Ten Gun Myths and Memes-- Shot Down

[Bfgrn]

Why is it that you think for the government to come for guns that must do it all at one time? Gun confiscastion started with the NFA. The we had the NFA 1969, and next we had the Brady bill, then Clintons assault weapons ban, and now we have frankestien bill Each act of the government is another step to taking firearms from America. Those actions of the federal government go against the second amendment,

Posting pictures of a guy you call stupid is not a debate technique to anyone with an IQ that approaches room temperature.

1) Judge Scalia is NO LIBERAL.

Do you understand point #1 or do you need an explanation?

2) In District of Columbia vs. Heller, Scalia wrote and delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined.

Do you understand point #2 or do you need an explanation?

3) In District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Court held:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You have the Constitutional right to own and use a firearm. It can't be taken away from you BY LAW.

Do you understand point #3 or do you need an explanation?

4) In District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Court held:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...and finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Do you understand point #4 or do you need an explanation?

That is the LAW. Do you understand the RULE OF LAW, or do you need an explanation?

 

[GuyPinestra]

Posting pictures of a guy you call stupid is not a debate technique to anyone with an IQ that approaches room temperature.

1) Judge Scalia is NO LIBERAL.

Do you understand point #1 or do you need an explanation?

2) In District of Columbia vs. Heller, Scalia wrote and delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined.

Do you understand point #2 or do you need an explanation?

3) In District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Court held:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You have the Constitutional right to own and use a firearm. It can't be taken away from you BY LAW.

Do you understand point #3 or do you need an explanation?

4) In District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Court held:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...and finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Do you understand point #4 or do you need an explanation?

That is the LAW. Do you understand the RULE OF LAW, or do you need an explanation?

Liberal? No.

And the point he made was that you can't walk around with RPG's and mortars, 'common use' encompasses all semi-auto weapons, even the ones that look scary.

 

[Bfgrn]

Posting pictures of a guy you call stupid is not a debate technique to anyone with an IQ that approaches room temperature.

1) Judge Scalia is NO LIBERAL.

Do you understand point #1 or do you need an explanation?

2) In District of Columbia vs. Heller, Scalia wrote and delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined.

Do you understand point #2 or do you need an explanation?

3) In District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Court held:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You have the Constitutional right to own and use a firearm. It can't be taken away from you BY LAW.

Do you understand point #3 or do you need an explanation?

4) In District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Court held:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...and finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Do you understand point #4 or do you need an explanation?

That is the LAW. Do you understand the RULE OF LAW, or do you need an explanation?

Liberal? No.

And the point he made was that you can't walk around with RPG's and mortars, 'common use' encompasses all semi-auto weapons, even the ones that look scary.

The Courts have not struck down any laws prohibiting large-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons.

If Congress, W.H. wanted to ban assault weapons, could they? - POLITICO.com

 

[Pogo]

I don't need to "explain" that; it's not my statement. However I can explain what you're doing here. Actually I made that point earlier but you don't read too good.

At base this claim could be described as the "you just wait" fallacy, based on paranoia:
"Run! Martians are invading the earth!!"
"There's no evidence of that."
"Of course there's no evidence. That's how we know! What do you think, they're gonna announce it? Of course not -- and sure enough we've heard nothing. That's how we know!"
-- hard to cope with illlogic like that. And in any case your quote above speaks of "controlling handguns" -- not confiscation. Again reading is fun... duh... mental.

Reading is definitely fun, you should try it.

The first myth the absurdly idiotic thing you posted attacked was "They are coming for your guns." As has already been explained to you, you posted this, you are responsible for it. Nonetheless, I never said you said it, what I said is that any attempt to deny that the intent of some people is ban guns is absurd. You can blather on about delusions all day long, it doesn't change the fact that there are multiple people that have flat out stated they want to remove all guns from civilian hands.

Talk about low hanging fruit.

I don't know what that even means. You really shouldn't be playing with semantics before you learn to read.

That would be funny if you were smart enough to know what semantics means.



I want to point something out that anyone with a brain would have noticed. The point of the quote about an armed society is a polite society is that, if everyone is armed, everyone will be polite. Given that the study assumes that most people are not armed, and it does not indicate if the people who allegedly had guns when they had incidents of road rage were carrying legally, you really should drop your insistence on defending this position.



Do you know how to search the forum? That stupid claim has been debunked so may times that me doing so again is the intellectual equivalent of spamming.



Except that stats actually do correlate to people being safer when there are guns around. If it actually worked the other way around police stations would be the most dangerous places in the country.

Oops.



You want me to tell people that make movies that there movies are not true? Should I invent a ward for that when I talk to them? What about fiction, I like the way that sounds, maybe we could call movies that present things that are factually inaccurate fiction, and movies that present things that are true documentaries. We might even be able to talk the Academy into giving awards based on whether a movie is fiction or not.

Please, keep saying stupid things to defend your support of gun control, I enjoyed that.



How is repeating something someone said speaking for them? Talk about red herrings.



I never said it was.

As difficult as thinking is for you, me using my ability to reason about how someone could use a term in relation to something is actually part of the process of communication. Intelligent, and even stupid, people do it every day. You should try it sometime.



Are multisyllabic words to complicated for your comprehension?

You keep trying to say you don't support your post, yet you keep defending it.

I believe that's what they're saying because I know how to read. What do you believe they're saying?

Didn't you just jump on me for knowing how to read when I explained why someone would call a stupid comparison apples and oranges?

Do you actually understand that I and the article writer are two different people? Or is that over your head?

Do you understand that you are defending the positions the drooling idiot in the article took?

Oh piss off troll boy. You've morphed Dave Gilson's point into my mouth, insisting that posting his position makes it mine. You even brought your own quote in and demanded I explain it for you; clearly you don't get the concept of different people.


All you've been bringing here is gainsaying, backtracking, gobbledegook, ad hominem, red herrings and strawmen. Clearly you're either too dense to comprehend how to make a logical argument or too stubborn to listen to one; either way you're a complete waste of time here. Why don't you run along and troll some thread on basketweaving? I understand strawmen are pretty useful there.

​

Bringing this forward for the "polite society" point:

​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1) Judge Scalia is NO LIBERAL.

Does the fact that he is not a liberal make him right? If not being a liberal is all you have to do to be right is not be a liberal, why are you a liberal? Do you have a fetish for being wrong?

Do you understand point #1 or do you need an explanation?

Do you understand why point #1 just makes you look incredibly stupid? So stupid that I can safely ignore the rest of your post because all it does is reinforce the fact that you are arguing that being liberal makes you wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh piss off troll boy. You've morphed Dave Gilson's point into my mouth, insisting that posting his position makes it mine. You even brought your own quote in and demanded I explain it for you; clearly you don't get the concept of different people.


All you've been bringing here is gainsaying, backtracking, gobbledegook, ad hominem, red herrings and strawmen. Clearly you're either too dense to comprehend how to make a logical argument or too stubborn to listen to one; either way you're a complete waste of time here. Why don't you run along and troll some thread on basketweaving? I understand strawmen are pretty useful there.

​

Bringing this forward for the "polite society" point:

​

You keep defending him, yet insist you don't agree with him. If that is true I am not the troll here.

 

[GuyPinestra]

1) Judge Scalia is NO LIBERAL.

Do you understand point #1 or do you need an explanation?

2) In District of Columbia vs. Heller, Scalia wrote and delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined.

Do you understand point #2 or do you need an explanation?

3) In District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Court held:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You have the Constitutional right to own and use a firearm. It can't be taken away from you BY LAW.

Do you understand point #3 or do you need an explanation?

4) In District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Court held:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...and finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Do you understand point #4 or do you need an explanation?

That is the LAW. Do you understand the RULE OF LAW, or do you need an explanation?

Liberal? No.

And the point he made was that you can't walk around with RPG's and mortars, 'common use' encompasses all semi-auto weapons, even the ones that look scary.

The Courts have not struck down any laws prohibiting large-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons.

If Congress, W.H. wanted to ban assault weapons, could they? - POLITICO.com

Nor have they upheld any...

 

[Bfgrn]

Liberal? No.

And the point he made was that you can't walk around with RPG's and mortars, 'common use' encompasses all semi-auto weapons, even the ones that look scary.

The Courts have not struck down any laws prohibiting large-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons.

If Congress, W.H. wanted to ban assault weapons, could they? - POLITICO.com

Nor have they upheld any...

WRONG (as usual and expected)...

A follow-up to Heller, Heller v. District of Columbia (known as “Heller II”) challenged laws prohibiting large-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons. In October 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled 2-1 to uphold those bans as constitutional, remanding certain registration requirements back to the lower court for further review. Judge Douglas Ginsburg, delivering the opinion of the court, used the logic of the first Heller to conclude some restrictions on the Second Amendment are constitutional.

Also working its way through the courts is Wilson v. Cook County, which challenges a Cook County, Ill., assault weapons ban. An Illinois appellate court was ordered by the Illinois Supreme Court to reconsider the case in light of the McDonald ruling.

In a unanimous February 2011 opinion, the appellate court upheld the ordinance. The court cited Heller II's interpretation of Scalia’s Heller I opinion to find some restrictions on arms are constitutional. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ challenge that banning “assault weapons” was overbroad.

As for the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, which Congress allowed to sunset in 2004, there were no substantial challenges to it under the Second Amendment.

“In the 1990s, the NRA was determined to avoid a Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment and refused to bring Second Amendment challenges,” Winkler said. “At the time, they were convinced the Supreme Court would be hostile to the Second Amendment.”

In Navegar v. U.S., the law was challenged under the Commerce Clause and Bill of Attainder Clause, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Oct. 1999 upheld it 3-0.

In August 2002, an appeals court upheld the law 3-0 again. This time, in Olympic Arms v. Buckles, the ban was (unfruitfully) challenged under the Fifth Amendment equal protection clause.

 

[GuyPinestra]

The Courts have not struck down any laws prohibiting large-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons.

If Congress, W.H. wanted to ban assault weapons, could they? - POLITICO.com

Nor have they upheld any...

WRONG (as usual and expected)...

A follow-up to Heller, Heller v. District of Columbia (known as “Heller II”) challenged laws prohibiting large-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons. In October 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled 2-1 to uphold those bans as constitutional, remanding certain registration requirements back to the lower court for further review. Judge Douglas Ginsburg, delivering the opinion of the court, used the logic of the first Heller to conclude some restrictions on the Second Amendment are constitutional.

Also working its way through the courts is Wilson v. Cook County, which challenges a Cook County, Ill., assault weapons ban. An Illinois appellate court was ordered by the Illinois Supreme Court to reconsider the case in light of the McDonald ruling.

In a unanimous February 2011 opinion, the appellate court upheld the ordinance. The court cited Heller II's interpretation of Scalia’s Heller I opinion to find some restrictions on arms are constitutional. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ challenge that banning “assault weapons” was overbroad.

As for the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, which Congress allowed to sunset in 2004, there were no substantial challenges to it under the Second Amendment.

“In the 1990s, the NRA was determined to avoid a Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment and refused to bring Second Amendment challenges,” Winkler said. “At the time, they were convinced the Supreme Court would be hostile to the Second Amendment.”

In Navegar v. U.S., the law was challenged under the Commerce Clause and Bill of Attainder Clause, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Oct. 1999 upheld it 3-0.

In August 2002, an appeals court upheld the law 3-0 again. This time, in Olympic Arms v. Buckles, the ban was (unfruitfully) challenged under the Fifth Amendment equal protection clause.

SCOTUS has not heard a case, therefore they have not upheld one.

Hopefully one of these LOWER COURT cases will make it's way to SCOTUS so their idiocy can be overturned.

 

[Bfgrn]

Nor have they upheld any...

WRONG (as usual and expected)...

A follow-up to Heller, Heller v. District of Columbia (known as “Heller II”) challenged laws prohibiting large-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons. In October 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled 2-1 to uphold those bans as constitutional, remanding certain registration requirements back to the lower court for further review. Judge Douglas Ginsburg, delivering the opinion of the court, used the logic of the first Heller to conclude some restrictions on the Second Amendment are constitutional.

Also working its way through the courts is Wilson v. Cook County, which challenges a Cook County, Ill., assault weapons ban. An Illinois appellate court was ordered by the Illinois Supreme Court to reconsider the case in light of the McDonald ruling.

In a unanimous February 2011 opinion, the appellate court upheld the ordinance. The court cited Heller II's interpretation of Scalia’s Heller I opinion to find some restrictions on arms are constitutional. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ challenge that banning “assault weapons” was overbroad.

As for the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, which Congress allowed to sunset in 2004, there were no substantial challenges to it under the Second Amendment.

“In the 1990s, the NRA was determined to avoid a Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment and refused to bring Second Amendment challenges,” Winkler said. “At the time, they were convinced the Supreme Court would be hostile to the Second Amendment.”

In Navegar v. U.S., the law was challenged under the Commerce Clause and Bill of Attainder Clause, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Oct. 1999 upheld it 3-0.

In August 2002, an appeals court upheld the law 3-0 again. This time, in Olympic Arms v. Buckles, the ban was (unfruitfully) challenged under the Fifth Amendment equal protection clause.

SCOTUS has not heard a case, therefore they have not upheld one.

Hopefully one of these LOWER COURT cases will make it's way to SCOTUS so their idiocy can be overturned.

99% of laws in this country never go before the Supreme Court. And the Constitution is very specific as to what can and can't go before the Supreme Court.

You right wing 'Constitutionalists' don't even know the law....

Section 2: Judicial power, jurisdiction, and trial by jury

Section 2 delineates federal judicial power, and brings that power into execution by conferring original jurisdiction and also appellate jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court. Additionally, this section requires trial by jury in all criminal cases, except impeachment cases.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

 

[GuyPinestra]

WRONG (as usual and expected)...

A follow-up to Heller, Heller v. District of Columbia (known as “Heller II”) challenged laws prohibiting large-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons. In October 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled 2-1 to uphold those bans as constitutional, remanding certain registration requirements back to the lower court for further review. Judge Douglas Ginsburg, delivering the opinion of the court, used the logic of the first Heller to conclude some restrictions on the Second Amendment are constitutional.

Also working its way through the courts is Wilson v. Cook County, which challenges a Cook County, Ill., assault weapons ban. An Illinois appellate court was ordered by the Illinois Supreme Court to reconsider the case in light of the McDonald ruling.

In a unanimous February 2011 opinion, the appellate court upheld the ordinance. The court cited Heller II's interpretation of Scalia’s Heller I opinion to find some restrictions on arms are constitutional. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ challenge that banning “assault weapons” was overbroad.

As for the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, which Congress allowed to sunset in 2004, there were no substantial challenges to it under the Second Amendment.

“In the 1990s, the NRA was determined to avoid a Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment and refused to bring Second Amendment challenges,” Winkler said. “At the time, they were convinced the Supreme Court would be hostile to the Second Amendment.”

In Navegar v. U.S., the law was challenged under the Commerce Clause and Bill of Attainder Clause, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Oct. 1999 upheld it 3-0.

In August 2002, an appeals court upheld the law 3-0 again. This time, in Olympic Arms v. Buckles, the ban was (unfruitfully) challenged under the Fifth Amendment equal protection clause.

SCOTUS has not heard a case, therefore they have not upheld one.

Hopefully one of these LOWER COURT cases will make it's way to SCOTUS so their idiocy can be overturned.

99% of laws in this country never go before the Supreme Court. And the Constitution is very specific as to what can and can't go before the Supreme Court.

You right wing 'Constitutionalists' don't even know the law....

Section 2: Judicial power, jurisdiction, and trial by jury

Section 2 delineates federal judicial power, and brings that power into execution by conferring original jurisdiction and also appellate jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court. Additionally, this section requires trial by jury in all criminal cases, except impeachment cases.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

In other words, LOWER COURT rulings can be appealed all the way up to SCOTUS.

The only question is whether or not SCOTUS will decide to hear it.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

1) Judge Scalia is NO LIBERAL.

The entire Court exists today to promote Corporations over people. Where were you when Citizens United struck?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7536905

 

[Bfgrn]

1) Judge Scalia is NO LIBERAL.

The entire Court exists today to promote Corporations over people. Where were you when Citizens United struck?

Complete Text of Justice Stevens' Dissent on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Democratic Underground

Like I said...Judge Scalia is NO LIBERAL.

Our founding fathers would have revoked the charter of gun manufacturers when they willfully circumvented the 1994 assault weapons ban by manufacturing guns with minor changes to skirt the intent of the law.

Why do you support those corporations and the NRA who is a front for corporations?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Our founding fathers would have revoked the charter of gun manufacturers when they willfully circumvented the 1994 assault weapons ban by manufacturing guns with minor changes to skirt the intent of the law.

Why do you support those corporations and the NRA who is a front for corporations?

Authoritarians, like yourself, would make the Founding Fathers turn in their graves.

 

[Bfgrn]

Our founding fathers would have revoked the charter of gun manufacturers when they willfully circumvented the 1994 assault weapons ban by manufacturing guns with minor changes to skirt the intent of the law.

Why do you support those corporations and the NRA who is a front for corporations?

Authoritarians, like yourself, would make the Founding Fathers turn in their graves.

Nice try. Are you saying our founding fathers were authoritarians?

The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Our founding fathers would have revoked the charter of gun manufacturers when they willfully circumvented the 1994 assault weapons ban by manufacturing guns with minor changes to skirt the intent of the law.

Why do you support those corporations and the NRA who is a front for corporations?

Authoritarians, like yourself, would make the Founding Fathers turn in their graves.

Nice try. Are you saying our founding fathers were authoritarians?

The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).

Are you so dumb that you interpreted it that way?

The Founding Fathers were Libertarians.

You are the polar opposite: Authoritarian.

They spit on you.

I spit on you.

Eat my sig.

Also, this video is for Hatchetmen like yourself:


DEMOCIDE GOOGLE IT FOLKS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

 

[Pogo]

Post 1032 was the last one that made any sense...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I'm glad we agree on that. Perhaps we can talk over the phone and I can get you to agree on the Second Amendment too. I'll PM you my e-mail if you're interested.

 

[Pogo]

I'm glad we agree on that. Perhaps we can talk over the phone and I can get you to agree on the Second Amendment too. I'll PM you my e-mail if you're interested.

No need; I'm down with the entire Bill of Rights. Always was.
I keep telling you this thread has never been about the Second Amendment. If it weren't for your handle it wouldn't even appear here, except as a strawman.

 

[Bfgrn]

Authoritarians, like yourself, would make the Founding Fathers turn in their graves.

Nice try. Are you saying our founding fathers were authoritarians?

The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).

Are you so dumb that you interpreted it that way?

The Founding Fathers were Libertarians.

You are the polar opposite: Authoritarian.

They spit on you.

I spit on you.

Eat my sig.

Also, this video is for Hatchetmen like yourself:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xcJT7F_BXo]2013 Epic DUBSTEP REMIX Alex Jones vs Piers Morgan [HD720p] Edit by Alex Totterdell - YouTube[/ame]

DEMOCIDE GOOGLE IT FOLKS

Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Our founding fathers were NOT libertarians.

George Washington belonged to the Established Church (Episcopalian) of the State of Virginia; he also was the chief vindicator of national power in the new republic. Thomas Jefferson determined to wage war by simply denying foreigners the right to trade with the U.S. So did Madison. What libertarian has ever thought the government could cut off trade between free individuals?

Further, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine supported the French Revolution. That revolution denied there was anything the state could not do in the name of the people. Jefferson never repudiated his support for that tyranny and Thomas Paine was only slightly more dismissive even after it nearly killed him. [...]

The Founders believed in carefully delineated federal powers either broad (Hamilton) or limited (Jefferson, sometimes) but all believed in a more powerful state than libertarians purport to believe in. If ever there was a libertarian document it was the Articles of Confederation. There was no national power. The federal government could not tax. Its laws were not supreme over state laws. It was in fact, the hot mess that critics of libertarians believe their dream state would be ... and it was recognized as such by the majority of the country and was why the Constitution was ratified. The Articles of Confederation is the true libertarian founding document and this explains the failure of libertarianism.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482