But I also wonder about what the founding fathers thought about service to the state. Were there no such feelings, then the concept of patriot has no meaning. At any rate, I'm certain that one thing they had in mind was "a more perfect union." A nation they clearly wanted, not a confederation of independent states.
I think the difference is in the way the service is offered. A patriot
gives their service to the state, knowing that serving the state is also serving themselves and loved ones.
An authoritarian state
demands service, and considers such service not only its just due, but a reward, in and of itself.
There are, of course times when the line is blurred. Authoritarian states may, at times show benevolence to thier citizens, and a representitive state must, at times, be authoritarian to acheive necessary ends.
I believe the Founders considered service to the state to be a moral obligation, as a limited contribution. They wanted people who would take a turn at the duty of governance, and then go home to pursue their private lives. The idea of a milita vs a standing army as one example. And the also recognised that they had to work within the culture and technology of the times. A standing army was an anathema (although they did understand its necessity on occassion), but a full time Navy was considered right an proper.
Most likely because first of all, the operation of ships and sailing was not something you could teach plowboys to master with a few weeks of drill. And second, and prehaps most importantly, the Navy could never occuppy and oppress the people (beyond the reach of port and coastal towns at any rate). Navies were costly in a way that armies of the era were not.
The Founders wanted a nation, the precise makeup of which was a very lively subject of debate. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. UI believe they all wanted a nation stronger than the Articles of Confederation could provide, and with the Constitution, we got it. And it was, at first, a nation of States, not a single nation the way we think of it today.
getting back on track, I do not care for the idea of gun locks, and even less for the legal mandate requiring their sale/use.
There are very few true accidents with firearms. Most so called accidents are the result of stupidity and or careless with the arm. Handguns have a higher rate of this happening because they are small, and easily pointed. They can be held and even fired by toddler size children in some cases and by elementary school children in nearly all cases.
The tragic "accidents" of children shooting others didn't happen often when the most common arm a child might encounter was a 5 foot long musket. And the child had been raised understanding what the gun did, if not exactly how.
Think about all the things a lock is supposed to prevent. All those "I didn't know it was loaded", and "It just went off" situations, they are the ones the antis use as emotional ammo to further their agenda.]
Anyone remember the flap from a few years ago about the muskets hanging on the wall at the Massachusetts capitol? There were a couple of the guns used at Lexington and Concord. Not just guns of the type, but the actual guns used (or so I heard). Because schoolchildren visited the capitol, current Mass law required the gun to be locked!
There is safety. There is common sense. And there is outright, over the top idiocy in pursuit of safety. We have all three at work in the nation, right now.
