"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson

No, your thread is based on a false claim.

So not only were you dumbing it down, you didn't even quote it properly.

 

posts like yours are indicative of low amounts of evidence to support your claim.
you offer nothing of substance because our Founding Fathers have said what they said.

 

She cited the actual quote. Can't you read either?

And you avoided my question : Do we legalize nuclear weapons for private ownership or is there a line?

 

Your position is a problem of mis and dis information. Every nut job in the US is not running around massacring innocent people.

We do have laws that are designed to remove dangerous people from society. Of course, in a free society they have to behave in a dangerous way FIRST before we can apply them. This isn’t Oceana, and it’s not the minority report. We can’t control people’s thoughts, and we can’t convict people of crimes they haven’t committed yet. That’s another salient point on the subject of Jefferson’s Latin quote. Did you look that up yet?

I was told by you that you are a thinking person. As a thinking person, what do you think about what Jefferson said when he used the language malo periculosam to describe freedom? What if I put the quote into the context the letter in which it was written?

What does that tell you about how Jefferson felt regarding the danger of a population; armed in such a way as to be able to impose its possibly evil will on innocent people?

 

I just cited the quote in context, and clarified the Latin for you. Thelma is wrong.

 

Nuclear weapons have the ability to kill millions of people.
AR-15s are responsible for 1% of all gun deaths in this country. Over 95% of gun deaths are hand guns.
Your own logic defeats your premise.

 

He did own slaves, but there was a cheviot to it.

At the time of the American Revolution, Jefferson was actively involved in legislation that he hoped would result in slavery’s abolition.5 In 1778, he drafted a Virginia law that prohibited the importation of enslaved Africans.6 In 1784, he proposed an ordinance that would ban slavery in the Northwest territories.7 But Jefferson always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a democratic process; abolition would be stymied until slaveowners consented to free their human property together in a large-scale act of emancipation. To Jefferson, it was anti-democratic and contrary to the principles of the American Revolution for the federal government to enact abolition or for only a few planters to free their slaves

Simply freeing a slave was not as easy as it sounds back then.

 

Jefferson was referring to the war with England and not property rights. Lose the war and become slaves to the Brittish. In the world of
today, you can't have any weapon you want. Ridiculous.

 

Jefferson and the other traitors were conspiring with the absolutist King of France to avoid paying taxes for their defence. What is so 'free' about that Country for its citizens? All anyone's come up with yet is that it is easier for them to murder one another.

 

This has been the argument of citizens in EVERY country that fell into dictatorship. It’s frankly an elitist and very prejudiced view that the people who fall under dictatorships are somehow inferior to you. Is that what you think, that Americans can’t fall into a dictatorship because its people are somehow different than the people of every advanced society that fell into one?

What I’m desperate to do is prove to you that the only person you want deciding for YOU what YOU need is YOU. As a consequence of that liberty, you cannot decide for me what I need. I believe that it would be entirely conceited of me to pretend to know what you need in order to pursue fulfillment in your own life. I don’t know you. I don’t know your interests. I don’t know your strengths or your weaknesses. I don’t know the thoughts that roll around in your head. I’m not you, and not being you prevents me from making the best choices for you. That’s the entire point of individual sovereignty. Only the individual has the capacity to know what’s best for the individual.

You can’t justify the use of violent force to restrict the use of something based on the premise that I don’t need to use that thing. That logic leads to people deciding that you don’t need things and they will use the violent force of the government to prevent you from using it. The vast majority of AR-15s that have been produced have never been used to kill anyone. The vast majority produced never will be used to kill anyone. Clearly people are using them in ways that you don’t understand. What sort of god are you to know that they don’t need to use them in that way?

 

Some Brits are still bitter after all these centuries have passed

 

I'd guess that the majority of reasonable people don't want to give a majority the right to murder them. They have a notion of a right to live instead, unless they decide otherwise.

 

God, aren't you little girls emotional? Try go grow up, dearie!

 

No one has a right to murder anyone, nor has anyone suggesting giving someone that right.

 

If you insist on arming every weirdo in America with heavy weapons you threaten the life of everyone, obviously.

 

You are the ranting against the Founding Fathers

The fact is we just outgrew your little island

 

Do you honestly believe there is a market for legal nuclear weapons? If they were made legal today, would people rush out to buy them? I don’t think so. They just aren’t practical.

After all, people have legal access to all sorts of bomb making materials. Leave me alone in your kitchen for an hour and I can make an explosion. Bombs are simple to produce and easy to conceal. Does that mean we need to ban stump remover, char coal, sulfur powder and iron pipes?

 

Stalin also drank water and breathed air.

does that mean water and air are bad, too?

 

Conservatives call for CNN and MSNBC to lose their broadcasting licenses. They call the DNC a "terrorist organization".

Yet they talk about "freedom".

LOLOLOL!!!!

 

It seems that one side of this argument is arguing with figments of their imagination. No one “insists on arming every weirdo with heavy weapons.”

What I do insist is that free people have individual rights that cannot be suspended without just cause. Weirdos have their rights susupended as a consequence of their weirdo behavior. My rights, should not be suspended because of someone else’s weirdo behavior. That is not just.

 

Numquam periculum sine periculo vincitur.

 

Everyone of wealth obtained through agriculture in the new world was a slave owner in that era. Washington at a young age and way before the revolution saw the "evils of slavery" and cosponserd a bill in the colonies to abolish importation of any more slaves. After he was president he tried to free his slaves but they wouldn't leave. He never bought any more and let them leave through attrition and put them in his will. They were to be cared for fed and housed until their death. A little different when you know the facts instead of the left wing spin isn't it.

 

I got a compromise. We take the senate and the house in the midterms and we let you still sit in the halls of congress if you promise to be quiet and not make any noise. LOL

 

Complaining about Washington and Jefferson because they were slaveowners is like saying Babe Ruth sucked because he struck out a lot.

The left has no sense of perspective.

 

USA has the best ideas -- All Humans Are Created Equal, Freedom.

But USA has one of the worst Human Rights records in the World.