They are a bit more then that. I would call them party propoganda.

no... they were mail spam, really really well written and awesome mail spam, but still mail spam.

why is the guy with the gun not facing you?

and why not use your kah-muke nuke?

Without examining precidence and the philosophy of the founders it's open to misinterpretation.


You KNOW that the document was not written in precise legal terms. That leaves it open for exploitation. Which is what you're doing.



That statement supports gun ownership.


meh... watch the trip wires and claymore mines.

Perhaps it does. But it overlooks something: guns make it easier for people to be dangerous without any time, effort, or training.



Your right, it wasn't written in precise legal terms. Doesn't change the fact that I've studied the constitution, and the federal papers barely made the grade as worth mentioning in any of my history classes.

Fact is, the founders screwed up big time when they didn't delineate exactly what they meant. They had to know the culture would change, and thus the meaning of the words would change unless they were (very) careful. And they didn't.

You said it and it is 100% correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WWW Link

here are the papers online! BTW the Federalist papers and the "anti-federalist papers" are the same document as the the combined essays of the pro and con positions regarding the radification of the constitution are the papers themselves.

quite correct.

hah, finally nice to see a devs on one of these forums

That isn't overlooked. It's the point.

You're supposed to be dangerous.


Again... I am supposed to be powerful. Citizens are supposed to be powerful. Our voice controls the country and if anyone messes with us we can always use the final option of blowing their freakn' brains out.



Guns do more to make people equal anyway then just about anything. Without guns any group of 5 young strong men can do pretty much whatever they want unless you have another group with more young strong men.


Countries without guns STILL have gangs but the gangs behave differently. Instead of drive byes they kick in the front door with baseball bats WHILE you're at home and take over.


Do that in the US and there's a good chance at least one of their heads will get turned into a canoe.




Your history class was poor then. The federalist papers are required reading in any serious US history course that focuses on the constitution or the founding of the country.


that's just a fact.


Which is why only those that want to exploit the system would make use of those mistakes. If you respect the constitution, which you apparently don't, then you don't do that. Ergo it comes down to simple pressure politics followed by the final solution of violence.


This is not an issue you're going to win on unless you do change the constitution. I won't respect your will on this unless you respect the constitution. Try to cheat and I'll deal with you like a cheater.


Blood and bone.
==========================================================================

It's more complicated then that. It's about changing the middle east and ending terrorism at the source.


It's unfortunate that Bush is such a poor speaker and thus such a poor politican. That's really his biggest flaw... he's horrible at politics... it's kind of amazing that he became president but the alternative was Al Gore.... republicans and democrats suck... they've been contributing really bad politicians ever since 2000... every election since has been a joke.

actually Iraq was a pretty good place to start. The only thing I'd say about it was that maybe we should have finished in Afghanistan first.


But Saddam was perfect... his country was in violation of a million UN resolutions, no body liked him, his people hated him, and his country is right next to Iran and Saudi Arabia... the two countries most responsible for terrorism but which are too strong and too tied into US foreign policy to attack.

No, I just assume they had half a brain and wrote down exactly what they meant, in language that recognizes the basic fact that cultures change.

BTW, you are aware of the fact that I yielded (most) of the point already? I'm simply holding out on the fact that the founding fathers screwed up the wording for their intent...

In my opinion Saudia Arabia is what is keeping our gas prices from going into the double digets.



Vanishing as quickly as Apple Pie.

Someone call England...



Its intent was to make sure that power was not held in by one single man. And in that it has failed. I see no point in keeping it. Makes a nice conversation piece though.



Thomas Jefferson thought we would all be farmers and he got over that pretty quickly.

Indubitably, good chap

They did make things as clear as any committee work can be made, to the educated people of the time; faulting them for not anticipating the absolutely ridiculous degree of legalistic precision expected in modern law is neither justified nor productive.

The documents are what they are; there's no reason to not take them at face value, in their original context, unless one seeks a loophole through which to remove the rights they protect. And if you're already at that point, then you wouldn't likely have any more respect for them had they been written as they would today.