What is some good literature about the founding fathers? People always say things like "When the second amendment was written they were only thinking about muskets!" which sounds true but I would like to learn more about how they thought.
Thanks guys.
Other urls found in this thread:
constitutioncenter.org
constitution.org
twitter.com
the federalist papers
If your focus is more on the Constitution, then "Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies" is essential for constitutional law students. There also exists this online, interactive source:
constitutioncenter.org
But if your focus is on the Founding Fathers themselves, then The Federalist Papers and then pretty much whatever they wrote.
Thanks guys. I really want to learn about this subject. I feel somewhat it is my duty as an American.
I've read Franklin's autobiography and I highly recommend it. It's a good read on value and ethics.
I'm Argentinian so I'm not talking out of patriotism if you are wondering.
If you have any similar literature to recommend I'll really appreciate it.
The Library of America has collections of their letters, memoirs, and some autobiographical accounts if you want primary sources. It's interesting to read their letters to get an idea of their motivations rather than the publications that were made by consensus or for public (government) consumption.
Franklin's autobiography is good. It might also make sense to read some Thomas Paine, since he was a big influence on their general thought process, and some French Revolution stuff (de Lafayette in particular) since that was in some ways the model for their own uprising.
>People always say things like "When the second amendment was written they were only thinking about muskets!" which sounds true but I would like to learn more about how they thought.
I don't know why people always say this when rapid fire weapons existed at the time and people could privately own ships with multiple cannons.
Should I read Common Sense? I have heard it mentioned a lot before.
I will check it out! Thank you.
The principle was personal defense and armed resistance to tyranny. They didn't specify "weapon restrictions" for a reason. Our current powers use advanced guns and as a counter the population should be allowed to own them as well. Or else the entire fucking point is lost.
What the founding fathers did not envision was modern cities half-composed of gangs filled with idiots shooting each other for sport every day, no
>I would like to learn more about how they thought.
They were mostly dixie slaveowning aristocrats and members of new England's merchant oligarcy. Basically smug protestant fucks who were deathly scared of democracy and the power of the masses. Thomas Paine was cool, tho. Americans seem to quote muh constitution like it was some sort of quasi biblical holy document, I always thought that was more than a bit silly
if you wnat to know about 2nd amendment read this right now - federalist pape 46
constitution.org
I sincerely admire americans' naive belief in the law as something that is real and totally exists and is not merely a vulgar and arbitrary instrument of power, to be discarded when it no longer serves the ends of the powerful
It's like 50 pages. Of course you should read it.
I would also recommend the Federalist Papers if you want to understand how and why your (I assume) country is like it is.
>Doesn't understand the difference between law and rule of law
You need some Bastiat.
That argument against the 2nd amendment is so ridiculously flimsy that I can't believe people say it
Not only do rights not work that way (you have a right to free speech on the internet even though they didn't even have mass literacy when they wrote the constitution), but additionally that's not the way the Supreme Court interprets law.
who cares what 'they' were thinking. 'they' were bourgeoisie humans, with a vested interest in maintaining their powers not supersmart omniscient gods or anything. If the 'founding fathers' were alive today, they would merely ideate another system of law designed to best serve their class interests.
Moral realism is hardly 'naive,' user.
So basically the constitution was the third and most perfect testament of the God of Abraham relayed to us by the profets, I mean founders. Like the Quran it's eternal and uncreated an attribute of the one true God, untainted by human hands or the history of men.
You know there's a process in place to amend it as needed, and that adding ten extra bits was pretty much the first thing they did after establishing a legislature?
I don't think you understand Enlightenment philosophy, which is the foundation on which the Constitution lies. You may disagree with its assumptions (hell, even I do), but it's not 'naive.'
yep, so why not throw away that useless scrap of bourgeoisie parchment once and for all? There was never a time in history where america's ruling class actually believed in the 'sanctity' of the constitution and the 'rule of law'
It's Locke's muh property combined with local puritan values. The enlightenment had more than its share of jacobins and anarchists, but they get hardly any attention
All I'm saying is of course Americans are going to believe in human rights and objective morality when their Constitution, the foundation and source of their culture, customs, and laws, is founded on the Enlightenment idea that human rationality/intellect/reason can discover various 'truths' about the world.
We'll see about those 'truths' when you taste my boot, bourgeois scum.
Thank God for the second amendment, then.
Truth is not found, it is created through Power
You don't gotta debate me on it, I agree with you. My point is it's still a highly debated issue within philosophy, and to call either side 'naive' is ignorant.
sorry, this medium encourages 'provocative' shitposting so what can I do
What country are you from that's got you so butt hurt, Pedro?
I'm here to Make Veeky Forums Great Again.
everyone hates america except Israel and maybe Kosovo