TexasCHLforum.com

it was my understanding that Jefferson believed that it would be required for the people to overthough the govenrment every fey decades
and it hasnt happend yet although there was an attempt to remove parts of the nation that failed and as they say the south is gunna do it again i think we are not far off from that becoming true as the freedoms keep being taken away a little at a time

lunchbox wrote:it was my understanding that Jefferson believed that it would be required for the people to overthough the govenrment every fey decades

Where did you get that piece of information?

quak history teacher i cant back that up with anything at all just stuff i heard

the idea was that he had no faith in people to not be corupted over time and in need of removal by force if need be

lunchbox wrote:the idea was that he had no faith in people to not be corupted over time and in need of removal by force if need be

Maybe your teacher wasn't such a quack. Jefferson was quoted: "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion."

- Thomas Jefferson, "Tree of Libery" letter, November 13, 1787
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct ... /blood.htm
this link was just sent to me


in no way do i pretend to know everything
as i am only 21 and have no degree in history
im just a greese monkey

You were pretty accurate as to your recollection:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Concerning the Shays' Rebellion after he had heard of the bloodshed, Thomas Jefferson wrote to William S. Smith, John Adams's son-in-law.

...from the Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

that doesnt mean we need a full scale war but the people in office need to be kept in check and as it stands we have no real means to do so

im all for having our rights restored but what method do we have what do we have to make them hear us
one would think the mass number of inocent people kelled evey year is reason enough to be armed even though thats not what the 2nd ammendment is for just that should make the powers that be realize the need but no they want stiffer rules and regulations to keep the law abiding people from the ability to protect ones self ones property and ones family


dems make me sick to my stomach

You are correct sir.
The problem is they do not care how many die.
They only care how many they can control.
LT

lunchbox wrote:that doesnt mean we need a full scale war but the people in office need to be kept in check and as it stands we have no real means to do so

John Ross wrote a novel exploring one way to fix the problem.

and prey tell how do we solve the problem

lunchbox wrote:and prey tell how do we solve the problem

Advocacy. Letting folks know, Net Gingrich engineered a huge take over of the house called the "Contract with America" Americans revolted and in the course of 4 years replaced a Democratic controlled House with a Republican Controlled one. A Democratic Controlled Senate with a Republican Controlled Senate. Impeached a Democratic President and ellected a Republican.

What Happened? The new guys turned into the same creeps we voted out. They controlled every thing but we still had the corruption of Delay, pushed more pork than the Democrats ever thought of , and never improved our energy policy. Shucks we elected a Republican president that would sign an assault weapons ban, and can't even say "nuclear". We would have had drilling on ANWAR anf florida if he held Congress feet to the fire. Instead we have $4.00 gas.

Is it hopeless? Admittedly things are at a low. Activisim such as what we observe through this board is pretty effective. I believe if we can get an effective third party thrown into the mix, It will have a positive effect on keeping the other two more honest. I need to stop supporting crooks who just because they belong to "our party" . We need to vote on folks, because of what they have done and their proven character , not because of how sweet talking they are, nor of their "charisma"

DParker wrote:

lunchbox wrote:and i dont mind covering my gin but i dont want to be told i have to

so i guess nukes would be included in "arm" but again a little out of my price range

Your personal inability to afford an H-bomb isn't really the useful yardstick you seem to think it is. Such things are not out of everyone's price range. I can think of at least one or two groups who are resident in the U.S. and who not only have the financial means to acquire nukes (were it legal to buy them or their major componants), but who would then not hesitate to use them against large U.S. population centers.

For such groups, legality is no more a concern than gun control is a concern to the strong-arm robber.

If t hey have the means and the desire, they will acquire whatever they wish. Laws prohibit, but they never prevent.

KBCraig wrote:

DParker wrote:Your personal inability to afford an H-bomb isn't really the useful yardstick you seem to think it is. Such things are not out of everyone's price range. I can think of at least one or two groups who are resident in the U.S. and who not only have the financial means to acquire nukes (were it legal to buy them or their major componants), but who would then not hesitate to use them against large U.S. population centers.

For such groups, legality is no more a concern than gun control is a concern to the strong-arm robber.

If t hey have the means and the desire, they will acquire whatever they wish. Laws prohibit, but they never prevent.

I wasn't suggesting that the hypothetical purchasers are controlled by the law, but the prospect of long-term imprisonment (or execution) is likely something of a deterrant for those who would otherwise be free to legally sell such materials. If it weren't then Al Qaeda (et al) would already be a nuclear power, with predictable results.