What reasonng? W hat reality? You haven't posted anything whatever that could be argued except as a "agree/disagree" kind of statement.
How old are you, anyway? You sound like somebody who has just discovered the writings of Thomas Jefferson and, somehow, believes them to be Holy Writ. You haven't posted a single solitary thing that can be argued either for or against.
Oh, does CTD have to hold your little hand and walk you through?
It's a short trip; I suppose I can play along as if I believe you really can't read.
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
Okay, let's take the part up to the first comma, alright? Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis? You might, if Jefferson's reasoning were weak, be able to argue that they could.
Now after the comma, he spells out the only firm basis. You might, were his reasoning vulnerable, be able to demonstrate either that the basis he advocates is not firm, or that some other basis has the potential to serve.
Jefferson's argument here is not immune to gainsay due to the form, as you'd have folks believe. Rather, it is invulnerable to gainsay because it is TRUTH.
Sure it's concise. Nothing wrong with that. See John 3:16 sometime, any who'd like proof. Concise statements can be erroneous; concise statements can be shown erroneous - unless they contain no error.