Summations Only

Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.

Look, I could go back through this thread and find all the derogatory nasty accusations against me and those on my side, but I don't care enough. We've regularly been called insane, "gun nuts," and accused of disregarding the victims of murderers just as you accused me. And that's all I can remember off the top of my head. You haven't noticed? But you want me, one of what, five or six on this thread who share my opinion, to avoid all remarks of that sort against our opponents? Really, DA, you have no sense of proportion. Or you're just so hypersensitive one must walk on eggs around you.

Somebody put that quote up a while back. Jefferson I believe. I find it rather undecipherable myself and I suspect it was something he wrote in a passing mood. So he's entitled to his opinion. What's your point?