Whenever ones tax dollars are used for a purpose they find disagreeable, it’s phrased in such terms.
You seriously don’t see the difference between forced, wasteful spending from government and charity? If you don’t, you’re not terribly smart.
1 Like
And what’s more general to ones welfare than good health, food and shelter.
Ok, do try to make your point without personal insults. Again, there’s always going to be something government wants to spend your tax dollars on that you disapprove of. And when they do you feel forced upon…
And where is the well regulated militia at. And why isn’t that being used to provide for my security instead of a standing army which remains stationed about the ME fighting gratuitous wars to ensure that China and Japan continue to receive their oil, hmmm?
Telling you that you’re not smart isn’t an insult, it’s an observation. That said, you’ll be fine princess.
OF THE UNITED STATES… why do you folks always miss that part? Not of the PEOPLE… of the NATION. It’s not good for the nation to create a bunch of dependents.
Of course it’s an insult.
Federalist 46. That’s where the first part of the 2nd Amendment comes into play. It’s the the premise of the right. I’m not sure why this is so difficult for some to read… this is a right granted TO THE PEOPLE … BECAUSE we need a well regulated militia. Go read Federalist 46… here’s a taste…
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
Take it how you want, if you don’t see the difference between charity and forced government spending, then you’re not smart. Don’t like it? Educate yourself.
Yep, the general welfare of the United States. I wasn’t suggesting that the government should be concerning themselves with the general welfare of the citizens of France or Japan.
Indeed, when we are talking the Federal there was no delegated power given Congress to pass laws to require background checks etc.
Essentially all current federal gun control laws are outside of the scope of the Powers actually granted.
1 Like
The United States is different than “the people”. Pathetic.
If you want to debate this then you’ll not insult my intelligence just because you disagree with my opinion. It’s quite clear to me that the government’s mandate is to provide for general (or basic) welfare. I’d be much happier seeing my tax dollars putting shoes on people’s feet and food on their tables than paying for the many more frivolous things they do.
Of course it’s not…
First off, don’t be so damn sensitive. You make stupid comments, I’m going to call you on them and I really don’t care if you see it as an insult. It’s just an observation.
NO, general doesn’t mean basic. General welfare of The United States means exactly what it says. It doesn’t mean the “basic welfare of the people”… if they had meant that, they would have SAID that…
The general welfare of the United States means that which is good for the country as a whole. It means infrastructure, or have you never read any of the Federalist Papers to get an idea of original intent? On to the last part of your statement, that’s EXACTLY my point. You would rather… well, get the damn government out of the middle and you can CHOOSE what you think will do the most good and direct your cash to where it’s going to help. The founders thought we had a moral duty to help others but not a government obligation. Had they been of the opinion that we need to help individuals, they would have passed legislation to give handouts. They didn’t. Does that tell you their intent? They DID pass bills to fund infrastructure…
Next statement… you seriously don’t think The United States is different than “the people”? Then why the hell did they say the people in the 2nd while calling out the United States in the general welfare clause?
The people are mentioned TWICE in the Constitution prior to the Bill of Rights. Why? Maybe because the original Constitution was a definition of what the government was allowed to do? The People were mentioned 6 times in the Bill of Rights. Why? Because it was identifying specific rights that the government was to keep their mitts off of?
How about the 10th Amendment?
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The powers not delegated to the UNITED STATES are reserved to the states or people.
It’s CLEAR that the founders considered the people to be different than the United States. Flat out, you’re wrong.
If you think I’m making a stupid comment, then by all means make your case criticizing my comment and point out why your opinion is superior and we can discuss it. But insulting my intelligence is not only uncivil, but violates forum rules…
So report me and stop crying.
Snowflakes Sprinkle into tears when they can’t accept their own way to process has short circuited on the way to understanding!
1 Like
Wouldn’t it be easier to be civil???