Where did romney get his quote from john adams in his Faith in America speech?

Answer 1

~He got it from the same place you should. He researched it, very likely from a website on Adams quotes or from a source such as Bartlett or similar book on quotations.



To vote usa:

You might want to learn a little about Adams. Compare what he said about Daniel Shay's and his compatriots to what Jefferson said, among other things. Your paradigm of personal rights and liberties was a Federalist, in case that means anything to you. If you claim to know anything about the man, then you know that his party affiliation in and of itself makes him a lousy source of support for you mistaken beliefs. For a much better idea of who Adams was, take a good look at his power play at the end of his term, when he tried to force the extension of Federalist power into the Administration of Thomas Jefferson and to constrict the ability of the duly elected Democratic-Republicans to govern. His antics perpetuated the greatest constitutional crisis this country has ever experienced, save only the Civil War. Had John Marshall not been a fraud and a coward, albeit very possibly an Adams co-conspirator, the government may well have collapsed and the great American experiment in democracy may have ended in 1803. All thanks to John Adams thrust and Tom Jefferson's parry.

Your "god-given' right to bear arms is not guaranteed under the Constitution. What you get from your almighty is all well and good, but regardless of the flavor you kneel to, don't expect it to hold up in court, where the law rules the day. It is nice to know your deity blesses your right to kill your fellow man. Remind me to cross the street if I ever find myself in the vicinity of your church.

First of all, the Second Amendment says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Since a militia is no longer necessary, and no sanctioned militia exists, the right to bear arms at all is no longer protected. You can't have one part of the Amendment without the other. Self-defense is not mentioned; the constitutional concern is defense of the nation. You obviously know nothing as to the "common law right of self-defense", which is actually known in the common law (and in statutory law such as it exists and where it exists, and which supersedes the common law) as the defense of justification. It is, and always has been, extremely limited and difficult to put before a jury, let alone prove.

Second: the operative word is "infringed" as opposed to, for instance, "denied" or "controlled". By simple logic and language, gun control is more than permissible under the Constitution, it is required, at least as 'infringed' was defined at the time it was chosen by the Framers to the exclusion of other words.

Third: The constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights referred to limitations and restraints on the Federal government only. The several states were entitled to pass legislation such as was deemed by them to be necessary for the good of the states and their citizens, including gun control or gun prohibition.

Fourth: Since a state under the Constitution could not raise an army and could only raise a militia with the consent of the Congress, there is no claim that the Second Amendment was intended to allow unfettered gun ownership by all on the pretense that those guns were necessary to enable state militias to exist and function and there was no intent or mandate in the Constitution that the several states could not enact firearm legislation.

Fifth: The 'right to bear arms' does not inherently include ALL arms. If the drafters had had some notion that automatic weapons, nuclear weapons, biological weapons or chemical weapons might someday exist, you can be sure they would have been a little more specific about the reference to the flintlocks, rifles and muskets, pistols, knives, swords, axes, hatchets and similar personal weapons to which they referred.

Do you also presume in your wonderland world that the unrestricted right to 'bear' arms carries with it the unrestricted right to 'use' arms, or can we agree that use of arms is subject to control. By your convoluted 'logic', are you suggesting I have the right to fire a rocket at a burglar, and my neighbor can then hit me with some Agent Orange or anthrax because my missile inadvertently messed up his lawn or turned his kids into collateral damage, after which the guy across the street can nuke us both because we disturbed his peace or each of our weapons over-sprayed took out his mistress and his dog? You are saying, after all, that we each have the right to own any type of "arms" we want without restriction of any kind and we can use them if our physical safety or lives are threatened.

Oh the fun they could have had at Columbine if your world had been for real.

And of course, if you are correct in your assertion, the next bus load of terrorists (let's make them home-grown citizens without felony records to avoid the arguments about the constitutional rights of aliens, be they legal or illegal, or visitors here with or without valid passports or visas or convicted felons) can stop off at Sears, pick up a few grenades, AK-47s and Uzis and jump on a plane (if the right to bear arms is absolute, they cannot be prohibited from boarding with their weapons, after all), waste everyone on board and fly off on their merry way to whatever tower they want to bring down. Gee, that's swell.

By the way, I own 1 pistol, 3 revolvers, 3 rifles and 2 shotguns and I really don't want to give any of them up. I do know, however, that my absolute right to own them, use them, possess them or carry them is not constitutionally protected and never was. I have no need for an automatic and, having fired several different kinds, I can see no constitutionally protected need or practical use for them - especially in the hands of the untrained, untested and unevaluated general public - and I would much rather give up all of my firearms rather than to see the unrestricted right of ownership of any and all weapons, or even just firearms, by the public at large. The thought of free and unrestricted possession of any type of firearm, and especially automatics and assault rifles, grenades and rockets by gangs, criminals, the mentally ill, anti-social psychopaths and neocon militias scares the hell out of me, never mind all the morons who kill themselves and others because they don't know how to handle a weapon or all the children who die because their moron parents don't know how to store them. Oh, wait a minute. You want to allow kindergarten children to be able to take hand grenades to school. Now THAT might be kinda neat, especially in a snowball fight.


The sad thing is, the right to vote is all but absolute, giving those with such little knowledge of the issues, the Constitution, the law and the logical consequences of their uninformed, uneducated and infantile moronic ravings as you the same power at the polls as someone with half a brain and a thimbleful of sense.

Answer 2

First of all Gary, what's your supply? John Adams as good as his son are good documented as Unitarians. Secondly, Adams opinion isn't rule of regulation and consequently isn't evidence that the United States was once headquartered as a Christian nation. In reality all his assertion does is voice his opinion that the ideas of those 2 associations had been in alignment on the time of his assertion. The formers of the charter mainly didn't claim the United States as a faith founded state (theocracy) and the Bill of Rights prohibits the state established order of faith de facto erecting a wall of separation among church and state (examine your Thomas Jefferson and Supreme Court Rulings). While especially of devout denominations that had been or are Christian, the founders of this country had been, love it or no longer, devout liberals and fought for devout freedom. It could had been idiot hardy of them to show round and deny that freedom to others or within the very least hypocritical. Your twisting of Adams phrases to fit your possess functions is extremely obvious and your ravings at different as to their "no longer doing their homework", belies the weaknesses of your possess arguments. Furthermore, I may also be quite particular that the satisfactory reply for this question might be presented through you to the man or woman who satisfactory parrots your present ideals, no longer the man or woman with probably the most actual and considerate reply.

Answer 3

Willard should not be quoting John Adams at all seeing how his support for assault weapon bans, and the Brady bill violate our god given rights, urinate on the constitution, and go a gainst John Adams belief in common law of self-defense.

Its a completely different animal.

Answer 4

Yeah.