And they also don’t tend to include that important IMO part which Brian clearly did.
22+ killed in mass shooting in Maine
- Thread starter BrianNole777
- Start date
Actually, In the context of the revolutions that occurred during that time period, the American Revolution was very conservative.
I agree.
The Founding Fathers speak for themselves, people can listen to them if people read their writings, such as the Federalist Papers, or the Declaration, but to find the real meaning, it has to be read without using it to fit their contemporary viewpoints.
Who are the "others"? This is a good topic with good points, no need to muddle it up by pointing fingers.
DFS isn’t muddling up anything. His point is supported on this very page of this thread.
Bandit “speaks for the Founding Fathers” when he opines that “I think the founding fathers would be pretty unhappy with the amount of rules and regulations currently in play, personally.” and neither Gary nor anybody else who favors the more conservative-leaning takes on gun restrictions objects to that.
But to Brian’s post offering his own personal opinion of the Founding Fathers’ intentions with “The Founding Father's were rebels, they weren't rigid conservatives; they wouldn't want the 2nd Amendment used like it is today, IMO.”, Gary claps back with “You don't get to speak for them.”, and curiously Bandit, who just did exactly what Brian did, but from the other side of the aisle, gives Gary’s admonishment a Like.
DFS is clearly spot on with his observation. Sometimes folks bristle though when presented with the messy truth of an already “muddled” situation.
I get it. However, if you're talking about specifics just say who it is. Others makes it sound as if more are being lumped into it. I pointed out how I disagreed with Brians assertion, but the post was deleted. However, I'm not of the view that we can selectively hide behind what we think the constitution means either.
You had no issue calling out those in question.
I'm a random subscriber. DFS is a mod. Of course mods are going to at least try to be more diplomatic about things and less directly confrontational than you and I and other regular board participants are.
Diplomats still take sides even when they don't intend to. Nicely put though.
Sure. Everybody knows which direction of the aisle DFS leans, even though he never seems to be extreme in any direction, and he's pretty dang diplomatic for any sports message board. Whether he's on your side of the aisle or not on any given topic, I think he's a pretty equal opportunity wrist slapper (we're generally similar in political leanings I think but he doesn't hesitate to reel me back in when called for.) IMHO, he's remained a popular mod since he'll mix it up with all us randos but then reel things back in when they seem to be headed off the rails, plus he's not some powerhungry tool like the notorious dearly departed NoSoul.
That was a reply to Brian's opinion. My position isn't from the other side of aisle. I liked Gary's post because it is my opinion that Brian's position is ahistorical. He's allowed to have that opinion. I don't think he should be silenced for it. But, I'd expand out Gary's post to say, "You don't get to speak for the founding fathers because you do not understand them." My post was not the same as Brian's. I referenced well established philosophical underpinnings for the constitution and bill of rights and the thoughts known to have been expressed by those writers to support the position that the founding fathers might find the amount of rules and regulations today oppressive. It was a broader comment than Brian's. I was not opining on their view of the 2nd amendment's application today.
I also happen to agree with Quaz that we shouldn't take their words as gospel or "from God." The historical contexts were very different. We also shouldn't be judging them by today's standards on social issues. I do happen to agree with the founders relative to their adoption of enlightenment era concepts in the creation of the country.
This is an easy to digest article on it. But, obviously, if you really want to get into the philosophy of it, you'll need to dive much deeper.
What Is Classical Liberalism? | Goodman Institute
www.goodmaninstitute.org
This also isn't a terrible overview:
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia
Personally, I don't like the terms, conservative and liberal applied to today's political parties. It just creates confusion. Progressives aren't liberals. The Christian nationalists or religious right, or "compassionate conservatives" are not liberals. Those are all largely illiberal ideologies. However, you do have classical liberalism concepts in both the left and right side of the aisle. And, there's no debate that classical liberalism was a major influence in the creation of the constitution and bill of rights.
Last edited:
and you are more than welcome to believe that you understand the Founding Fathers' intentions any better than Brian or anybody else living today does. Go for it.That was a reply to Brian's opinion. My position isn't from the other side of aisle. I liked Gary's post because it is my opinion that Brian's position is ahistorical. He's allowed to have that opinion. I don't think he should be silenced for it. But, I'd expand out Gary's post to say, "You don't get to speak for the founding fathers because you do not understand them." My post was not the same as Brian's. I referenced well established philosophical underpinnings for the constitution and bill of rights and the thoughts known to have been expressed by those writers.
This is an easy to digest article on it. But, obviously, if you really want to get into the philosophy of it, you'll need to dive much deeper.
What Is Classical Liberalism? | Goodman Institute
This also isn't a terrible overview:
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Personally, I don't like the terms, conservative and liberal applied to today's political parties. It just creates confusion. Progressives aren't liberals. The Christian nationalists or religious right, or "compassionate conservatives" are not liberals. Those are all largely illiberal ideologies. However, you do have classical liberalism concepts in both the left and right side of the aisle. And, there's no debate that classical liberalism was a major influence in the creation of the constitution and bill of rights.
I already did that. How is your post relevant? A progressive trying to interpret people operating from a classical liberal ideology seems similar to a Soviet, NAZI, or Sharia law advocate attempting it. It's an alien perspective to them. They don't get it. I.e., to quote Gary, "You don't get to speak for them."
Last edited:
I'll agree there are few issues open to interpretation, still, the overall intentions are clear enough. They can be found in the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution...
People on both sides of the aisle use it when it supports their view and then conveniently ignore it when it doesn't. If someone wants to say they're antiquated or don't apply today, that's another issue. But invariably people interpret the founding fathers in a way that supports their viewpoint.
Bingo. All the rest is faux-authoritative window dressing. And since multiple divergent interpretations can be argued with similarly faux-authoritative reasoning, I’m more interested in and swayed by my own speculation (based on whatever inputs I find most credible and compelling) about the likely impacts of this or that decision or direction on the common good, which is also ripe for debate.
exactly.
Interpreting the founding fathers maters for constitutional law. It’s necessary in our legal system.
And, people try to spin that to support their viewpoint if there’s grey or spinnable grey so they can or someone else can’t do something.
The Founding Fathers were relatively clear in most things per the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. We don't follow it because it doesn't fit our agenda.
If we followed the Constitution as it was written, it would avoid a lot of problems. But because a certain group wants to carry out a specific agenda, we say its open to interpretation, but much of if it isn't. If we just followed a the concepts of Federalism as prescribed, would be a different world today.
In this case, others are those who have differing opinions than Brian but agree with Gary. As Noletaire said, everything written in the 1700s is up for interpretation. People side with the one that most follows their preferred viewpoint.
Here, fingers are being pointed directly at Brian because his opinion is different.
DFS,
Partially, the opposite, I'm saying most of what the Founding Fathers wrote, leaves little room for interpretation. But, yes, definitely people will interpret the Founding fathers and the Constitution to support their preferred viewpoint.
Both sides of the aisle want the option of interpretation because it can be used to increase their power or get their will across. But the Founders were bent on designing a government to contradict that very thing.
Last edited:
I think it's tough to interpret things that were written hundreds and even thousands of years ago. People wrote and spoke differently, the world was a different place, people had different views. Things that seemed absurd in 1700 is commonplace now. With that said I'm not sure anyone regardless of political views is qualified to interpret what people meant when things were written.
I'm talking about the mechanics of the Constitution. The powers of the US government are few and listed.
Following the 10th amendment ? Most of the social and economic issues today should be settled and resolved at the state level. The concept of Federalism, as established by the Constitution doesn't leave a lot to interpretation.
Now quoting Jefferson and saying, to paraphrase, "the tree of liberty is nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots alike... it is their natural manure"... that could open for larger range of debate.
So, you are the end all opinion? You have been given the privilege of speaking for them?
Do you believe the framers intended the Constitution to be a living document or, as origionalist seem to believe, the original language should be followed without deviation?
Lol at anybody thinking or suggesting that it’s viable or even recommendable to operate a well-functioning society TODAY based on a 100% literal reading of ANY antiquated text, religious or governmental/foundational or otherwise.
Some things in antiquated texts MUST be interpreted to fit the current context (and in many cases meanings of the words themselves change and are open for different interpretations) if they’re not going to be completely ignored.
English is a living language, so some degree of fallible-human and open-to-all-flavors-of-bias interpretation is absolutely required, especially when several centuries have passed.
The whole fundamentalism thing, secular or otherwise, is sadly comical anathema to me.
Some things in antiquated texts MUST be interpreted to fit the current context (and in many cases meanings of the words themselves change and are open for different interpretations) if they’re not going to be completely ignored.
English is a living language, so some degree of fallible-human and open-to-all-flavors-of-bias interpretation is absolutely required, especially when several centuries have passed.
The whole fundamentalism thing, secular or otherwise, is sadly comical anathema to me.
I wasn't just referring to the constitution, I mean all older documents including the constitution and even the bible. As far as the constitution goes yes there are very direct and easy to interpret statements but there are also many subjective areas as well. Also, when these things were written the world was a different place. Could the founding fathers imagine gun control as a concept at all much less write on how it should be administered?
Not exactly the most reassuring statement but yes that is true.
@DFSNOLE That was unfair.
I don’t think I’m speaking for them. I did give a broader opinion that they might find the regulatory environment today to chafe. That’s a pretty light interpretation. But even so, I was only countering Brian’s assertion that they’d object to the second amendment use as applied today and that they weren’t “conservative” they were “rebels” as if either of those labels are relevant to their viewpoints then or today. My point to the counter wasn’t to assert fact relative to their view of the 2nd amendment as applied today. I don’t know what they’d think. It was only to suggest that there is reason to doubt Brian’s interpretations. Our posts do not have the same purpose. Brian was trying to argue that the 2nd amendment advocates are wrong because the founders wouldn’t agree with them today. I was arguing that Brian’s interpretation doesn’t make sense.
Also, is it somehow supposed to be rebellious to support more rules and regulations and less freedoms? That’s not a coherent viewpoint.
When I read that I thought about the movie Angels and Demons. One quote from the movie said, "Religion is flawed but only because man is flawed. All men, including this one". Seems as if this could be applied to everything not just religion. We have interpreted everything written through the years based on our own flawed concept of things.
Keep in mind, I'm viewing this historically:
The amendment process allows for some level of deviation. Outside of that, there is no evidence that the framers intended it to be a "living document", if by "living" we mean something that is in perpetual change or evolves with current events.
The Constitution was created to limit power of a national government and provide maximum freedom to its citizens. A document that has the ability to be in perpetual change and expansion would do just the opposite.
Benjamin Franklin said, "we've got a republic, if you can keep it". Prophetic words, no? He obviously doubted if we could keep it, and he was turned out to be correct.
Again if somebody wants to say that the founders and the Constitution are antiquated, that's fine. But I can even see the contradiction in this thread, where people want to use the Constitution to support their view but then say we its antiquated or we can't use it literally 100%, so again, they're want the ability to interpret it for their own ends.
Anyway, interesting conversation, best one on this board in awhile, although we strayed a bit from the shooting in Maine... lol.
Sincerely,
Noletaire
I agree.
Also, religion isn't special. People are great approximators. People are not typically good at precision, especially in areas which reflect complex philosophical concepts. Religion is a set of rules people live by, just backed up by a supernatural element. But, our ideas of right and wrong and understanding of truth are much broader than religion. And, in many cases, there isn't a clear right answer, only one with different weightings of strengths and weaknesses. The latter of which are in the eye of the beholder.
This does complicate multi-culturalism. Rapid immigrationand cross cultural interactions create conflict because the underlying assumptions and views of right and wrong are different. Sometimes to hilarity (e.g., https://reason.com/2023/10/27/the-contradictions-of-queers-for-palestine ). But, other things create conflict. Religious affiliation. Region of the country. Urban versus rural environments. Education status. Socioeconomic status. Political affiliation. The interjection of social media has amplified this in my opinion. This is obviously not a novel opinion.
Last edited:
Why? You plainly called Brian's opinion wrong. Not different but wrong.
Fewer than half of the decisions of the SCOTUS are unanimous and have been since at least the 1950s. Even the best legal minds can't agree on constitutional interpretation. If the intent was truly that clear, wouldn't you expect that number to be much higher?
Correct. His opinion was incoherent and ahistorical. That's not me speaking for the founders.
One might approach this position from a few vantage points. Let's say there aren't enough data to know what the founders would think of the 2nd amendment application today. A few problems. Would all of the founders agree? But also, if we don't have enough data, confidently asserting they would opine that the use of 2nd amendment as argued by NRA types today is wrong would be similar to making the assertion that there's a teapot floating around in space. It's not falsifiable. Thus, you'd be wrong for making the assertion that there's a teapot floating around in space (unless you launched one, but that wasn't possible when Bertrand made the argument). This is the same error all religions asserting a supernatural force make. Using metaphysically subjective arguments to assert claims on objective reality. Worse though, Brian tries to defend his assertion by stating that the founders weren't conversative, they were rebels. Aside from the fact he didn't operationally define his terms, this argument seems to suffer from incoherence. At best, it is a non sequitur. He made a subjective assertion and then defended it with irrelevant, poorly defined material. I.e., Brian was wrong.
Relative to the supreme court when they're faced with ambiguity in the law, the argument construction may be debatable but it's typically coherent. I.e., the disagreement should make sense. Brian's argument does not make sense. Conclusion, Brian is not good at arguing. Confirmation bias. It figures, because Brian's political opinions tend to be terrible.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Football Robert Scott is a semifinalist for NFF's Campbell Trophy- Latest: Seminole Dynasty Mike
-