Cutting the Bogus

[ZooGardens]

1. In the 1700s, there were very little laws under the new USA, for several reasons.

* We didn't know what we know today.
* We were very different Americans at the time, because the things that shaped us, hasn't come yet in the 1700s.
* The USA was brand new, and forming the Government and deciding the form that it would take, was the most important thing.
* It would take many different "revolutions" AND influential factors such as Immigration, and a Civil War to establish who we are as a country today.


2. In the 1700s, a lot of things were the status quo and how "things just were"... things that would never fly today.

3. In the 1700s, Anything new whatsoever would have been better than a lot of things that existed at the time.... it doesn't say diddly squat about today.

4. In the 1700s, Philosophy, not science was the medium of development... while Philosophy will always have its place.... science wasn't there in the 1700s at all... the scientific method wasn't even established yet.

5. There was no mandate in the 1700s to grow marijuana, nor to own guns any more than there is today.

The USA of the 1700s, isn't home to me, or whether or not you're a dickhead that thinks its home to you... it isn't.

 

[saveliberty]

Anarchy is not freedom.

 

[Eaglewings]

1. In the 1700s, there were very little laws under the new USA, for several reasons.

* We didn't know what we know today.
* We were very different Americans at the time, because the things that shaped us, hasn't come yet in the 1700s.
* The USA was brand new, and forming the Government and deciding the form that it would take, was the most important thing.
* It would take many different "revolutions" AND influential factors such as Immigration, and a Civil War to establish who we are as a country today.


2. In the 1700s, a lot of things were the status quo and how "things just were"... things that would never fly today.

3. In the 1700s, Anything new whatsoever would have been better than a lot of things that existed at the time.... it doesn't say diddly squat about today.

4. In the 1700s, Philosophy, not science was the medium of development... while Philosophy will always have its place.... science wasn't there in the 1700s at all... the scientific method wasn't even established yet.

5. There was no mandate in the 1700s to grow marijuana, nor to own guns any more than there is today.

The USA of the 1700s, isn't home to me, or whether or not you're a dickhead that thinks its home to you... it isn't.

What , are you a immigrant that came to America , and found it was disappointing to you?
You seem angry in your other threads.

I have been out of the United States many times, and I am always so happy to come back to my home America..


.

 

[Hossfly]

1. In the 1700s, there were very little laws under the new USA, for several reasons.

* We didn't know what we know today.
* We were very different Americans at the time, because the things that shaped us, hasn't come yet in the 1700s.
* The USA was brand new, and forming the Government and deciding the form that it would take, was the most important thing.
* It would take many different "revolutions" AND influential factors such as Immigration, and a Civil War to establish who we are as a country today.


2. In the 1700s, a lot of things were the status quo and how "things just were"... things that would never fly today.

3. In the 1700s, Anything new whatsoever would have been better than a lot of things that existed at the time.... it doesn't say diddly squat about today.

4. In the 1700s, Philosophy, not science was the medium of development... while Philosophy will always have its place.... science wasn't there in the 1700s at all... the scientific method wasn't even established yet.

5. There was no mandate in the 1700s to grow marijuana, nor to own guns any more than there is today.

The USA of the 1700s, isn't home to me, or whether or not you're a dickhead that thinks its home to you... it isn't.

My prediction is that the horseless carriage will replace Old Dobbin.

 

[g5000]

5. There was no mandate in the 1700s to grow marijuana, nor to own guns any more than there is today.

Actually, the Second Militia Act of 1792 required every male between 18 and 45 to own "a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder".

The very first government individual mandate.

 

[g5000]

1. In the 1700s, there were very little laws under the new USA, for several reasons.

* We didn't know what we know today.
* We were very different Americans at the time, because the things that shaped us, hasn't come yet in the 1700s.
* The USA was brand new, and forming the Government and deciding the form that it would take, was the most important thing.
* It would take many different "revolutions" AND influential factors such as Immigration, and a Civil War to establish who we are as a country today.


2. In the 1700s, a lot of things were the status quo and how "things just were"... things that would never fly today.

3. In the 1700s, Anything new whatsoever would have been better than a lot of things that existed at the time.... it doesn't say diddly squat about today.

4. In the 1700s, Philosophy, not science was the medium of development... while Philosophy will always have its place.... science wasn't there in the 1700s at all... the scientific method wasn't even established yet.

5. There was no mandate in the 1700s to grow marijuana, nor to own guns any more than there is today.

The USA of the 1700s, isn't home to me, or whether or not you're a dickhead that thinks its home to you... it isn't.

What are you trying to say?

 

[ZooGardens]

1. In the 1700s, there were very little laws under the new USA, for several reasons.

* We didn't know what we know today.
* We were very different Americans at the time, because the things that shaped us, hasn't come yet in the 1700s.
* The USA was brand new, and forming the Government and deciding the form that it would take, was the most important thing.
* It would take many different "revolutions" AND influential factors such as Immigration, and a Civil War to establish who we are as a country today.


2. In the 1700s, a lot of things were the status quo and how "things just were"... things that would never fly today.

3. In the 1700s, Anything new whatsoever would have been better than a lot of things that existed at the time.... it doesn't say diddly squat about today.

4. In the 1700s, Philosophy, not science was the medium of development... while Philosophy will always have its place.... science wasn't there in the 1700s at all... the scientific method wasn't even established yet.

5. There was no mandate in the 1700s to grow marijuana, nor to own guns any more than there is today.

The USA of the 1700s, isn't home to me, or whether or not you're a dickhead that thinks its home to you... it isn't.

What are you trying to say?

What am I trying to say ?

There is no effective way back to the 1700s, nobody would want the 1700s again, there is nobody who would accept the policies of the 1700s, and there is nobody alive today who would recognize living under neither the policies of, nor in the economy of the 1700s.

So you can forget your wet dream about the 1700s.

Its a dead horse.

 

[ZooGardens]

In the 1700s, there wasn't even a Germany yet, much less a world war 1 or World War 2.
Australia was at best, a prison island... nothing we can visit or live in today much less thrive.

 

[g5000]

1. In the 1700s, there were very little laws under the new USA, for several reasons.

* We didn't know what we know today.
* We were very different Americans at the time, because the things that shaped us, hasn't come yet in the 1700s.
* The USA was brand new, and forming the Government and deciding the form that it would take, was the most important thing.
* It would take many different "revolutions" AND influential factors such as Immigration, and a Civil War to establish who we are as a country today.


2. In the 1700s, a lot of things were the status quo and how "things just were"... things that would never fly today.

3. In the 1700s, Anything new whatsoever would have been better than a lot of things that existed at the time.... it doesn't say diddly squat about today.

4. In the 1700s, Philosophy, not science was the medium of development... while Philosophy will always have its place.... science wasn't there in the 1700s at all... the scientific method wasn't even established yet.

5. There was no mandate in the 1700s to grow marijuana, nor to own guns any more than there is today.

The USA of the 1700s, isn't home to me, or whether or not you're a dickhead that thinks its home to you... it isn't.

What are you trying to say?

What am I trying to say ?

There is no effective way back to the 1700s, nobody would want the 1700s again, there is nobody who would accept the policies of the 1700s, and there is nobody alive today who would recognize living under neither the policies of, nor in the economy of the 1700s.

So you can forget your wet dream about the 1700s.

Its a dead horse.

You sound like someone who is utterly ignorant of the genius of our Founders and the flexibility they built into our nation and our Constitution.

They had ideas which were way ahead of their time.

 

[g5000]

Methinks the OP writer is infected with the modern gambit which says we are better ruled by
extemporaneous decisions which accommodate current conditions (usually a crisis) rather than try to live by time-tested precedents.

This is one of the more dangerous arguments out there.

Why is this dangerous? Simple. If a totalitarian wanted to make a power grab during a crisis, as many Presidents have tried to do, he would be better able to justify his actions by claiming to be a modern man dealing with modern problems and that antiquated precedents are a nuisance and an obstacle to achieving what he has convinced enough sheep are the necessary goals for the "good of the people".

This is yet one more of many reasons why every living soul on the planet should read Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

 

[g5000]

THE TEMPER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN THE UNITED STATES, AND HOW IT SERVES AS A COUNTERPOISE TO DEMOCRACY

Alexis de Toqueville means that title in a good way.

Men who have made a special study of the laws derive from this occupation certain habits of order, a taste for formalities, and a kind of instinctive regard for the regular connection of ideas, which naturally render them very hostile to the revolutionary spirit and the unreflecting passions of the multitude.

The profession of the law is the only aristocratic element that can be amalgamated without violence with the natural elements of democracy and be advantageously and permanently combined with them. I am not ignorant of the defects inherent in the character of this body of men; but without this admixture of lawyer-like sobriety with the democratic principle, I question whether democratic institutions could long be maintained; and I cannot believe that a republic could hope to exist at the present time if the influence of lawyers in public business did not increase in proportion to the power of the people.

Pay special attention to this part, because it is extremely important:

This predisposition has another effect upon the character of the legal profession and upon the general course of society. The English and American lawyers investigate what has been done; the French advocate inquires what should have been done; the former produce precedents, the latter reasons. A French observer is surprised to hear how often an English or an American lawyer quotes the opinions of others and how little he alludes to his own, while the reverse occurs in France. There the most trifling litigation is never conducted without the introduction of an entire system of ideas peculiar to the counsel employed; and the fundamental principles of law are discussed in order to obtain a rod of land by the decision of the court. This abnegation of his own opinion and this implicit deference to the opinion of his forefathers, which are common to the English and American lawyer, this servitude of thought which he is obliged to profess, necessarily give him more timid habits and more conservative inclinations in England and America than in France.