"All men are created equal" was most likely intended to mean "The idea that some people are nobility is nonsense and is harmful to society. Down with the bluebloods."
"All men are created equal" was most likely intended to mean "The idea that some people are nobility is nonsense and is harmful to society. Down with the bluebloods."
I'm pretty sure when he said "all men are created equal' he wasn't talking about physical characteristics.
Then he should have been more clear about what he meant because the statement that all men are created equal is demonstrably false.
So according to you it should read: We (all men and women of any and all races and sexual orientation) hold these truths to be self-evident (to those that are able to think), that all men are created equal (at birth, because obviously some are short and some are tall, some are smart and some dumb, ad infinitum), that they are endowed by their creator (some more so than others) with unalienable rights (even if they are aliens, undocumented or not), that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . . . . . .
Do you honestly believe what you are typing or are you just playing the devil's advocate?
Reread the phrase in context. It's not talking about physical attributes.
Do you honestly believe what you are typing or are you just playing the devil's advocate?
Reread the phrase in context. It's not talking about physical attributes.
Short answer:
I would just eliminate the phrase all men are created equal entirely. Leave the rest alone.
Long Answer:
IMO - the phrase was little more than a lead in and/or hook to get the attention of the audience to whom the declaration was addressed (i.e. king george). As another poster surmised the phrase was meant as a dig at the nobility. A way to say than no man was more equal than another just by right of birth. Considering the context I tend to agree with that posters posit. Unfortunately the phrase is often misinterpreted by folks who have not read the declaration in its entirety, don't have a clue why it was written and to whom it was directed. They take that single phrase and quote it out of context. It doesn't mean what the vast majority of those who have heard it think it means.
No Way Man.... this states that there was authority in the words of laymen as they addressed the king. Without this statement it would've been shunned. However, this made the king have to consider that these lowly settlers deemed themselves on the same level of importance as him. It forced his hand to agree or shut them down and try to settle with force. Force is what the colonists expected as a response and force is what they received. They then met and overcame that force.
The key is that the statement was there for a reason but before deeming themselves as the king's equals, they had to first resolve to deal with whatever consequences may come from it. They did this by pledging their life, honor and fortunes. Problem is, that we've again begun to think of aristocrats as being a level above us (or at least the aristocrats do).
I agree with jcizzle. The purpose of it being there is profound. The fact that some people don't understand it, or that they even misquote it, is irrelevant to it's significance. Imagine treating the bible the same way? If people misunderstand it, leave it out. Hah! You would have to throw out the whole thing.
Great analysis...
It furthers the posit by the earlier poster that the phrase was designed as an attention getter for the king and aristocracy. Claiming that no one deserves different treatment than others based on birth was a revolutionary (pun intended) declaration and sure to raise their ire. In other words, Jefferson was telling the king that all men should have access to equal opportunity under the law in all things legal, civil and economic - which - I still contend is not the way that most in the USA or the world for that matter interpret the statement.
Failed effort to arm Oklahoma lawmakers could see revival
http://www.newsok.com/feed/failed-e...rticle/3555963?custom_click=pod_headline_news
Appears it's back on the table.
http://www.newsok.com/feed/failed-e...rticle/3555963?custom_click=pod_headline_news
Appears it's back on the table.
In today's Daily Oklahoman:
GOP lawmaker won’t holster gun bill
By Michael McNutt
The Oklahoman
4/6/2011
For the second time in a month, House members tried Tuesday to get legislation passed that would allow lawmakers to carry guns in the state Capitol.
“There’s plenty of groups that we all made mad,” said Rep. John Bennett, R-Sallisaw, the author of an amendment that would allow legislators and former legislators to carry a firearm anywhere in the state for personal protection if they had successfully completed an approved course of firearm training.
“We as legislators need that extra protection in the event that our lives are endangered,” he said. Rep. Ron Peters, RTulsa, presiding over the House of Representatives when the measure came up, ruled the amendment was improper because it wasn’t the same subject as the bill.
Bennett filed his amendment to Senate Bill 162, which would allow a retired district attorney to carry a firearm anywhere in the state.
It also would allow a retired district attorney investigator to keep his or her sidearm and badge upon retirement.
SB 162 eventually passed and is headed to the Senate.
Backers will try again
Rep. Mike Reynolds, ROklahoma City, tried various parliamentary moves to overturn Peters’ ruling and to get the amendment voted on by the full House. He was unsuccessful.
“This is the ultimate railroad job,” Reynolds said in his debate against the bill.
“The arrogance that we’ve seen that you can block votes simply by making ridiculous rulings is normal business unfortunately.”
Reynolds said later he and others would keep trying.
“We’ll keep challenging at every opportunity,” Reynolds said. “There are legislators who have received death threats without question.”
Most House Democrats sided with several Republicans supporting the proposal, but most of the 70 Republicans voted to quash the measure.
Minority Leader Scott Inman, D-Del City, said elected officials should have the means to protect themselves.
“Every one of our guys who has been here for any number of years has had at least one encounter of somebody getting pretty irate and upset with them in their office or in the hallway, so it’s just a safety measure,” he said.
GOP lawmaker won’t holster gun bill
By Michael McNutt
The Oklahoman
4/6/2011
For the second time in a month, House members tried Tuesday to get legislation passed that would allow lawmakers to carry guns in the state Capitol.
“There’s plenty of groups that we all made mad,” said Rep. John Bennett, R-Sallisaw, the author of an amendment that would allow legislators and former legislators to carry a firearm anywhere in the state for personal protection if they had successfully completed an approved course of firearm training.
“We as legislators need that extra protection in the event that our lives are endangered,” he said. Rep. Ron Peters, RTulsa, presiding over the House of Representatives when the measure came up, ruled the amendment was improper because it wasn’t the same subject as the bill.
Bennett filed his amendment to Senate Bill 162, which would allow a retired district attorney to carry a firearm anywhere in the state.
It also would allow a retired district attorney investigator to keep his or her sidearm and badge upon retirement.
SB 162 eventually passed and is headed to the Senate.
Backers will try again
Rep. Mike Reynolds, ROklahoma City, tried various parliamentary moves to overturn Peters’ ruling and to get the amendment voted on by the full House. He was unsuccessful.
“This is the ultimate railroad job,” Reynolds said in his debate against the bill.
“The arrogance that we’ve seen that you can block votes simply by making ridiculous rulings is normal business unfortunately.”
Reynolds said later he and others would keep trying.
“We’ll keep challenging at every opportunity,” Reynolds said. “There are legislators who have received death threats without question.”
Most House Democrats sided with several Republicans supporting the proposal, but most of the 70 Republicans voted to quash the measure.
Minority Leader Scott Inman, D-Del City, said elected officials should have the means to protect themselves.
“Every one of our guys who has been here for any number of years has had at least one encounter of somebody getting pretty irate and upset with them in their office or in the hallway, so it’s just a safety measure,” he said.
Similar threads
