“ gun control “

[TicTokCroc]

I think it's a genetic disposition for humans to want to be controlled and ruled. Since the down of time our hierarchy has been set up that way. Cheifs, village elders, pharoahs kings, queens, warlords, etc. All are the be all end all with no questioning. The USA was an experiment in independence and freedom that the world had never experienced before. We are the most free country in the world. Everyone has a choice and a chance to be great or fail miserably. We can all speak our minds and protect ourselves and our families. All because of the bill of rights and the constitution. The fact its such a disposable, malleable piece of paper to some, written by hated evil white men is just about beyond my comprehension. Look where we have come. Any gender or race can be president, or to any elected office, you can marry whoever you want, anyone can apply to any job or school, any citizen can vote, I could go on and on. The positives vastly outweigh any negatives we have in this country.

 

[wanderingrichard]

Here's an update from the Washington Gun Law YT channel.
Lots of pertinent links on the page, including text of the proposed law.

 

[Peyton00]

...

 

[TicTokCroc]

...

 

[Dustin Chromers]

The words of them those men should not and do not matter most. The words and actions of present day living and breathing humans do. In fact, there are mechanisms for changing the constitution, which was what I was saying will be the end of the 2A. This court and their bungling of nearly every case associated with the 1st and 14th amendments will force the nations hand at some point. At that point, the 2nd can and will come in to play to be changed, reversed or clarified in a manner far different than this courts interpretation.

Our voices matter most not only because we should not be governed by selfish morally reprehensible people who died 200 years ago but also because those people were homogenously wealthy white men who formed a government for their own benefit. The words of Jefferson and Hamilton were eloquent and spoke of freedom and liberty but in action they actually owned and traded human beings. So while their words may be inspiring or comforting especially to those who believe in fairy tales, they created a government that allowed for the owning and trading of humans. The government that they created was designed to treat people so unequally as to allow humans to be owned. This was done mostly through "states rights" and by abdicated the responsibility to protect all people through the federal government and bill of rights. All this was done for their own personal gain. It's pretty difficult to think that they created some form of perfect governmental system or should be treated as though they deserve some respect. They did not and they do not. They should not be looked upon with reverence. In fact, they should be looked upon with skepticism, doubt and often scorn. The best of them like Webster turned a blind eye to slavery and the rights of women when crafting our form of government. Others like Hamilton and Jefferson were active slave owners and traders. To use their work creating our government as guidance as to how to assure freedom and liberty for all is like using R Kelly as a role model as to treat your daughters.

Look at the Declaration of independence: "All men are created equal?" except the humans that I profit from, trade, use for sex, and give no rights to? Solid work Tommy J! Liberty for me, freedom for me, slavery and no rights for African Americans and women. The truly sickening part is by virtue of the words that they wrote, they showed that they knew better. By their actions, including creating our government, they showed that they did not actually care. Looking at these people as in any way being superior or more important than present day living humans defies logic. The country can not and should not be beholden to them or the government that they formed for the enrichment of themselves and their peers at the cost of everyone else. It's a fairy tale told for the comfort of those too weak to think on their own.

They were so good at creating a framework of planned inequality that slavery required a war to overcome. Jim Crow lasted until modern times and the effects of it are still felt every day. Inequality has been ingrained into our society so much that it is still the norm in the most powerful of places.

Much of the planned inequities of our original form of government began to be healed with the 14th amendment. This court has all but ignored it and it's true meaning as evidenced by recent court rulings. This is why I am of the belief that this very court is the single greatest thereat to the 2nd amendment. At some point as they strip Americans of long standing and immensely popular rights conveyed thorough the 14th, the population will be forced to look at all of our government. When the 2A is changed due to popular pressure, I believe that you will have Sam Alito and his religious zealot cohorts to blame.

Presentism is the act of levying judgement on those in history based on today's standards. You realise slavery was essentially the default state of the world at the time. Aliens didn't build the pyramids, slaves did. Should we topple Lincoln's statue because he wasn't perfect? Should we demean and despise Martin Luther King and rename streets because of faults in his personal life? Where does it start and end? If you're looking for perfection in men you're going to be sorely disappointed. This doesn't mean their legacy is meaningless.

Nobody here is regaling in the fallible founding father's faults. They were just men, nothing more. Nothing more than men who left a feudal system on a long shot gamble and attempted to form a government of their own in a new country. Likely the first of its kind. Did they screw up and run roughshod over folks. Yep, nobody's perfect. Well nobody except the modern progressive judge and jury that is. It still doesn't invalidate the basic tenants and ideas of governance in this country.

Presentism is a mechanism to invalidate the entire body of work of historic figures by focusing on faults that were essentially the Zeitgeist of the time. Jefferson and others were among the progressives of their day. How will history judge the progressives of our day. How will your children's grandchildren view you? Should the legacy of your life and your work be invalidated due to a future moral failing like fishing for sport? What kind of monster tortures animals like that? Clearly a bad corrupted man that eats animals. What a monster. We often make monsters of men in the past. We do not celebrate the monstrous part that dwells in every man past and present.

 

[Canuck from Kansas]

... Any gender or race can be president, or to any elected office, you can marry whoever you want, anyone can apply to any job or school, any citizen can vote, I could go on and on. The positives vastly outweigh any negatives we have in this country.

The above would not have been possible with the way the Constitution was originally written. A the time the Constitution was ratified, the states were granted the power to set voting requirements, and in general, that was to property-owning or tax-paying white males (about 6% of the population). At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, African Americans were counted as 3/5 of a person, they did not have a vote, were not citizens, and could not be land owners; women did not have a vote, and could not own property on their own, and in fact, they were the property of their husband "The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything.” (Judge John Wilford Blackstone). One could argue that much of what is today, is in fact despite what was written in the original Constitution.

What the framers did get right (and I do not hate them, just do not hold them with the same reverence as some) is they provided a mechanism by which the Constitution could be changed and updated according to the will of the people (all be it a very high bar), knowing the country would change over time.

 

[TicTokCroc]

The above would not have been possible with the way the Constitution was originally written. A the time the Constitution was ratified, the states were granted the power to set voting requirements, and in general, that was to property-owning or tax-paying white males (about 6% of the population). At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, African Americans were counted as 3/5 of a person, they did not have a vote, were not citizens, and could not be land owners; women did not have a vote, and could not own property on their own, and in fact, they were the property of their husband "The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything.” (Judge John Wilford Blackstone). One could argue that much of what is today, is in fact despite what was written in the original Constitution.

What the framers did get right (and I do not hate them, just do not hold them with the same reverence as some) is they provided a mechanism by which the Constitution could be changed and updated according to the will of the people (all be it a very high bar), knowing the country would change over time.

Right, it's built in that it can be amended, for all the reasons you state, I'm not arguing or opposed to that. But we got people that think we need to just do away with the #1 and #2 of the bill or rights. That's the bedrock for which it's all built upon.

 

[Canuck from Kansas]

Right, it's built in that it can be amended, for all the reasons you state, I'm not arguing or opposed to that. But we got people that think we need to just do away with the #1 and #2 of the bill or rights. That's the bedrock for which it's all built upon.

Not sure I've seen anyone actually write that here, and hope they rethink if they did, not to say they cannot be updated or improved upon.

 

[Flymph]

Can't comment on Presentism or Past Monsters but I do know that the framers of the constitution had incredible foresight! Stop for a moment and imagine our country without the amendments that followed the original document.

The Founding Fathers intended the document to be flexible in order to fit the changing needs and circumstances of the country. In the words of Virginia Delegate, Edmund Randolph, one of the five men tasked with drafting the Constitution, the goal was to “insert essential principles only, lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events.”

I am greatly appreciative of the progressives that continue to fight for Democracy and am ever thankful that an autocratic monster like Putin is not in charge.

 

[charles sullivan]

Presentism is the act of levying judgement on those in history based on today's standards. You realise slavery was essentially the default state of the world at the time. Aliens didn't build the pyramids, slaves did. Should we topple Lincoln's statue because he wasn't perfect? Should we demean and despise Martin Luther King and rename streets because of faults in his personal life? Where does it start and end? If you're looking for perfection in men you're going to be sorely disappointed. This doesn't mean their legacy is meaningless.

Nobody here is regaling in the fallible founding father's faults. They were just men, nothing more. Nothing more than men who left a feudal system on a long shot gamble and attempted to form a government of their own in a new country. Likely the first of its kind. Did they screw up and run roughshod over folks. Yep, nobody's perfect. Well nobody except the modern progressive judge and jury that is. It still doesn't invalidate the basic tenants and ideas of governance in this country.

Presentism is a mechanism to invalidate the entire body of work of historic figures by focusing on faults that were essentially the Zeitgeist of the time. Jefferson and others were among the progressives of their day. How will history judge the progressives of our day. How will your children's grandchildren view you? Should the legacy of your life and your work be invalidated due to a future moral failing like fishing for sport? What kind of monster tortures animals like that? Clearly a bad corrupted man that eats animals. What a monster. We often make monsters of men in the past. We do not celebrate the monstrous part that dwells in every man past and present.

The message was in response to Mr. Allen's post directly and not an attempt to judge the humans who created our government, although, to be fair, I do within the body of my post.

I am speaking of putting the creation of our government in perspective. It was not in any way meant to create freedom and liberty for all. It just was not. It was created to keep the powerful in power in the way that they already were. It was created in a way to stymie change away from an inequitable society. So to think that we should treat the original documents and construction as the best way to attain liberty and freedom for all is devoid of perspective. The words are nice. The framework, including the way in which we select our representatives, the speed with which our government can adapt etc. was all there to continue the existing unequal way in which people were represented and had rights at the time. This was known at the time. It was the intent. Jefferson spoke of a revolution every generation. Like freedom and liberty for all, the framework created failed to deliver.

It was so effective that the US was did not abolish slavery until well after the Europeans, even though there was an opportunity to do so from this beginning and slavery was clearly an issue and not consensus in any way. It was so effective at it that we had Jim Crow until very recently. It was more effective at restricting the rights of humans, especially woman and POC that still today the words and framework are used to restrict voting rights and bodily autonomy for those very groups.

In my opinion 14th should be adequate in dealing with some but not all of those inequities. Since this court sees the people such as Jefferson and Hamilton as being superior to lawmakers that created the 14th, they routinely ignore it or "disfavor" it. Alito loves that word. In the same way the court favors only portions of the 1st and 2nd while ignoring the totality of the plain English that it is written in.

The thought or belief that we should treat the words and actions of Jefferson or Hamilton with reverence is a fairy tail. It's a convenient fairytale but a fairytale none the less. This is not presentism. This is seeing it for what it was at the time. Our government was constructed as a way to preserve the status quo while giving fantastic lip service to equality and justice. I mean today, we still give a Wyoming residents greater representation than we do anyone else. It is an inequality baked into the system that was created to preserve slavery.

Now that same baked in inequality, gets us SCOTUS judges that are hostile to the amendments that came after those passed by the characters in their fairytale. It's the flawed perspective that the very people who were trying to keep equality and justice from happening were somehow intellectually or morally superior to those who actually moved the country towards those ideals. This ignores the reality of the timeframe that these documents were created. It will also possibly lead to that revolution every generation or at least for some generation. At that point the 2A may very well become fair game.

 

[Dustin Chromers]

The message was in response to Mr. Allen's post directly and not an attempt to judge the humans who created our government, although, to be fair, I do within the body of my post.

I am speaking of putting the creation of our government in perspective. It was not in any way meant to create freedom and liberty for all. It just was not. It was created to keep the powerful in power in the way that they already were. It was created in a way to stymie change away from an inequitable society. So to think that we should treat the original documents and construction as the best way to attain liberty and freedom for all is devoid of perspective. The words are nice. The framework, including the way in which we select our representatives, the speed with which our government can adapt etc. was all there to continue the existing unequal way in which people were represented and had rights at the time. This was known at the time. It was the intent. Jefferson spoke of a revolution every generation. Like freedom and liberty for all, the framework created failed to deliver.

It was so effective that the US was did not abolish slavery until well after the Europeans, even though there was an opportunity to do so from this beginning and slavery was clearly an issue and not consensus in any way. It was so effective at it that we had Jim Crow until very recently. It was more effective at restricting the rights of humans, especially woman and POC that still today the words and framework are used to restrict voting rights and bodily autonomy for those very groups.

In my opinion 14th should be adequate in dealing with some but not all of those inequities. Since this court sees the people such as Jefferson and Hamilton as being superior to lawmakers that created the 14th, they routinely ignore it or "disfavor" it. Alito loves that word. In the same way the court favors only portions of the 1st and 2nd while ignoring the totality of the plain English that it is written in.

The thought or belief that we should treat the words and actions of Jefferson or Hamilton with reverence is a fairy tail. It's a convenient fairytale but a fairytale none the less. This is not presentism. This is seeing it for what it was at the time. Our government was constructed as a way to preserve the status quo while giving fantastic lip service to equality and justice. I mean today, we still give a Wyoming residents greater representation than we do anyone else. It is an inequality baked into the system that was created to preserve slavery.

Now that same baked in inequality, gets us SCOTUS judges that are hostile to the amendments that came after those passed by the characters in their fairytale. It's the flawed perspective that the very people who were trying to keep equality and justice from happening were somehow intellectually or morally superior to those who actually moved the country towards those ideals. This ignores the reality of the timeframe that these documents were created. It will also possibly lead to that revolution every generation or at least for some generation. At that point the 2A may very well become fair game.

We simply disagree. And that's all fine and well. I simply don't see the departure from a monarchy to a republic as keeping the status quo. I could also argue Europe instituted slavery far further into most country's timeline. But I won't as I don't think either one of us will change our view. I do agree as stated above that the framers weren't gods or infallible.

 

[Zak]

I am speaking of putting the creation of our government in perspective. It was not in any way meant to create freedom and liberty for all. It just was not. It was created to keep the powerful in power in the way that they already were.

Well, it was a big improvement over the divine right of kings!

As to Justice Alito citing 13th Century law as persuasive authority, I thought this SNL clip was hilarious:

 

[Salmo_g]

The words of them those men should not and do not matter most. The words and actions of present day living and breathing humans do. In fact, there are mechanisms for changing the constitution, which was what I was saying will be the end of the 2A. This court and their bungling of nearly every case associated with the 1st and 14th amendments will force the nations hand at some point. At that point, the 2nd can and will come in to play to be changed, reversed or clarified in a manner far different than this courts interpretation.

Our voices matter most not only because we should not be governed by selfish morally reprehensible people who died 200 years ago but also because those people were homogenously wealthy white men who formed a government for their own benefit. The words of Jefferson and Hamilton were eloquent and spoke of freedom and liberty but in action they actually owned and traded human beings. So while their words may be inspiring or comforting especially to those who believe in fairy tales, they created a government that allowed for the owning and trading of humans. The government that they created was designed to treat people so unequally as to allow humans to be owned. This was done mostly through "states rights" and by abdicated the responsibility to protect all people through the federal government and bill of rights. All this was done for their own personal gain. It's pretty difficult to think that they created some form of perfect governmental system or should be treated as though they deserve some respect. They did not and they do not. They should not be looked upon with reverence. In fact, they should be looked upon with skepticism, doubt and often scorn. The best of them like Webster turned a blind eye to slavery and the rights of women when crafting our form of government. Others like Hamilton and Jefferson were active slave owners and traders. To use their work creating our government as guidance as to how to assure freedom and liberty for all is like using R Kelly as a role model as to treat your daughters.

Look at the Declaration of independence: "All men are created equal?" except the humans that I profit from, trade, use for sex, and give no rights to? Solid work Tommy J! Liberty for me, freedom for me, slavery and no rights for African Americans and women. The truly sickening part is by virtue of the words that they wrote, they showed that they knew better. By their actions, including creating our government, they showed that they did not actually care. Looking at these people as in any way being superior or more important than present day living humans defies logic. The country can not and should not be beholden to them or the government that they formed for the enrichment of themselves and their peers at the cost of everyone else. It's a fairy tale told for the comfort of those too weak to think on their own.

They were so good at creating a framework of planned inequality that slavery required a war to overcome. Jim Crow lasted until modern times and the effects of it are still felt every day. Inequality has been ingrained into our society so much that it is still the norm in the most powerful of places.

Much of the planned inequities of our original form of government began to be healed with the 14th amendment. This court has all but ignored it and it's true meaning as evidenced by recent court rulings. This is why I am of the belief that this very court is the single greatest thereat to the 2nd amendment. At some point as they strip Americans of long standing and immensely popular rights conveyed thorough the 14th, the population will be forced to look at all of our government. When the 2A is changed due to popular pressure, I believe that you will have Sam Alito and his religious zealot cohorts to blame.

This is getting off track a bit, but I'm compelled to respond that you're maligning the founders a lot, as pointed out by Chromers in his later post regarding "presentism." It's incorrect to describe the nation's founding as an attempt to preserve the status quo when the over-arching act was to change from a royal monarchy to a democratic republic, fully noting that the democracy was reserved to white men who owned property. It's only reasonable and fair to evaluate the development of the Constitution in the context of its time in history.

The founders studied the forms of government of all the most advanced nations in the known world at that time to come up with our form of government. While some of the founders were more enlightened about the moral reprehensiveness of slavery than others, it's only fair to note that slavery had been culturally common and accepted for all of known human history. The idea that slavery isn't appropriate was still a pretty new idea. Similarly, women being the property of men had been a long held cultural attribute as well. To expect the founders to be way ahead of their time on every human issue would be both unreasonable and unreal.

In addition to forming a new and independent republic, I think it's critical to note that the most pressing issue on the founders' minds was national security as a free nation and not slavery and women's rights. The concern for national security - expecting that they could be invaded and conquered by England, France, or Spain - pressured the founders to form a union of all the newly free states for strength, rather than 13 small independent sovereign states or some lesser number of small nations that would be weaker than a nation of the full 13. This is important because it was the driving reason for the numerous compromises that were made with respect to the new Constitution. In order to get "buy in" from all 13 states we got the continuation of slavery and the way a state's population is counted for the purpose of determining the number of its members to the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. No one conceived of a future state called Wyoming, but they were well aware that states with small populations would have disproportionate representation in Congress. And that the reason was so that New York, with its large population wouldn't be calling all the shots as national governance proceeded.

The founders did not turn a blind eye to slavery. Those opposed to it choose to accept it as a necessary compromise to achieve the more important objective of a national unity. I think you already know that the objective was not to form a "perfect union," but rather to form "a more perfect union." I think the result speaks for itself. We have a framework for governance in the Constitution, a document that accommodates change through amendment. Amendment is arduous and difficult. Your later post suggests that was deliberate to maintain the status quo - presumably of slavery and women as property. Reading the Federalist Papers suggest that it is to prevent rapid and radical changes from being made willy nilly by the sure to happen idiot members of government that we would elect from time to time. I admit that it also makes important and necessary changes very difficult at times, to wit: the Equal Rights Amendment was approved by Congress over 40 years ago, and the necessary quorum of states never did ratify it. Obviously it's critical for some of our states to prevent women from enjoying equal rights, but I digress.

Lastly, I don't disagree that Alito is a religious kook, but he's the same justice who pointed out that the 2A right is both a state and an individual right. And he further held that the 2A, like all rights of citizens is subject to reasonable regulation, like when W.O. Douglas pointed out that the 1A doesn't not include the right to shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

All of which brings me back to the current House and Senate bills. Are these "reasonable" regulations necessary and do they unreasonably "infringe" on the individual right to keep and bear arms? At the moment I'm thinking that these bills are over reach and a better alternative was mentioned in a post yesterday. Leave things as they are with respect to nearly all firearms, shotguns, rifles, and pistols. But require a permit to purchase and own an AR or AR style rifle/carbine. This, along with universal background checks and a 3 - 10 day waiting period, would not prohibit the ownership of such a firearm, but would contribute to a significant reduction in their acquisition by the felons and mentally impaired people that shouldn't have them. And that should be the desired outcome, IMO.

 

[Rob Allen]

Why do you worship these old dead white guys? They made a system that gave power to (some of) the people for a reason and for all you claim to respect them you ignore the core tenets of our democracy.

Cause they were better and smarter men than we have today.. even being slave owners they were better people than exist today.

We do not have a democracy those old dead superior men were smart enough to know that democracy leads to tyranny.

Lastly, I do not worship them. I just acknowledge that they had a great idea.

I certainly don't worship ANY of the utter buffoons in Washington DC.

 

[Rob Allen]

The words of them those men should not and do not matter most. The words and actions of present day living and breathing humans do. In fact, there are mechanisms for changing the constitution, which was what I was saying will be the end of the 2A. This court and their bungling of nearly every case associated with the 1st and 14th amendments will force the nations hand at some point. At that point, the 2nd can and will come in to play to be changed, reversed or clarified in a manner far different than this courts interpretation.

Our voices matter most not only because we should not be governed by selfish morally reprehensible people who died 200 years ago but also because those people were homogenously wealthy white men who formed a government for their own benefit. The words of Jefferson and Hamilton were eloquent and spoke of freedom and liberty but in action they actually owned and traded human beings. So while their words may be inspiring or comforting especially to those who believe in fairy tales, they created a government that allowed for the owning and trading of humans. The government that they created was designed to treat people so unequally as to allow humans to be owned. This was done mostly through "states rights" and by abdicated the responsibility to protect all people through the federal government and bill of rights. All this was done for their own personal gain. It's pretty difficult to think that they created some form of perfect governmental system or should be treated as though they deserve some respect. They did not and they do not. They should not be looked upon with reverence. In fact, they should be looked upon with skepticism, doubt and often scorn. The best of them like Webster turned a blind eye to slavery and the rights of women when crafting our form of government. Others like Hamilton and Jefferson were active slave owners and traders. To use their work creating our government as guidance as to how to assure freedom and liberty for all is like using R Kelly as a role model as to treat your daughters.

Look at the Declaration of independence: "All men are created equal?" except the humans that I profit from, trade, use for sex, and give no rights to? Solid work Tommy J! Liberty for me, freedom for me, slavery and no rights for African Americans and women. The truly sickening part is by virtue of the words that they wrote, they showed that they knew better. By their actions, including creating our government, they showed that they did not actually care. Looking at these people as in any way being superior or more important than present day living humans defies logic. The country can not and should not be beholden to them or the government that they formed for the enrichment of themselves and their peers at the cost of everyone else. It's a fairy tale told for the comfort of those too weak to think on their own.

They were so good at creating a framework of planned inequality that slavery required a war to overcome. Jim Crow lasted until modern times and the effects of it are still felt every day. Inequality has been ingrained into our society so much that it is still the norm in the most powerful of places.

Much of the planned inequities of our original form of government began to be healed with the 14th amendment. This court has all but ignored it and it's true meaning as evidenced by recent court rulings. This is why I am of the belief that this very court is the single greatest thereat to the 2nd amendment. At some point as they strip Americans of long standing and immensely popular rights conveyed thorough the 14th, the population will be forced to look at all of our government. When the 2A is changed due to popular pressure, I believe that you will have Sam Alito and his religious zealot cohorts to blame.

If congress end the second ammendment or ANY ammendment.
It is the responsibility of every gun owner, every member of every law enforcement agency and every member of the military to reinstate it.

Those old dead white guys are smarter, wiser and better than you and me. And a hell of a lot better than than anyone currently in Washington DC.

 

[Salmo_g]

Those old dead white guys are smarter, wiser and better than you and me.

Rob, I acknowledge the vast and incredible wisdom of the nation's founders, but - not unsurprisingly - you're again going over the top with a statement like that. I'll accept that they were smarter than you are because they didn't and wouldn't have said something like what you just said (wrote). But there are equally intelligent people today, as there have been through history. They didn't have a monopoly on brain power. If you allege that they did, you need to produce that elusive thing known as "clear, cogent, and convincing evidence." Thanks in advance.

 

[Canuck from Kansas]

The end of the 2nd ammendment at the hands of progressives will the last things progressives ever do..


If progressives end the second ammendment or ANY ammendment.
It is the responsibility of every gun owner, every member of every law enforcement agency and every member of the military to do whatever it takes to reinstate it or them.

Those old dead white guys are smarter, wiser and better than you and me. And a hell of a lot better than than anyone currently in Washington DC.

Hope that is not a call for violence, if it is, I would ask you to remove or edit your post.

 

[Rob Allen]

Hope that is not a call for violence, if it is, I would ask you to remove or edit your post.

No not a call for violence a call to fulfill their oath of office. To protect and defend the constitution. Taking away anything from the bill of rights is an overt attack against the constitution. Far worse than for instance 1/6. It's more in the nature of a prediction.

 

[Rob Allen]

Rob, I acknowledge the vast and incredible wisdom of the nation's founders, but - not unsurprisingly - you're again going over the top with a statement like that. I'll accept that they were smarter than you are because they didn't and wouldn't have said something like what you just said (wrote). But there are equally intelligent people today, as there have been through history. They didn't have a monopoly on brain power. If you allege that they did, you need to produce that elusive thing known as "clear, cogent, and convincing evidence." Thanks in advance.

There may be smarter people around today. They are not however leading the country. Or if they are, they are hiding their intelligence well.

 

[Salmo_g]

Far worse than for instance 1/6.

Rob, I think you need to understand that 1/6 was in fact an overt attack on the Constitution in the form of attempting to over-throw our Constitutional form of government by preventing Congress from performing its Constitutionally mandated duty. I'm not sure what else it could rationally be called because it no way resembled "legitimate government discourse" as described or alleged by certain members of the House of Representatives.