A question for fellow Americans.

[Admiral Halsey]

WARNING! This post is political and those with weak hearts should leave now.






























Ok here's the question. What do you honestly think the Founder Fathers would say if they saw the state the country is currently in?

[Stealhead]

Nothing because they are dead
Loaded question really.They where smart men so they surely expected change over time.

I have feeling that would be shocked to learn that the US was the leading power in the world.

They might wonder just who the Founder fathers where

[Admiral Halsey]

Nothing because they are dead
Loaded question really.They where smart men so they surely expected change over time.

I have feeling that would be shocked to learn that the US was the leading power in the world.

I know it's a loaded question hence the warning. As for them being shocked about the US being the leading world power I'd have to agree. Of course they'd also more then likely be very proud of that fact.

[Stealhead]

I am not sure the world power thing would impress them that much.

They might think.... Canada is still Americas hat.

[Cybermat47]

'Why is a slave in charge :hmmm:'

[TarJak]

'Why is a slave in charge :hmmm:'
:har::har: gotta be post of the week.

[Sinkmore]

I doubt they'd recognize it. Not because we've strayed from their noble example, but just because the whole world has changed so much.

Actually I think a lot of them would (like me) be glad that a black man could be President. Not all of them, of course. One of the biggest obstacles to forming a union was how to compromise the morals of the new nation to accommodate a minority of slave owners. As a matter of fact, it almost didn't happen. One civil war later, we're still working on that, it seems...

I think MOST of them would be horrified to see the US as the dominant imperial superpower. They weren't big on Empire, the founders.

About half of the founders were ultra-radicals. That is to say, Liberals! In the original sense of the word. They were the ones with all the fancy ideals that we pay lip service to today. They were anti-empire, anti-crown, anti-corporate, anti-church... Those are the original American values. The other half were tax dodgers, smugglers, etc.. They didn't contribute so much to the philosophy of the thing.

They'd surely have been more shocked to see a woman President. Or a woman voter for that matter. Plenty of black men were free, even in the South, and many were respected professionals, etc.. The first rebel casualty was, after all, Crispus Attucks. IDK if he counts as a founder, but I bet he'd be shocked that it took 240 years (and counting...) for America to be ready to treat black people like people. (And just forget women. Plenty of founders fought to make blacks citizens; others fought to end slavery with the idea of deporting the ex-slaves; but none as far as I know ever mentioned women's rights.

They might have been surprised that you, white middle class guy, were allowed to vote. You used to have to own land; by which I do not mean the teensy suburban parcel that your house is on! Some of them would puke in their powdered wigs if they saw that. Most, maybe. They weren't very (modern sense of) democratic, mostly.

I think they'd all be ashamed of the anti-Americanism coming from the lunatic fringes - right and left - but I don't think they'd have been surprised as such things are older than dirt (and equally valuable.) Same with the toxic (and distracting) party politics.

Speaking of tea parties; did you know that the Boston Tea Party was a violent, lawless response to the British LOWERING taxes on tea? I just love that bit of irony. The founders were not anti-tax. At all.

Mostly, I think they'd be so amazed, and perhaps appalled, by the 21st century generally (cell phones, reality TV, globalism, mass consumerism) that they'd hardly notice America at all. Everything has changed! The nature of nations, of rulers, of wars... Families, marriage, child rearing, professions, agriculture, travel... Everything. what if you were unfrozen in the year 2250... Too much future shock to imagine.

[AVGWarhawk]

Probably be aghast concerning the manipulation and ignoring the Constitution.

[Dread Knot]

If you could somehow transport the Founding Fathers into a 21st century press conference, you'd likely have to sedate and restrain them before you get more than gibberish, shouts and oaths out of them. They would likely think themselves mad or drunk and you might eventually get lines like this----

"You flicked your hand over a panel by the door and illumination burst forth. What witchcraft is this?"

"This room is exceedingly warm, but there is no hearth to be seen. Is this the realm of Lucifer?"

"That Negro there is dressed in the finery of a man of title. Why is he not working in the fields?

"The exposed flesh on all these harlots is truely an earthy delight. Ben, you hedonist, lend me the use of your spectacles."

"You say I can speak forth into this instrument and my words will be heard over the space of a continent? What poor jibe is this?"

"You claim this one musket can lay the fire of an entire company of soldiers?" Jefferson, we must rethink the 2nd Amendment."

"Sodomites are allowed to -- WHAT?"

At some point in the proceedings a camera flash would pop, or a jet would pass overhead. At this point the Founding Fathers would pile out teh door in terror, into the street and likely be killed in traffic.

I think the question of 'what would the founders think of the state of our nation?' is a false one. They could not have possibly foreseen this, and wouldn't have had the context with which to process it if they could have. They were, after all, mere mortal men. Maybe more educated and intelligent than most, but not magical.

I think a more pertinent analogy is if you could sit down with the ten -year old version of yourself. Now start badgering that ten year old with life questions about funding college, tax law, what divorce attorney you hire, or what insurance policy to buy, or how you should set up your 401k. Likely, even if he was a straight-A student he will just stare or start to shed tears in bafflement. He doesn't have the experience or prespective to process it. More importantly what would his opinion matter? He thankfully hasn't had to live it yet. If, the ten year version of ourselves doesn't have the answers to our complicated modern lives, why do we always think the 18th century founders of our young nation if beamed into the present would have the answers to all the unforeseen dilemmas of our history?

[Cybermat47]

:har::har: gotta be post of the week.

Look at Dread Knot's... that guy did it better than me :rock:

[Wolferz]

Who put our portraits on the money?:haha:

[Jimbuna]

Probably be aghast concerning the manipulation and ignoring the Constitution.

Not an American but a bloody good point.

[AVGWarhawk]

Not an American but a bloody good point.

Honestly. These gentlemen put deep thought, consideration, sweat, revisions and debate over this single piece of paper that would be the law of the land. Absolute. Instead, today, they would find a piece of paper with a large brown swath down the center and a empty toilet paper roll. Not how I would want my work to be handled in moving a country forward. The Constitution is not a living breathing document. It is not up for a change to accommodate an agenda.

[AVGWarhawk]

This is my case and point:

President Obama is taking a swipe at the Founding Fathers, blaming his inability to move his agenda on the “disadvantage” of having each state represented equally in the Senate.
At a Democratic fundraiser in Chicago Thursday night, Mr. Obama told a small group of wealthy supporters that there are several hurdles to keeping Democrats in control of the Senate and recapturing the House. One of those problems, he said, is the apportionment of two Senate seats to each state regardless of population.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/23/obama-blames-structural-design-congress-gridlock/#ixzz32YsGjEv7
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/23/obama-blames-structural-design-congress-gridlock/

So hey, let's change what the founding fathers designed for his own gain!! :yeah: The Constitution is meaningless in this administration. Maybe the design was to assure poor agendas do not move forward. What do I know? I think the founding fathers would be appalled. I say job well done gents.

[nikimcbee]

Probably be aghast concerning the manipulation and ignoring the Constitution.
This

Honestly. These gentlemen put deep thought, consideration, sweat, revisions and debate over this single piece of paper that would be the law of the land. Absolute. Instead, today, they would find a piece of paper with a large brown swath down the center and a empty toilet paper roll. Not how I would want my work to be handled in moving a country forward. The Constitution is not a living breathing document. It is not up for a change to accommodate an agenda.

This
This is my case and point:




Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/23/obama-blames-structural-design-congress-gridlock/#ixzz32YsGjEv7
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/23/obama-blames-structural-design-congress-gridlock/

So hey, let's change what the founding fathers designed for his own gain!! :yeah: The Constitution is meaningless in this administration. Maybe the design was to assure poor agendas do not move forward. What do I know? I think the founding fathers would be appalled. I say job well done gents.
...and this.

The purpose of the Constitution is to put a leash on Federal power. The people in power don't like having a leash on, they want to be able to do whatever they want. I'd say politians for the last ~60 have been trying to take the leash off and once it's off, there's no putting it back on.

[Armistead]

Ben Franklin would probably be running a porn ring.

[Sailor Steve]

I'd say politians for the last ~60 have been trying to take the leash off and once it's off, there's no putting it back on.
I'd say you're off by about 167 years. Politicians have been trying to subvert the Constitution from day one, including the ones who helped write it.

In my opinion many of the founders would indeed object to the treatment their ideal has recieved, but they also objected to that very treatment back in their day. Why do you think Madison and Jefferson ended up despising Hamilton, and vice versa? One of the great things about George Washington was his true love for his country an desire to do anything to make it work. Sadly, of all of them he seems to have been the only one.

I too dislike what is being done today. I'm just pointing out that it's nothing new. I think most of the Founders would recognize exactly what is happening, and would find it uncomfortably familiar.

[AVGWarhawk]

I think most of the Founders would recognize exactly what is happening, and would find it uncomfortably familiar.

But 100x over in today's world.

[nikimcbee]

Ben Franklin would probably be running a porn ring.

:haha: zing!

[Kaptlt.Endrass]

They may not be too happy with the fact that the second amendment is being contested. And the first. Possibly the fourth and fifth.

They would also not be happy about the downsizing of the military (I'm not)

I do think they would be glad, however, about the equality that the African-Americans and other groups have received.

[Platapus]

They would probably say "Why the hell are you still using a 200+ year old Constitution?? We wrote that thing a long time ago for a country much different. We even put clauses where things could be changed as necessary. As things change, so must the constitution, dumbasses!" :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

They would also not be happy about the downsizing of the military (I'm not)
Actually they believed that a national military was a dangerous thing.

"In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
-James Madison, "Father of The Constitution", in a speech at the Constitutional Debates, June 29, 1787

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army."
-Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war."
-Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776

I believe that U.S. history has proved them wrong, and as long as all Americans are brought up to believe that way, then the military is not a danger. I'm just pointing out that the Founders would likely be glad to see the military downsized to nothing.

[Sinkmore]

Thank you, Sailor Steve, for not only appreciating the Constitution and the Founders, but for bothering to try to understand them, rather than uncritically (but patriotically!) revering the popular fictions.

[Sinkmore]

They may not be too happy with the fact that the second amendment is being contested. And the first. Possibly the fourth and fifth.

They would also not be happy about the downsizing of the military (I'm not)


Have you read the 2nd Amendment? What do you suppose they meant by "well regulated militia?" And in context, who do you think they meant by "the people"?

Well regulated militia means individual State's "regular" armies, which were essentially militias. There was no national military - the entire Pentagon, Army, Navy, etc., are all unconstitutional. There's no such thing as a "well regulated scattering of discordant, unaffiliated, armed individuals". Carrying a gun into Chipotle is probably not what they had in mind by "the security of a free state". The amendment also never mentions hunting, hobby shooting, or self defense. It seems that those rights are not guaranteed or even contemplated anywhere in the Constitution.

It's plain as day to me that the 2nd amendment in no way authorizes -citizens- to have or carry or bear firearms, nor addresses the topic at all. However, lots of case law and black letter law does affirm those rights. So, thank activist judges, not the founders who had nothing to do with it.

When the Constitution refers to "the people" it seldom means "the persons" or "citizens"; it is in most cases referring to the 13 states. Really. Sounds weird in 2014, but it's true. IE, the 2nd Amendment originally prohibited the fed's from disarming state-led armies. Anyone who's ever attended a Michigan-Ohio State game should be glad that activist judges messed with original intent on that one.

I could also quibble with the popular interpretation of "to bear arms", which is not equivalent to "carry guns". Historically it meant nobles, who were feudal vassals, could wear armor (arms originally meant armor, and was the exclusive domain of the nobility, as in their "coat of arms", which no peasant then could have) as a sworn vassal in service to the crown. In constitutional context, it means what it says: to belong to and fight in the (well regulated, State led) military. One "bears arms" in defense if one's nation - you don't "bear arms" at Starbucks - that's just good old packing heat.

If you take the 2nd with its modern meaning, then where's the limit? By that (distorted) view, there seems to be nothing preventing individuals from owning nuclear weapons, or surface-to-air missiles, or from bringing them to airports, or to Navy stations. Where does the Constitution, under that view, permit the Feds to take away my nerve gas?

[Admiral Halsey]

http://reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/popcorn_stephen_colbert.gif













(Should've guessed that eventually a post like that would happen. Either way let the fireworks fly!)

[les green01]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.sorry we do have a militia its call the national guard.
The National Guard of the United States, part of the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_components_of_the_United_States_Armed_Forc es), is a reserve military force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_reserve_force), composed of National Guard military members or units of each state and the territories of Guam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam), of the Virgin Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Virgin_Islands), and of Puerto Rico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico), as well as of the District of Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia), for a total of 54 separate organizations. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)) as defined by 10 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_10_of_the_United_States_Code) § 311 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html). The majority of National Guard soldiers and airmen hold a civilian job full-time while serving part-time as a National Guard member.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States#cite_note-National_Guard-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States#cite_note-2) These part-time guardsmen are augmented by a full-time cadre of Active Guard & Reserve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Guard_Reserve) (AGR) personnel in both the Army National Guard and Air National Guard, plus Army Reserve Technicians in the Army National Guard and Air Reserve Technicians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Reserve_Technician_Program) (ART) in the Air National Guard.
The National Guard is a joint activity of the United States Department of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense) (DoD) composed of reserve components of the United States Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army) and the United States Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force): the Army National Guard of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_National_Guard)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States#cite_note-National_Guard-1) and the Air National Guard of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_National_Guard) respectively.(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32/313) of title 32 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32), under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

i have read where the wigs and john adam had a law pass where you could be thrown in jail and poperty seize if you said something against the wigs or something they didnt like.founding fathers be shock how far the country have came as far as inventions,but how would they rate the presidents and congress after them.

[Sinkmore]

National Guard is "new" - not mentioned in Constitution, and probably prohibited by it. I'm not "against" the Guard! I'm glad we have it. But Madison and Jefferson never heard of it. I'm glad we have an Army, too. (Though I'd like Congress to take back their sole authority to declare war. And I think Eisenhower Stilwell were right about imperialism & the military industrial complex).

But, the states all did have militias in 1789, and that's what the 2nd was about, so I'm not sure what your point was.

[Sailor Steve]

Have you read the 2nd Amendment? What do you suppose they meant by "well regulated militia?" And in context, who do you think they meant by "the people"?
Those questions have been discussed by the courts over and over again, sometimes with different answers. The biggest argument has been over the "People" issue. The usual understanding is that in the 1st Amendment "The People" refers to individuals. Gun control advocates try to insist that in the 2nd it's only a collective right. Some go so far as to claim it applies only to the Federal Government.

Well regulated militia means individual State's "regular" armies, which were essentially militias. There was no national military - the entire Pentagon, Army, Navy, etc., are all unconstitutional.
Umm...

Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defence

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

It looks to me like the Constitution gives the power to Congress to create an army and navy and run them as they see fit, which means it absolutely is "Constitutional".

There's no such thing as a "well regulated scattering of discordant, unaffiliated, armed individuals". Carrying a gun into Chipotle is probably not what they had in mind by "the security of a free state". The amendment also never mentions hunting, hobby shooting, or self defense. It seems that those rights are not guaranteed or even contemplated anywhere in the Constitution.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
—George Mason, Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Until a navy could be organised, Letters of Marque were granted to individual ship owners, meaning the government authorized acts of war to private citizens who provided their own cannon-armed ships.

It's plain as day to me that the 2nd amendment in no way authorizes -citizens- to have or carry or bear firearms, nor addresses the topic at all. However, lots of case law and black letter law does affirm those rights. So, thank activist judges, not the founders who had nothing to do with it.
"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
—Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
—Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
—Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
—Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787

When the Constitution refers to "the people" it seldom means "the persons" or "citizens"; it is in most cases referring to the 13 states. Really. Sounds weird in 2014, but it's true. IE, the 2nd Amendment originally prohibited the fed's from disarming state-led armies.
Can you provide one single example of a statement or writing from the Framers themselves to support that claim? I think I've shown that they did indeed mean the individual citizens, and if not I can provide plenty more.

I could also quibble with the popular interpretation of "to bear arms", which is not equivalent to "carry guns". Historically it meant nobles, who were feudal vassals, could wear armor (arms originally meant armor, and was the exclusive domain of the nobility, as in their "coat of arms", which no peasant then could have) as a sworn vassal in service to the crown. In constitutional context, it means what it says: to belong to and fight in the (well regulated, State led) military.
Again, I think the quotes I've provided so far put the lie to that concept.

One "bears arms" in defense if one's nation - you don't "bear arms" at Starbucks - that's just good old packing heat.
That is certainly a valid point, and one which is the subject of much debate and certainly will garner more. Your stating it as fact, however, doesn't make it so.

If you take the 2nd with its modern meaning, then where's the limit? By that (distorted) view, there seems to be nothing preventing individuals from owning nuclear weapons, or surface-to-air missiles, or from bringing them to airports, or to Navy stations. Where does the Constitution, under that view, permit the Feds to take away my nerve gas?
That's another good question, and not the rhetorical one you pose it as. As I've pointed out earlier, at the time of the Revolution citizens owned everything the militias did, to the point of creating a makeshift navy out of privately owned ships bearing privately owned cannons. I'm not saying we should own everything entrusted to the military, but I am asking for honest debate rather than "proving" your point with rhetoric.

Addendum:
The amendment also never mentions hunting, hobby shooting, or self defense. It seems that those rights are not guaranteed or even contemplated anywhere in the Constitution.
One of James Madison's greatest fears, and the main reason he fought for so long against having a Bill of Rights, was that he believed that if he created a list of protected rights someone in the future could easily say "They didn't list that one, so they must not have meant it." Madison believed that all rights belonged to the people, and none to the government. The government only has the power to restrict rights when they infringe upon the rights of someone else. This is the reason for the 9th Amendment. ALL rights belong to the individual. I have the right to do anything I want, as long as I don't infringe on the rights of anyone else to do the same.

[Sailor Steve]

i have read where the wigs and john adam had a law pass where you could be thrown in jail and poperty seize if you said something against the wigs or something they didnt like.founding fathers be shock how far the country have came as far as inventions,but how would they rate the presidents and congress after them.
You're probably thinking of the 'Alien and Sedition Acts', which were created during the potential war crisis with France in 1799. The Federalist (not Whig) Congress wrote acts granting the President the power to round up "aliens" (meaning Frenchmen) and deport them if they spoke out against the United States, and Congress the power to arrest them all if war came, plus making illegal to criticize the President or Congress publically. Vice-President Jefferson tested those acts by encouraging writers friendly to his politics to speak out, and they were indeed arrested. Once Jefferson himself was President he freed them all, and allowed the Acts to expire at their pre-ordained time.

[Admiral Halsey]

Ok after thinking this over i'm asking that IF this thread becomes too flamey I want it closed at once.

[Sailor Steve]

Ok after thinking this over i'm asking that IF this thread becomes too flamey I want it closed at once.
So far it's been legitimate debate. If it degrades I'm sure Jim will see to it. :sunny:

[Admiral Halsey]

So far it's been legitimate debate. If it degrades I'm sure Jim will see to it. :sunny:

Just making sure that they know that i'll approve of that action if they need to close it. Think of this as a preemptive strike on those who would otherwise heat the thread beyond boiling point.

[Kaptlt.Endrass]

Im sorry. It has been some time since I have read the Constitution, and I'll read through it and post again with a better response at a later time.

I will say that I prefer the Declaration over the Constitution though. It really shows the meaning and reason that the colonies broke off from Britain, and the ideals we originally meant to uphold.

[Sinkmore]

OK, I admit I'm beat. I know when to concede.

I've been in quite the black mood for the last few days on account of real life, and I may have taken some of my frustration out on the poor, undeserving internet.

/RANT

[Jimbuna]

So far it's been legitimate debate. If it degrades I'm sure Jim will see to it. :sunny:

Rgr that.

*Reaches over for more popcorn*

[Oberon]

*Reaches over for more popcorn*

http://media.lehighvalleylive.com/sports_impact/photo/terrell-owens-popcorn-8a762396de661b46.jpg

[Wolferz]

OK, I admit I'm beat. I know when to concede.

I've been in quite the black mood for the last few days on account of real life, and I may have taken some of my frustration out on the poor, undeserving internet.

/RANT



http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb295/Wolferz_2007/terminator_10.jpg
Grin and bear it.

[Platapus]

I believe that if George Washington were still alive today, he would be spending most of his time muttering under his breath "I told you so."

[Sailor Steve]

OK, I admit I'm beat. I know when to concede.
Don't. Debates are fun. I'll also admit that I've lost more than I've won.

But...

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should be not victory, but progress."
―Joseph Joubert

"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it."
―Joseph Joubert

...and...

"I never learned from a man who agreed with me."
―Robert A. Heinlein

I've been in quite the black mood for the last few days on account of real life, and I may have taken some of my frustration out on the poor, undeserving internet.
I can understand that. I've certainly been there myself.

As for the 2nd Amendment, I can bring up lots of quotes to support my claims, but, as with the Standing Military question, it's always possible that the Founders were actually wrong, and debates such as this should never be allowed to die. In line with my second Joubert quote above, when we stop debating issues like this the we become settled, and possibly miss the better path.

[August]

I figure they'd take one look at the nation today and start plotting the next revolution.

[Mr Quatro]

The first thing our founding fathers would do is take one look at this list of taxes and pass a bill that would enable them to be tax free: http://www.balancedpolitics.org/editorials/100_taxes_you_pay.htm (http://www.balancedpolitics.org/editorials/100_taxes_you_pay.htm)

Personal/Consumer Taxes & Fees



Federal income tax
State income tax
Local income tax
Employee social security tax (your employer pays the other half)
Employee Medicare tax (your employer pays the other half)
Property taxes
Road toll charges
State sales tax
Driver's license renewal fee
TV Cable/Satellite fees & taxes
Federal telephone surtax, excise tax, and universal surcharge
State telephone excise tax and surcharge
Telephone minimum usage and recurring/nonrecurring charges tax
Gas/electric bill fees & taxes
Water/sewer fees & taxes
Cigarette tax
Alcohol tax
Federal gasoline tax
State gasoline tax
Local gasoline tax
Federal inheritance tax
State inheritance tax
Gift tax
Bridge toll charges
Marriage license
Hunting license
Fishing license
Bike license fee
Dog permit/license
State park permit
Watercraft registration & licensing fees
Sports stadium tax
Bike/nature trail permit
Court case filing fee
Retirement account early withdrawal penalty
Individual health insurance mandate tax
Hotel stay tax
Plastic surgery surcharge
Soda/fatty-food tax
Air transportation tax
Electronic transmission of tax return fees
Passport application/renewal fee
Luxury & gas-guzzler car taxes
New car surcharge
License plate and car ownership transfer taxes
Yacht and luxury boat taxes
Jewelry taxes & surcharges
State/local school tax
Recreational vehicle tax
Special assessments for road repairs or construction
Gun ownership permit
Kiddie tax (IRS form 8615)
Fuel gross receipts tax
Waste Management tax
Oil and gas assessment tax
Use taxes (on out-of-state purchase)
IRA rollover tax/withdrawal penalties
Tax on non-qualified health saving account distributions
Individual and small business surtax (page 336 of Obamacare)
Estimated income tax underpayment penalty
Alternative Minimum Tax on income Business Taxes & Fees
Federal corporate income tax
State corporate income tax
Tax registration fee for new businesses
Employer social security tax
Employer Medicare tax
Federal unemployment tax
State unemployment tax
Business registration renewal tax
Worker's compensation tax
Tax on imported/exported goods
Oil storage/inspection fees
Employer health insurance mandate tax
Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (page 2001/Sec. 9007 of Obamacare)
Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Page 2010/Sec. 9008 of Obamacare)
Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Page 2020/Sec. 9009 of Obamacare)
Tax on Health Insurers (Page 2026/Sec. 9010 of Obamacare)
Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans, i.e. "Cadillac" plans
Tax on indoor tanning services
Utility users tax
Internet transaction fee (passed in California; being considered in other states and at federal level)
Professional license fee (accountants, lawyers, barbers, dentists, plumbers, etc.)
Franchise business tax
Tourism and concession license fee
Wiring inspection fees
Household employment tax
Biodiesel fuel tax
FDIC tax (insurance premium on bank deposits)
Electronic waste recycling fee
Hazardous material disposal fee
Food & beverage license fee
Estimated income tax underpayment penalty
Building/construction permit
Zoning permit
Fire inspection fee
Well permit tax
Sales and Use tax seller's permit
Commercial driver's license fee
Bank ATM transaction tax
Occupation taxes and fees (annual charges required for a host of professions

[Tribesman]

The first thing our founding fathers would do is take one look at this list of taxes and pass a bill that would enable them to be tax free:
How many of those taxes had an equivalent form during the time of those people?
I would say that it is lots and lots of them.
So why would they suddenly go "tax free" on them now?

[Wolferz]

Today we have discovered that taxation "with" representation isn't much better than "without" it. But, considering how Congress has been acting lately, it's definitely "without":-?