The quote i believe says so much.

@Doubt doubt,

Doubt doubt;155588 wrote:

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
Thomas Jefferson

I Cant quote Jefferson without throwing in my favorite.

One man with courage is a majority.
Thomas Jefferson

The ability to bear arms, and the obligation to do so was once a necessity for one seeking citizenship in a free community... The change of this obligation into a right and then an endangerd right is a change from freedom to tyranny...But it is subtle... And it will take more than guns to resist... All the so called individuals in this country are going to have to learn to act as individuals.. Everyone wants some one else to go first...

2 Replies

@Fido,

Fido;155591 wrote:

The ability to bear arms, and the obligation to do so was once a necessity for one seeking citizenship in a free community... The change of this obligation into a right and then an endangerd right is a change from freedom to tyranny...But it is subtle... And it will take more than guns to resist... All the so called individuals in this country are going to have to learn to act as individuals.. Everyone wants some one else to go first...

I agree but would like to point out that the right to bear arms was never anything but a right and is really not a right at all but covered in our right to liberty. Seems you like a lot of people believe that the constitution gave us rights when in fact it only enumerated certain rights. The united states use to be comprised of sovereigns which were the highest authority when it came to their property, be it their body, land or any other property they owned. Unfortunately it is now all but impossible to own anything completely / in an allodial title. A good example of this would be the fact that the spell-check does not even recognize the word and wants me to change it. The only thing the constitution and amendments does is enumerate some rights as to let the government know not to bother trying to take them away and grants the government privileges.

1 Reply

@Doubt doubt,

Doubt doubt;155599 wrote:

I agree but would like to point out that the right to bear arms was never anything but a right and is really not a right at all but covered in our right to liberty. Seems you like a lot of people believe that the constitution gave us rights when in fact it only enumerated certain rights. The united states use to be comprised of sovereigns which were the highest authority when it came to their property, be it their body, land or any other property they owned. Unfortunately it is now all but impossible to own anything completely / in an allodial title. A good example of this would be the fact that the spell-check does not even recognize the word and wants me to change it. The only thing the constitution and amendments does is enumerate some rights as to let the government know not to bother trying to take them away and grants the government privileges.

It is not through government that we have rights, but people form governments to defend rights; and this is true for the weak as well as the strong... The rich have always had greater protection from our government than the poor...It is not a surprise; but it is a mistake since it is natural for people to try to turn a little advantage into a larger advantage, as they have so that we are becoming a nation of slaves, with few being able to afford a gun let alone worrying about the right to own it...With economic equality goes political equality, so that each equality is long since spent...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido;155626 wrote:

It is not through government that we have rights, but people form governments to defend rights; and this is true for the weak as well as the strong... The rich have always had greater protection from our government than the poor...It is not a surprise; but it is a mistake since it is natural for people to try to turn a little advantage into a larger advantage, as they have so that we are becoming a nation of slaves, with few being able to afford a gun let alone worrying about the right to own it...With economic equality goes political equality, so that each equality is long since spent...

I agree but if you had said that to begin with i would not have needed to reply.

0 Replies

@Doubt doubt,

Doubt doubt;155588 wrote:

One man with courage is a majority.
Thomas Jefferson

This must be an archaic use of the word "majority". Otherwise the quote just doesn't make sense.

3 Replies

@Deckard,

Deckard;155641 wrote:

This must be an archaic use of the word "majority". Otherwise the quote just doesn't make sense.

I think he meant it as in as good as having greater numbers. Like one man with courage could kick all the cowards butts or that one man can accomplish as much as a majority if he has the courage to try or that one man with courage would be the only man around with courage. I do not know why but i dig it.

0 Replies

@Deckard,

Deckard;155641 wrote:

This must be an archaic use of the word "majority". Otherwise the quote just doesn't make sense.

No. Haven't you ever heard "he is a majority of one"? What it means is that a courageous man can sometimes do what many can do (or even cannot do). Courage is more powerful than are mere numbers.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;155651 wrote:

No. Haven't you ever heard "he is a majority of one"? What it means is that a courageous man can sometimes do what many can do (or even cannot do). Courage is more powerful than are mere numbers.

What definition of majority are you going by here?

1 Reply

@Deckard,

Deckard;155653 wrote:

What definition of majority are you going by here?

The usual definition is, "most of those". But, of course, what Jefferson said was metaphorical. He was talking about the term, "majority" as meaning "the power of most". So what he was saying was that although one person is not literally a majority, one person of courage can do what a majority often can do, and enforce his will just as a majority can.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Doing what a majority can do does not make one a majority. The dictionary lists an obsolete definition of majority as the quality of superiority as opposed to the modern use which is exclusively quantitative. I hypothesize the qualitative meaning of the word was still in circulation along with the quantitative.

Or else it just strikes me as a clunky metaphor. It reminds me of "Some are more equal than others". Courage is a great and valuable thing but it can't make 2+2=5.

3 Replies

@Deckard,

Deckard;155641 wrote:

This must be an archaic use of the word "majority". Otherwise the quote just doesn't make sense.

If we had a democracy then each person would have charge of their own affairs, and charge over the affairs of others only to the extent that the others affairs intruded upon their own...For example, no one could tell you what to do in your own space; but if you polluted the ground water with your activity then people would have a say...Democracy does not give any one the right to abridge the rights of others, with government or without, and all rights do find their natural limits when they injure the whole people...

If a person has the courage to some times stand alone, they have the right, as well as the obligation to govern their own behavior...It is not the obligation of government to govern people, but to goven things and events beyond the control of individuals... Today people must be controlled because the laws and constitution allow too much injustice, and the injured people strike out blindly in their pain... Even when they wave the flag of their fathers they know that we the people have been injured by the government of we the people...

0 Replies

@Deckard,

Deckard;155662 wrote:

Doing what a majority can do does not make one a majority. T.

Of course not. Not literally. Look, it just means that a courageous man can often do what many cannot do. Forget the term, "majority". It is just a way of putting the point. If you find it awkward or puzzling, it really does not matter. (Gee, and I am the one so often taxed with taking things too literally!)

0 Replies

@Deckard,

Deckard;155662 wrote:

Doing what a majority can do does not make one a majority. The dictionary lists an obsolete definition of majority as the quality of superiority as opposed to the modern use which is exclusively quantitative. I hypothesize the qualitative meaning of the word was still in circulation along with the quantitative.

Or else it just strikes me as a clunky metaphor. It reminds me of "Some are more equal than others". Courage is a great and valuable thing but it can't make 2+2=5.

In Greece, virtue was the equivalent of courage, what we may call moral courage, and a person with moral courage may have influence far beyond his own number... But; no matter how people behave when their nation and morals are in decline, which is often as animals casting about for a victim of their rage and frustration, still, to see people stripped of their pain is to see them as moral, as we should all want to be, not small, cruel, parochial, or demeaned... There is a lot of good in this place just as there was in Nazi Germany; but people forced to endure injustice in their own land often attack others to do unto others as has been done unto them... It is un-Christian, and it is us; but what have we left but to turn on the system and the people who are the cause of our pain???

To live a moral and courgeous life requires no law, and no police, and no prison...And no one but a moral and courageous person is fit for self government... Then it is not a matter of numbers... If everyone minded their own business and expected the same from others, and if no one took their bread from the sweat of another, or injured any for their sweets, then government over the people would be unnecessary...Government should control that which without government would control us... The economy is a perfect example...International trade is another...

1 Reply

@Deckard,

Deckard;155662 wrote:

Doing what a majority can do does not make one a majority. The dictionary lists an obsolete definition of majority as the quality of superiority as opposed to the modern use which is exclusively quantitative. I hypothesize the qualitative meaning of the word was still in circulation along with the quantitative.

Or else it just strikes me as a clunky metaphor. It reminds me of "Some are more equal than others". Courage is a great and valuable thing but it can't make 2+2=5.

no but if you have ten friends with you and i have just me and i spank all your butts, i have the majority of the butt spanking capability in the situation. If you eleven are cowards and i am brave i have the majority of the bravery. Majority means more or most and only involves numbers when numbers are what is being examined. The old definition is right and the new one of which you speak is a big part of what is wrong with this world. A good example was the ratification of the constitution. Nobody in The united states would have stood for a national government so the nationalist created articles called the federalist because people wanted a federation. the federalists then made articles called the anti-federalist. but nobody read enough to realize that the anti-federalist were actual the federalists and the federalist were the hated nationalists. Now the definition of national government has been changed to federal but we got stuck with what we did not want because of people believing anything they are told. Calling The now capital U United States a democracy does not make it any less a republic than calling china communist china makes it a communist country.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido;155672 wrote:

In Greece, virtue was the equivalent of courage,

I think courage was a virtue. It was certainly not the only virtue. Self-control was another. So it could not have been that virtue was the equivalent of courage.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 12:13 PM ----------

Deckard;155662 wrote:

Doing what a majority can do does not make one a majority. The dictionary lists an obsolete definition of majority as the quality of superiority as opposed to the modern use which is exclusively quantitative. I hypothesize the qualitative meaning of the word was still in circulation along with the quantitative.

Or else it just strikes me as a clunky metaphor. It reminds me of "Some are more equal than others". Courage is a great and valuable thing but it can't make 2+2=5.

If someone said that money makes the world go round, would you tell him that he knows no physics? Excessive and inappropriate literalism is a sign of mental disease. Some schizophrenics are unable to understand figurative language. A word to the wise.

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido;155591 wrote:

The ability to bear arms, and the obligation to do so was once a necessity for one seeking citizenship in a free community... The change of this obligation into a right and then an endangerd right is a change from freedom to tyranny...But it is subtle... And it will take more than guns to resist... All the so called individuals in this country are going to have to learn to act as individuals.. Everyone wants some one else to go first...

So it was written by some. Had we come bearing gifts rather than guns things might have turned out differently. Some did and what thanksgiving was all about among the first that arrived. The guns didn't come until much later. The first guns killed turkeys, not men. Of course there are some men who speak gobbledegook today; we don't need to kill them, just wash their mouths out with soap, ha! What a cleansing, refreshing thought.

William

1 Reply

@William,

William;155707 wrote:

So it was written by some. Had we come bearing gifts rather than guns things might have turned out differently. Some did and what thanksgiving was all about among the first that arrived. The guns didn't come until much later. The first guns killed turkeys, not men. Of course there are some men who speak gobbledegook today; we don't need to kill them, just wash their mouths out with soap, ha! What a cleansing, refreshing thought.

William

Had we come bearing gifts, they might very well have slaughtered us, and taken our gifts.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;155691 wrote:

I think courage was a virtue. It was certainly not the only virtue. Self-control was another. So it could not have been that virtue was the equivalent of courage.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 12:13 PM ----------

You know, it seems like I just read that the other day, in Stone's book about the trial of Socrates...I will see if I can find it... How do you translate Arete???

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 03:57 PM ----------

William;155707 wrote:

So it was written by some. Had we come bearing gifts rather than guns things might have turned out differently. Some did and what thanksgiving was all about among the first that arrived. The guns didn't come until much later. The first guns killed turkeys, not men. Of course there are some men who speak gobbledegook today; we don't need to kill them, just wash their mouths out with soap, ha! What a cleansing, refreshing thought.

William

I would not doubt that most turkeys were killed with a sort of trap the Indians devised, very simple, and effective, and it killed no animals but kept them penned until a man arrived with a club...

2 Replies

@Fido,

What if there are two equally courageous men with opposing opinions? Is that two majorities?

Justice, Wisdom and Moderation are the other three cardinal virtues that trace back to the Greeks and Plato.
Justice, wisdom and moderation temper courage before it becomes too bold or irrational, for example when you start thinking of yourself as a majority of one which is clearly a contradiction in terms unless you are alone.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 03:34 PM ----------

Doubt doubt;155677 wrote:

The old definition is right and the new one of which you speak is a big part of what is wrong with this world.

I have spoken of both definitions. If you are going with "majority" meaning the quality of superiority then Jefferson quote makes sense. We can only guess that this is the way Jefferson used the phrase but the fact that he says "one man" suggests that he is at the same time talking about majority in the numerical sense.

Thoreau used a similar line in Civil Disobedience. I usually like both Jefferson and Thoreau's style of writing but I find this particular phrase clunky and a bit silly. It's a piece of rhetoric that just doesn't appeal to me.

2 Replies

The quote i believe says so much.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know