Debate Now I'm Leaving! Who Is With Me?

[Derideo_Te]

You raised the topic;

"Also it must be left up to the states to determine whether a felon is to be allowed possession of firearms."​

You also stated earlier that you wanted all rights defined in your BCSA Constitution which would include the right to bear arms.

All I am trying to do here is to determine where you are drawing the line when it comes to certain rights. 2A rights are a very thorny issue and if the BCSA is going to have 2A rights then you have just agreed that they will have limitations given that a majority does not feel that they should extend to convicted felons.

Given the above what other rights will the BCSA withhold from convicted felons?

I want the states to have the authority to decide how to deal with felons. It is as simple as that.

This thread is focused on what authority shall be given to a FEDERAL or CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. How states should organize themselves and what authority they should have is a topic for a separate thread.

If you have a different point of view about that and want the central government to have more authority, make your argument for that.

How do you intend to deal with felons that commit interstate crimes? Which state will take precedence when it comes to prosecuting? Which state will have to bear the cost of the penal system?

In my opinion, that will be left to the Congress to decide. I don't see it as necessary to write it into the Declaration of Independence or Constitution itself. So if you want it to be there, why do you think it should be in the Constitution and how would you word it?

Citizens in good standing with the law are entitled to own firearms for self protection, collections and sporting purposes only.

For the purposes of this exercise good standing with the law includes full compliance with all laws pertaining to firearms that could include registration and license renewals on a periodic basis.

I think the Second Amendment intended much more than firearms for self protection, collections, and sporting purposes. For sure the equivalent amendment in a new constitution I would agree to will intend much more than that.

Such as?

 

[Foxfyre]

I want the states to have the authority to decide how to deal with felons. It is as simple as that.

This thread is focused on what authority shall be given to a FEDERAL or CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. How states should organize themselves and what authority they should have is a topic for a separate thread.

If you have a different point of view about that and want the central government to have more authority, make your argument for that.

How do you intend to deal with felons that commit interstate crimes? Which state will take precedence when it comes to prosecuting? Which state will have to bear the cost of the penal system?

In my opinion, that will be left to the Congress to decide. I don't see it as necessary to write it into the Declaration of Independence or Constitution itself. So if you want it to be there, why do you think it should be in the Constitution and how would you word it?

Citizens in good standing with the law are entitled to own firearms for self protection, collections and sporting purposes only.

For the purposes of this exercise good standing with the law includes full compliance with all laws pertaining to firearms that could include registration and license renewals on a periodic basis.

I think the Second Amendment intended much more than firearms for self protection, collections, and sporting purposes. For sure the equivalent amendment in a new constitution I would agree to will intend much more than that.

Such as?

Such as the ability to be deputized and join a posse, utilizing your own weapons. Such as the right to defend and/or protect yourself, your loved ones, your property, your neighbor, or your community from enemies within or without, even if that enemy is the government itself. Such as the right to shoot skeet or tin cans off a fence or put food on the table or an injured animal out of its misery or dispatch a dangerous creature. Such as the right to just feel secure in ones person or property or buy and sell for profit. Etc.

Such things would need to be worked out via social contract as to what each local community or state was comfortable with and what, if any, regulation needed to be in place.

 

[Derideo_Te]

How do you intend to deal with felons that commit interstate crimes? Which state will take precedence when it comes to prosecuting? Which state will have to bear the cost of the penal system?

In my opinion, that will be left to the Congress to decide. I don't see it as necessary to write it into the Declaration of Independence or Constitution itself. So if you want it to be there, why do you think it should be in the Constitution and how would you word it?

Citizens in good standing with the law are entitled to own firearms for self protection, collections and sporting purposes only.

For the purposes of this exercise good standing with the law includes full compliance with all laws pertaining to firearms that could include registration and license renewals on a periodic basis.

I think the Second Amendment intended much more than firearms for self protection, collections, and sporting purposes. For sure the equivalent amendment in a new constitution I would agree to will intend much more than that.

Such as?

Such as the ability to be deputized and join a posse, utilizing your own weapons. Such as the right to defend and/or protect yourself, your loved ones, your property, your neighbor, or your community from enemies within or without, even if that enemy is the government itself. Such as the right to shoot skeet or tin cans off a fence or put food on the table or an injured animal out of its misery or dispatch a dangerous creature. Such as the right to just feel secure in ones person or property or buy and sell for profit. Etc.

Such things would need to be worked out via social contract as to what each local community or state was comfortable with and what, if any, regulation needed to be in place.

Apart from the paranoia about the "government" being the "enemy" everything above was already included in what I posted.

What I don't understand is why you are demanding that this must be encoded in the federal constitution of the BCSA but then you say that it can only happen at the local level.

That makes no sense. Either it is a right protected at the federal level for all citizens or each locality can choose for themselves as to whether their citizens can or can't have firearms.

 

[Foxfyre]

In my opinion, that will be left to the Congress to decide. I don't see it as necessary to write it into the Declaration of Independence or Constitution itself. So if you want it to be there, why do you think it should be in the Constitution and how would you word it?

Citizens in good standing with the law are entitled to own firearms for self protection, collections and sporting purposes only.

For the purposes of this exercise good standing with the law includes full compliance with all laws pertaining to firearms that could include registration and license renewals on a periodic basis.

I think the Second Amendment intended much more than firearms for self protection, collections, and sporting purposes. For sure the equivalent amendment in a new constitution I would agree to will intend much more than that.

Such as?

Such as the ability to be deputized and join a posse, utilizing your own weapons. Such as the right to defend and/or protect yourself, your loved ones, your property, your neighbor, or your community from enemies within or without, even if that enemy is the government itself. Such as the right to shoot skeet or tin cans off a fence or put food on the table or an injured animal out of its misery or dispatch a dangerous creature. Such as the right to just feel secure in ones person or property or buy and sell for profit. Etc.

Such things would need to be worked out via social contract as to what each local community or state was comfortable with and what, if any, regulation needed to be in place.

Apart from the paranoia about the "government" being the "enemy" everything above was already included in what I posted.

What I don't understand is why you are demanding that this must be encoded in the federal constitution of the BCSA but then you say that it can only happen at the local level.

That makes no sense. Either it is a right protected at the federal level for all citizens or each locality can choose for themselves as to whether their citizens can or can't have firearms.

I want the central government to be unable to infringe our right to bear arms. It is as simple as that. Therefore the central government cannot be allowed the power to regulate the arms or any aspect of that which must be the right of the citizens to have. But, the citizens can establish their own social contract including whatever regulations they deem necessary or advisable.

It is not paranoia. It is a re-establishment of the liberties the people were intended to have.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Dang. More than 200 posts and I missed how all these family-farm-sized "countries" were going to support, defend, clothe themselves, stay in touch with the outside world, put out a fire, keep the peace, provide medical care and still afford to build the occasional road or bridge.

Since the right to keep and bear arms is already a right in the US, I'm just wondering if all of that already covered ...

 

[Derideo_Te]

Dang. More than 200 posts and I missed how all these family-farm-sized "countries" were going to support, defend, clothe themselves, stay in touch with the outside world, put out a fire, keep the peace, provide medical care and still afford to build the occasional road or bridge.

Since the right to keep and bear arms is already a right in the US, I'm just wondering if all of that already covered ...

Sim City has a greater chance of becoming a reality given what has been provided to date.

Everything is either identical to what already happens to be in place today or requires unnecessary jumping through hoops in order to accommodate reality.

Like all hypotheticals it sounds great in theory but it never gets off the ground because someone forgot to attach the wings or to check that the undercarriage can support the weight.

 

[Foxfyre]

Dang. More than 200 posts and I missed how all these family-farm-sized "countries" were going to support, defend, clothe themselves, stay in touch with the outside world, put out a fire, keep the peace, provide medical care and still afford to build the occasional road or bridge.

Since the right to keep and bear arms is already a right in the US, I'm just wondering if all of that already covered ...

Then you didn't read the more than 200 posts because that was covered. Nobody is talking about family-farm sized areas. We are talking about whole states seceding, hopefully a lot of them. Texas alone has a much larger land mass, a larger population, and a larger GDP than many viable European nations.

If enough people decide that a restoration of liberty is worth the risk to secede, I have every confidence that the New American people will have the resourcefulness to accomplish what they need to accomplish.

If you want to stay with the government with the things as they are now, that is your prerogative too.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Dang. More than 200 posts and I missed how all these family-farm-sized "countries" were going to support, defend, clothe themselves, stay in touch with the outside world, put out a fire, keep the peace, provide medical care and still afford to build the occasional road or bridge.

Since the right to keep and bear arms is already a right in the US, I'm just wondering if all of that already covered ...

Then you didn't read the more 200 posts because that was covered. Nobody is talking about family-farm sized areas. We are talking about whole states seceding, hopefully a lot of them. Texas alone has a much larger land mass, a larger population, and a larger GDP than many viable European nations.

If enough people decide that a restoration of liberty is worth the risk to secede, I have every confidence that the New American people will have the resourcefulness to accomplish what they need to accomplish.

If you want to stay with the government with the things as they are now, that is your prerogative too.

Good grief.

Just how much of Kansass do you own?

Or are you saying you have dropped dropped your original topic?

THE HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION TO BE ADDRESSED:

You have an opportunity to participate in a process of disassociating with the current U.S. government and forming a new nation. Would you be interested in representing your state? No yes or no answers please. Explain why or why not and the advantages and/or problems/issues you would see in such a process.

 

[Foxfyre]

Dang. More than 200 posts and I missed how all these family-farm-sized "countries" were going to support, defend, clothe themselves, stay in touch with the outside world, put out a fire, keep the peace, provide medical care and still afford to build the occasional road or bridge.

Since the right to keep and bear arms is already a right in the US, I'm just wondering if all of that already covered ...

Then you didn't read the more 200 posts because that was covered. Nobody is talking about family-farm sized areas. We are talking about whole states seceding, hopefully a lot of them. Texas alone has a much larger land mass, a larger population, and a larger GDP than many viable European nations.

If enough people decide that a restoration of liberty is worth the risk to secede, I have every confidence that the New American people will have the resourcefulness to accomplish what they need to accomplish.

If you want to stay with the government with the things as they are now, that is your prerogative too.

Good grief.

Just how much of Kansass do you own?

Or are you saying you have dropped dropped your original topic?

THE HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION TO BE ADDRESSED:

You have an opportunity to participate in a process of disassociating with the current U.S. government and forming a new nation. Would you be interested in representing your state? No yes or no answers please. Explain why or why not and the advantages and/or problems/issues you would see in such a process.

I don't see anything there that restricts the new nation to the new seat of government. Try some serious role playing and try to get into the spirit of the exercise and not try to make everything so literal. This is a concept we are discussing and not a mathematical equation.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Dang. More than 200 posts and I missed how all these family-farm-sized "countries" were going to support, defend, clothe themselves, stay in touch with the outside world, put out a fire, keep the peace, provide medical care and still afford to build the occasional road or bridge.

Since the right to keep and bear arms is already a right in the US, I'm just wondering if all of that already covered ...

Sim City has a greater chance of becoming a reality given what has been provided to date.

Everything is either identical to what already happens to be in place today or requires unnecessary jumping through hoops in order to accommodate reality.

Like all hypotheticals it sounds great in theory but it never gets off the ground because someone forgot to attach the wings or to check that the undercarriage can support the weight.

FF is right that I have not read the entire thread but much of what I have read sounds a lot like fixing what ain't broke.

We're called The UNITED States for a reason. We're stronger than we would be if we were 50 tiny countries, all scrapping with each other.

Oh wait. Thanks to the "states' rights" nutters, that's what we are!

In any event, there is no way that any individual state would/could have the power of all 50 combined. If that were not true, Texass and other backward red states would already have seceded. Instead, all they have done is squeak their dissatisfaction.

 

[Foxfyre]

Dang. More than 200 posts and I missed how all these family-farm-sized "countries" were going to support, defend, clothe themselves, stay in touch with the outside world, put out a fire, keep the peace, provide medical care and still afford to build the occasional road or bridge.

Since the right to keep and bear arms is already a right in the US, I'm just wondering if all of that already covered ...

Sim City has a greater chance of becoming a reality given what has been provided to date.

Everything is either identical to what already happens to be in place today or requires unnecessary jumping through hoops in order to accommodate reality.

Like all hypotheticals it sounds great in theory but it never gets off the ground because someone forgot to attach the wings or to check that the undercarriage can support the weight.

FF is right that I have not read the entire thread but much of what I have read sounds a lot like fixing what ain't broke.

We're called The UNITED States for a reason. We're stronger than we would be if we were 50 tiny countries, all scrapping with each other.

Oh wait. Thanks to the "states' rights" nutters, that's what we are!

In any event, there is no way that any individual state would/could have the power of all 50 combined. If that were not true, Texass and other backward red states would already have seceded. Instead, all they have done is squeak their dissatisfaction.

Well this is a hypothetical exercise, and it very well be that people with your opinion will prevail. But we won't know unless we have the conversation will we?

A careful study of the federalist and anti-federalist papers and other founding documents of the Constitution of 1787 is that these are a collection of ideas and concepts and arguments made to support them. Nobody is hollering for 'proof' and nobody is screaming 'facts not in evidence.' They are each man making his argument for concepts, ideas, and vision that need to be written into the new Constitution/government.

I can't express how much I would love to be a part of a discussion like that. How much I hoped this would be that kind of discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not really important but interesting, I checked in on another board running a poll on whether members would agree to Texas seceding from the union. The poll has been running three days and currently is YES - 39; NO - 37; undecided 2. No way to determine if those responding were or were not Texans but that would have been interesting to know.

 

[BULLDOG]

Not really important but interesting, I checked in on another board running a poll on whether members would agree to Texas seceding from the union. The poll has been running three days and currently is YES - 39; NO - 37; undecided 2. No way to determine if those responding were or were not Texans but that would have been interesting to know.

My take on this exercise is that some are just disappointed with the way our country is going. There was a huge outcry of "RETURN TO THE CONSTITUTION" for a while until the ones who were pouting realized that the country has followed the constitution, and they just didn't like the outcome. If you want to hypothetically form another country with basically our same ideals, but a different outcome, the first thing to do is to decide what specifically is wrong with constitution we have. I have seen some general wishes expressed, but not a single specific. Do you want a workable plan that might not be exactly what you want every time, or do you want something that works? You can't have both. Either way, it's just too dumb for me to waste any more time on.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not really important but interesting, I checked in on another board running a poll on whether members would agree to Texas seceding from the union. The poll has been running three days and currently is YES - 39; NO - 37; undecided 2. No way to determine if those responding were or were not Texans but that would have been interesting to know.

My take on this exercise is that some are just disappointed with the way our country is going. There was a huge outcry of "RETURN TO THE CONSTITUTION" for a while until the ones who were pouting realized that the country has followed the constitution, and they just didn't like the outcome. If you want to hypothetically form another country with basically our same ideals, but a different outcome, the first thing to do is to decide what specifically is wrong with constitution we have. I have seen some general wishes expressed, but not a single specific. Do you want a workable plan that might not be exactly what you want every time, or do you want something that works? You can't have both. Either way, it's just too dumb for me to waste any more time on.

Sorry it didn't work out for you. Have a nice evening though.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Not really important but interesting, I checked in on another board running a poll on whether members would agree to Texas seceding from the union. The poll has been running three days and currently is YES - 39; NO - 37; undecided 2. No way to determine if those responding were or were not Texans but that would have been interesting to know.

My take on this exercise is that some are just disappointed with the way our country is going. There was a huge outcry of "RETURN TO THE CONSTITUTION" for a while until the ones who were pouting realized that the country has followed the constitution, and they just didn't like the outcome. If you want to hypothetically form another country with basically our same ideals, but a different outcome, the first thing to do is to decide what specifically is wrong with constitution we have. I have seen some general wishes expressed, but not a single specific. Do you want a workable plan that might not be exactly what you want every time, or do you want something that works? You can't have both. Either way, it's just too dumb for me to waste any more time on.

That's my take on it as well. The "RETURN TO THE CONSTITUTION" is actually just the opposite.

Its just a lot of tee potty stuff, a lot of fantasy but no grounding in facts.

 

[BlackSand]

Oh come on BlackSand. I too am jaded when it comes to trust in government, but we have no assurance than anyplace else would have people longing for liberty and the right to be who and what they are any more than here. But get into the spirit of the exercise here. As I told somebody else I don't easily concede that something can't be done however difficult it is, and the impossible requires even more effort.

But the exercise in possibilities can be fun.

I am already willing to compromise and concede that we won't be able to get all 50 states as some folks will not ever agree to give up an enormous powerful authoritarian government and allow the people to govern themselves. But hope springs eternal that there are enough freedom loving people left to populate a New America. But even those need to agree on some basic concepts of what will go into a new Constitution and decide how important that is to them for we can make our official Declaration of Independence.

I was really not poo-pooing on your idea for the thread ... just indicating that people who have not enjoyed freedom to the same degree we have certainly appreciate and want more freedoms than they currently have. You don't have to agree that you can go some place else and figure everything will turn out alright, to understand that you can go somewhere else where they are more interested in doing something that is helpful and accomplishes the desired goals than they are in fighting over exactly who gets spoiled and to what degree.

Compromise is only easier in those places because a suitable agreement has not been established and they are more willing to look at what can be contributed and under what stipulations the agreement can be made. I won't paint all rainbows either, and corruption or self-serving policies play their part. In third world countries though, they still have their eye on the ball ... Which is doing whatever can be done in order to accomplish goals in a responsible manner without handicapping everything to the lowest common denominator... they don't want to support the idea the bottom should stay at the bottom, or the idea that the bottom is a fixed necessity.

When they hope ... They hope for better things in regards to those who choose to pursue them ... Not hope in the idea that everything and everyone will be satisfied with the outcome. They have Constitutions or policies the same as any other place ... And the same demands on the government. The governments are just more likely to support a course of action that allows those interested in developing a better environment for businesses and communities to grow than they are interested in dragging everyone along in getting there. Let the people who are willing and have the resources available to do something do what they can ... Let the people who want to sit and bitch just continue to sit and bitch.

The response and the approach are just entirely different ...
It is not ... What am I going to have to do in order to get what I want and what is better?
It becomes ... What are they willing to do to get what I can provide them with?

Like sales ... Negotiations have a lot to do with how bad the other party wants what you have and what they are willing to do or offer in order to get it.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh come on BlackSand. I too am jaded when it comes to trust in government, but we have no assurance than anyplace else would have people longing for liberty and the right to be who and what they are any more than here. But get into the spirit of the exercise here. As I told somebody else I don't easily concede that something can't be done however difficult it is, and the impossible requires even more effort.

But the exercise in possibilities can be fun.

I am already willing to compromise and concede that we won't be able to get all 50 states as some folks will not ever agree to give up an enormous powerful authoritarian government and allow the people to govern themselves. But hope springs eternal that there are enough freedom loving people left to populate a New America. But even those need to agree on some basic concepts of what will go into a new Constitution and decide how important that is to them for we can make our official Declaration of Independence.

I was really not poo-pooing on your idea for the thread ... just indicating that people who have not enjoyed freedom to the same degree we have certainly appreciate and want more freedoms than they currently have. You don't have to agree that you can go some place else and figure everything will turn out alright, to understand that you can go somewhere else where they are more interested in doing something that is helpful and accomplishes the desired goals than they are in fighting over exactly who gets spoiled and to what degree.

Compromise is only easier in those places because a suitable agreement has not been established and they are more willing to look at what can be contributed and under what stipulations the agreement can be made. I won't paint all rainbows either, and corruption or self-serving policies play their part. In third world countries though, they still have their eye on the ball ... Which is doing whatever can be done in order to accomplish goals in a responsible manner without handicapping everything to the lowest common denominator... they don't want to support the idea the bottom should stay at the bottom, or the idea that the bottom is a fixed necessity.

When they hope ... They hope for better things in regards to those who choose to pursue them ... Not hope in the idea that everything and everyone will be satisfied with the outcome. They have Constitutions or policies the same as any other place ... And the same demands on the government. The governments are just more likely to support a course of action that allows those interested in developing a better environment for businesses and communities to grow than they are interested in dragging everyone along in getting there. Let the people who are willing and have the resources available to do something do what they can ... Let the people who want to sit and bitch just continue to sit and bitch.

The response and the approach are just entirely different ...
It is not ... What am I going to have to do in order to get what I want and what is better?
It becomes ... What are they willing to do to get what I can provide them with?

Like sales ... Negotiations have a lot to do with how bad the other party wants what you have and what they are willing to do or offer in order to get it.

.

I have read your post several times now, BlackSand, and I am not entirely clear on what you are saying. But I am sufficiently intrigued to want to know what you are saying. Can you summarize or simplify it?

Your last paragraph I did understand and I agree that sales requires a social contract of sorts; i.e. there usually must be a need before there is a product developed to fill that need, and then there is a negotiation of how much the seller is willing to take for the product and how much the buyer is willing to pay. And sometimes we don't know that we need or want something until it is offered for sale--it is the true entreprenours who have the instincts to anticipate what the public will want and will be willing to pay for.

I think engaging in negotiations to put together a new nation follows many of those same rules. What do people most want and need? How much are they willing to risk or pay for that? And how is it most efficiently and effectively made to happen?

 

[BlackSand]

I have read your post several times now, BlackSand, and I am not entirely clear on what you are saying. But I am sufficiently intrigued to want to know what you are saying. Can you summarize or simplify it?

Your last paragraph I did understand and I agree that sales requires a social contract of sorts; i.e. there usually must be a need before there is a product developed to fill that need, and then there is a negotiation of how much the seller is willing to take for the product and how much the buyer is willing to pay. And sometimes we don't know that we need or want something until it is offered for sale--it is the true entreprenours who have the instincts to anticipate what the public will want and will be willing to pay for.

I think engaging in negotiations to put together a new nation follows many of those same rules. What do people most want and need? How much are they willing to risk or pay for that? And how is it most efficiently and effectively made to happen?

Maybe it is the sense that you are attempting to reverse engineer a new society in the same old place ... With the same old people ... Using what you think is best from previously existing conditions. I simply suggest that it is better to start fresh somewhere else ... With people who have not experienced the freedoms you want to include ... And with more attention focused on making sure whatever little you do is the best thing to do.

You can find people that would argue all day over whether or not chocolate or vanilla ice cream tastes better ... But less people will argue over whether or not ice cream tastes better than pine bark.

Starting in a third world country and gradually working with the government to both restrict corruption and increase freedom is better than taking a spoiled society and arguing over how we should fix things. Here in the states ... Even if we wanted to break off and make a better society by our design ... It would be more difficult to progress as we argued about how to do it. Leave more of the decisions to the folks with the bankroll (In short ... They are paying for it and are invested in it) ... Negotiate the finer points to ensure liberty ... And ensure that all sides understand acceptable progress is something that can be measured and accounted for.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have read your post several times now, BlackSand, and I am not entirely clear on what you are saying. But I am sufficiently intrigued to want to know what you are saying. Can you summarize or simplify it?

Your last paragraph I did understand and I agree that sales requires a social contract of sorts; i.e. there usually must be a need before there is a product developed to fill that need, and then there is a negotiation of how much the seller is willing to take for the product and how much the buyer is willing to pay. And sometimes we don't know that we need or want something until it is offered for sale--it is the true entreprenours who have the instincts to anticipate what the public will want and will be willing to pay for.

I think engaging in negotiations to put together a new nation follows many of those same rules. What do people most want and need? How much are they willing to risk or pay for that? And how is it most efficiently and effectively made to happen?

Maybe it is the sense that you are attempting to reverse engineer a new society in the same old place ... With the same old people ... Using what you think is best from previously existing conditions. I simply suggest that it is better to start fresh somewhere else ... With people who have not experienced the freedoms you want to include ... And with more attention focused on making sure whatever little you do is the best thing to do.

You can find people that would argue all day over whether or not chocolate or vanilla ice cream tastes better ... But less people will argue over whether or not ice cream tastes better than pine bark.

Starting in a third world country and gradually working with the government to both restrict corruption and increase freedom is better than taking a spoiled society and arguing over how we should fix things. Here in the states ... Even if we wanted to break off and make a better society by our design ... It would be more difficult to progress as we argued about how to do it. Leave more of the decisions to the folks with the bankroll (In short ... They are paying for it and are invested in it) ... Negotiate the finer points to ensure liberty ... And ensure that all sides understand acceptable progress is something that can be measured and accounted for.

Okay. I think I do understand what you are saying now, i.e. that there aren't enough Americans left who have not been corrupted by the existing system? If I have interpreted it correctly, I think that is a credible argument, though I am not ready to agree with you yet.

But the original Americans WANTED liberty and had discussed what it was and what it would look like for some eleven years before they had agreed on enough points to sign a Constitution that was developed through a lot of give and take and compromise.

Is there a third world country in which there are people with such a vision? I see a lot of people here in America with such a vision. Who are capable of knowing what liberty looks like and how it would work. And they love their country and I would imagine they would rather fix the one we have than start over from scratch someplace else.

But I'm sure open to be convinced otherwise.

 

[BlackSand]

Okay. I think I do understand what you are saying now, i.e. that there aren't enough Americans left who have not been corrupted by the existing system? If I have interpreted it correctly, I think that is a credible argument, though I am not ready to agree with you yet.

But the original Americans WANTED liberty and had discussed what it was and what it would look like for some eleven years before they had agreed on enough points to sign a Constitution that was developed through a lot of give and take and compromise.

Is there a third world country in which there are people with such a vision? I see a lot of people here in America with such a vision. Who are capable of knowing what liberty looks like and how it would work. And they love their country and I would imagine they would rather fix the one we have than start over from scratch someplace else.

But I'm sure open to be convinced otherwise.

Perhaps my problem is liberty loving people here ... In that they are not too hard to find until we start talking about what liberties we should have.
Then there is often a sense that people become a lot more restrictive or exclusive about liberties when those liberties threaten something they hold dear.

.