things that will cause undue panic (the fire in theater example), I do think they should be able to say stupid, ignorant, racist things without reproach though, at least on governmental and business level (being a bigot should not cost you your job or put you in jail or be fined), however, on a personal level I find bigotry vomit inducing and will not associate with them.

newfoundsky:

saint of m:

Most of the time I believe its a bunch of idiotic jerks who think that the freedom to say what you want excludes them from consequences. Others haven't realize that hate speech (racial or ethnic slurs for example) or saying things that could be dangerous (such threatening someone with their life, yelling fire in a movie theater). Basically any number of things that could get you a perma ban on this site.

Freedom is consequence free action. I do not think that people should be able to say things that will cause undue panic (the fire in theater example), I do think they should be able to say stupid, ignorant, racist things without reproach though, at least on governmental and business level (being a bigot should not cost you your job or put you in jail or be fined), however, on a personal level I find bigotry vomit inducing and will not associate with them.

Agreed. The whole point is to protect people from unjust harm, and the few things the first amendment dosn't cover are not covered for pretty good reasons.

MoNKeyYy:
As a Canadian studying and living in the United States it absolutely baffles me, and I need someone to explain it to me. Please. It's driving me a little bit insane.

So the answer became clear: you don't have to fight for every right you have in Canada. A crisis in Canada is, say, the separatist movement in Quebec (at least when there's no hockey game).

A crisis in America looks like its entire Constitution.

It's not as simple as government vs. the people, either. There's a growing number of people who live for their own interests with a government ready to say yes to them. What they say and do is what they think is best, and damn the rest. It's no longer about a United States but a my United States of whatever (and if you caught that reference, shame on you).

I understand the argument against those who can't think for themselves and give you nothing but quotes from better people, but the ideas need to be kept alive. When the people that worked, designed, fought and lived for the independence that was won are shrugged off by future generations (or even criticized as irrelevant), then what the hell did it all mean?

And I'd thank you to not compare political acuity to religious zeal; it makes you look phobic of both.

thaluikhain:

Gergar12:
Because of the bill of rights, please tell me you didn't skip over that. It's because we still have that bill of rights, were the first ones to have one, and have it now, and treat it with respect. Nowadays people will exchange freedom for little bit of security.

Out of interest, what parts of the Bill of Rights have the US government not decided to overlook or creatively interpret at some point or other?

The second amendment for one, I can still buy automatic firing pins in some states, and in times of need you can load more rounds in other states than you are allowed.

The 14th, if you gave me proof otherwise I would love to see it.

Vegosiux:

Gergar12:
Because of the bill of rights, please tell me you didn't skip over that. It's because we still have that bill of rights, were the first ones to have one, and have it now, and treat it with respect. Nowadays people will exchange freedom for little bit of security.

And even more people will exchange it for a little bit of convenience, which leads me to the next quote.

"Quoting long-dead individuals isn't profound, and whoever trades freedom for convenience is in no position to quote Franklin on liberty and security."
~Vegosiux

Plus, the house I grew up in is older than that bill of rights. It's not like everyone lived in the dung ages before that document was written. And, well I like being secure in knowing I won't be murdered the moment I step outside, so I'm pretty happy to trade awaytleas my freedom to murder people in exchange for that.

Because killing people was accepted by the founding fathers...

I believe it's basically each to their own spirit the founding fathers went towards. With the copyright crap, censorship, and a hundred other things which I could go on about, this seems logical.

Also the second amendment won't spark an arms race btw people, who has the money, the time, and the ambition unless if they are a collector in which case they don't want to break the law or else have their gun assets taken away. Have you ever saw on the news a M60, or any other automatic weapons being used.

Also I don't think of the founding fathers as my god, they were slave owners for fuck sakes. Does that sound fun to worship. And the constitution is not my bible... At one point it tried to ban alcohol.

MoNKeyYy:
Why?

No seriously, WHY? I don't get it. I don't understand the veneration and the near-holy status of the founding fathers in American culture and political discourse. It seems a quote from Jefferson or Madison or Hamilton or Washington is enough to silence any critic and can be used as a be-all-and-end-all argument in any policy debate. The intents of the framers seems to enjoy a status that I can only compare to religious authority in the eyes of many Americans(or at least politicians, pundits, members of the media, and more than a few people I've talked to myself), and like religious authority it seems the intents of the framers can support any given position a person can want. The Federalist Papers almost seem like a holy book for some people; a book of unattainable knowledge handed down by greater men from a greater time meant to guide us lowly mortals in all things stars-and-stripes.

And I Just. Don't. Get it.

As a Canadian studying and living in the United States it absolutely baffles me, and I need someone to explain it to me. Please. It's driving me a little bit insane.

basically:

They created a unique government (at the time) that learned from the mistakes of the period. They didn't turn into a Junta, which means they didn't become power hungry dicks.

They managed to separate religion from government effectively. In an age of heavy religious pressure.

They risked everything to gain independence from a much larger and much more skilled tyrannical government that would have easily stomped them. And won.

On top of being the weakling and the oddball on the political stage, they weren't conquered by the people who opposed those systems.

And that's the gist of it. Government was being a dick, they fought back, and implemented ideas that others thought unthinkable or godless. Ideas that the other governments deemed too subversive.

People love them because they did what was thought to be impossible in the period. 4 consecutive times.

Regardless of what you think about their government and their personal lives, these are gigantic achievements.

Gergar12:

thaluikhain:

Gergar12:
Because of the bill of rights, please tell me you didn't skip over that. It's because we still have that bill of rights, were the first ones to have one, and have it now, and treat it with respect. Nowadays people will exchange freedom for little bit of security.

Out of interest, what parts of the Bill of Rights have the US government not decided to overlook or creatively interpret at some point or other?

The second amendment for one, I can still buy automatic firing pins in some states, and in times of need you can load more rounds in other states than you are allowed.

The 14th, if you gave me proof otherwise I would love to see it.

I'm pretty sure there has been plenty of interpretation of the 2nd going on (were slaves allowed to keep and bear arms?), and i am think there are weapons you are not allowed to have.
How creative you judge it would probably depend on personal opinion though.

Gergar12:
The 14th, if you gave me proof otherwise I would love to see it.

I thought the bill of rights was just the first 10.

And if the second only really applies (under that interpretation) in some states, that's not being upheld.

(As an aside, automatic firing pins? Or do you mean lower receivers in their totality?)

senordesol:
Basically: you had a group of people who would have been all set to install a 'New World Monarchy'. In fact, there were lots of people who would have gladly accepted Washington as America's 'King George I'. Instead, the framers created a constitution dedicated to creating a limited government that couldn't run roughshod over its People; they installed a Bill of Rights enumerating in specificity the rights of the People.

In short: they had a chance to become the tyrants they fought against, and instead created a government 'Of the People, By the People, and For the People', rather than one that serviced the nobility exclusively (at least this is the popular interpretation of events).

So you've got these men who fought for and won freedom from the English crown, established a government distinct from what had been before; one that acknowledged the rights of citizens, stepped aside when their time came (affirming that they were not the new royalty), and that nation -founded on ideals of freedom and independence- still endures today.

Worth honoring, I'd say.

This.

They also made sure that the Government, which they started, can also be edited as they also knew how times will change and how things will be accepted in different ways... They knew America will never stay the same and made sure that our laws and our systems can and will change in the future.

Our Founding Fathers were, overall, the most intelligent people we ever had in the Government world (At least for America) and I highly respect + honor what they've done, envisioned, and all.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked