The 2nd Amendment

[CBWx2]

All states were to have well trained and armed militias so that they could not only fight usurpation from the federal government, but also to protect their sovereignty from infringements by other states

So you are saying one of the roles of local militias was to protect it, if necessary from the Federal Govt?

The Constitution refers specifically to organized state militias, not local ones, and their role was for protection from a federal army, not from federal authority. This distinction needs to be made, since I am well aware of the line you are attempting to draw. Madison's complete essay addressed the concerns of a federal government capable of dissolving state governments one by one, the part quoted by Dolorous Jason specifically addressing the issue of a federal army.

The protection from arbitrary federal authority lies in the power of the vote, not in the rifle.

[Biggs3535]

CBWx2,

I would point to this quote for further proof of what the founding fathers meant:

"I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason

Your mistake is in your portrayal of the founders as a homogenous group. They were not. They were just as diverse a group as what exists in America today, which is why random quotes from a specific founder in no way shape or form represents all opinions held by all the founders.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you were trying to pimp a letter earlier from George Washington as proof that he didn't agree /the 2nd - or some such nonsense.  Why was it OK for you to quote a FF, however erroneous it was, but not OK for someone else to do the same?

[spartan]

All states were to have well trained and armed militias so that they could not only fight usurpation from the federal government, but also to protect their sovereignty from infringements by other states

So you are saying one of the roles of local militias was to protect it, if necessary from the Federal Govt?

The Constitution refers specifically to organized state militias, not local ones, and their role was for protection from a federal army, not from federal authority. This distinction needs to be made, since I am well aware of the line you are attempting to draw. Madison's complete essay addressed the concerns of a federal government capable of dissolving state governments one by one, the part quoted by Dolorous Jason specifically addressing the issue of a federal army.

The protection from arbitrary federal authority lies in the power of the vote, not in the rifle.

And the Federal Army is at the beck and call of the Federal Govt  is it not? It's not like it arbitrarily invades places and starts wars on its own cognizance!

[CBWx2]

CBWx2,

I would point to this quote for further proof of what the founding fathers meant:

"I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason

Your mistake is in your portrayal of the founders as a homogenous group. They were not. They were just as diverse a group as what exists in America today, which is why random quotes from a specific founder in no way shape or form represents all opinions held by all the founders.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you were trying to pimp a letter earlier from George Washington as proof that he didn't agree /the 2nd - or some such nonsense.  Why was it OK for you to quote a FF, however erroneous it was, but not OK for someone else to do the same?

The letter showed that Washington didn't support the right to armed insurrection against the Union. His quote was to suggest what the founders meant by the 2nd amendment.

Let's clarify, the Washington quote referred to his opinion on armed insurrections. The Mason quote was to suggest the 2nd amendment's true purpose by quoting a person who was opposed to the whole idea of the US Constitution, therefor serves as no direct influence in decoding it's meanings and intent on a particular amendment.

Got that?

[CBWx2]

All states were to have well trained and armed militias so that they could not only fight usurpation from the federal government, but also to protect their sovereignty from infringements by other states

So you are saying one of the roles of local militias was to protect it, if necessary from the Federal Govt?

The Constitution refers specifically to organized state militias, not local ones, and their role was for protection from a federal army, not from federal authority. This distinction needs to be made, since I am well aware of the line you are attempting to draw. Madison's complete essay addressed the concerns of a federal government capable of dissolving state governments one by one, the part quoted by Dolorous Jason specifically addressing the issue of a federal army.

The protection from arbitrary federal authority lies in the power of the vote, not in the rifle.

And the Federal Army is at the beck and call of the Federal Govt  is it not? It's not like it arbitrarily invades places and starts wars on its own cognizance!

That is correct. But a "local militia" wouldn't be too practical a means of safeguarding against this, would it? Now a well organized and well maintained state militia on the other hand...

We are also referring to matters of state defense against a federal military coup de gras, not an individual citizen's inherent right to rebel. As Madison said, the power lies with the majority. If the majority votes to ban semi-automatic weaponry, that does not give the minority the right to take up arms in an effort to usurp the government while it is acting in the interest of the majority.

[spartan]

The letter showed that Washington didn't support the right to armed insurrection against the Union. His quote was to suggest what the founders meant by the 2nd amendment.

Let's clarify, the Washington quote referred to his opinion on armed insurrections. The Mason quote was to suggest the 2nd amendment's true purpose by quoting a person who was opposed to the whole idea of the US Constitution, therefor serves as no direct influence in decoding it's meanings and intent on a particular amendment.

Got that?

Nope.

[CBWx2]

The letter showed that Washington didn't support the right to armed insurrection against the Union. His quote was to suggest what the founders meant by the 2nd amendment.

Let's clarify, the Washington quote referred to his opinion on armed insurrections. The Mason quote was to suggest the 2nd amendment's true purpose by quoting a person who was opposed to the whole idea of the US Constitution, therefor serves as no direct influence in decoding it's meanings and intent on a particular amendment.

Got that?

Nope.

Of course you don't. Because like everything else brought to light in this thread, it is inconvenient for you. Washington was among the majority of founders who were federalists, those who supported the drafting of a new Constitution expanding federal authority. George Mason was among a minority of founders who were anti-federalists, those who wished to keep in place the Articles of Confederation.

Of those two, who would have a more significant insight towards the true intent of the Constitution, the guy who called for it, or the guy who wanted no part of it?

[spartan]

If the majority votes to ban semi-automatic weaponry, that does not give the minority the right to take up arms in an effort to usurp the government while it is acting in the interest of the majority.

Nobody says they do. You keep on arguing points that nobody is arguing against.

[Biggs3535]

CBWx2,

I would point to this quote for further proof of what the founding fathers meant:

"I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason

Your mistake is in your portrayal of the founders as a homogenous group. They were not. They were just as diverse a group as what exists in America today, which is why random quotes from a specific founder in no way shape or form represents all opinions held by all the founders.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you were trying to pimp a letter earlier from George Washington as proof that he didn't agree /the 2nd - or some such nonsense.  Why was it OK for you to quote a FF, however erroneous it was, but not OK for someone else to do the same?

The letter showed that Washington didn't support the right to armed insurrection against the Union. His quote was to suggest what the founders meant by the 2nd amendment.

Let's clarify, the Washington quote referred to his opinion on armed insurrections. The Mason quote was to suggest the 2nd amendment's true purpose by quoting a person who was opposed to the whole idea of the US Constitution, therefor serves as no direct influence in decoding it's meanings and intent on a particular amendment.

Got that?

Sure.  You like to have your cake and eat it too, which is just as I surmised.

[spartan]

The letter showed that Washington didn't support the right to armed insurrection against the Union. His quote was to suggest what the founders meant by the 2nd amendment.

Let's clarify, the Washington quote referred to his opinion on armed insurrections. The Mason quote was to suggest the 2nd amendment's true purpose by quoting a person who was opposed to the whole idea of the US Constitution, therefor serves as no direct influence in decoding it's meanings and intent on a particular amendment.

Got that?

Nope.

Of course you don't. Because like everything else brought to light in this thread, it is inconvenient for you. Washington was among the majority of founders who were federalists, those who supported the drafting of a new Constitution expanding federal authority. George Mason was among a minority of founders who were anti-federalists, those who wished to keep in place the Articles of Confederation.

Of those two, who would have a more significant insight towards the true intent of the Constitution, the guy who called for it, or the guy who wanted no part of it?

Actually I don't get it because you seem to be saying Washington's opinion counts because you think it supports your corner,  but Masons opinion doesn't because it doesn't.  I also don't agree with your interpretation of it. It seems to me he is against causing havoc for any and every grievance as a matter of course, but suggests it can be legitimate when you have a bona fide and serious grievance which are not addressed.

Please don't counter argue that please because if "all" we are continuing with is trying to demonstrate the Govt has the right outline rules, laws and regulations on gun ownership, we all agree.  The only thing we disagree on is we don't like or agree with the rules and laws you want to implement. If there is some other point you are trying to make, let us know what it is. This way perhaps we won't have to chase our tails so much.

[CBWx2]

If the majority votes to ban semi-automatic weaponry, that does not give the minority the right to take up arms in an effort to usurp the government while it is acting in the interest of the majority.

Nobody says they do. You keep on arguing points that nobody is arguing against.

So you agree then, that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with the implied right to rebel? Welcome aboard.

[CBWx2]

The letter showed that Washington didn't support the right to armed insurrection against the Union. His quote was to suggest what the founders meant by the 2nd amendment.

Let's clarify, the Washington quote referred to his opinion on armed insurrections. The Mason quote was to suggest the 2nd amendment's true purpose by quoting a person who was opposed to the whole idea of the US Constitution, therefor serves as no direct influence in decoding it's meanings and intent on a particular amendment.

Got that?

Nope.

Of course you don't. Because like everything else brought to light in this thread, it is inconvenient for you. Washington was among the majority of founders who were federalists, those who supported the drafting of a new Constitution expanding federal authority. George Mason was among a minority of founders who were anti-federalists, those who wished to keep in place the Articles of Confederation.

Of those two, who would have a more significant insight towards the true intent of the Constitution, the guy who called for it, or the guy who wanted no part of it?

Actually I don't get it because you seem to be saying Washington's opinion counts because you think it supports your corner,  but Masons opinion doesn't because it doesn't.

No. I'm saying that Washington's opinion matters since he supported and had direct influence in the drafting of the Constitution, and Mason's doesn't in regards to the Constitution, because he did not.

[spartan]

If the majority votes to ban semi-automatic weaponry, that does not give the minority the right to take up arms in an effort to usurp the government while it is acting in the interest of the majority.

Nobody says they do. You keep on arguing points that nobody is arguing against.

So you agree then, that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with the implied right to rebel? Welcome aboard.

Man, your powers of deduction are a wonder to behold.

Empowering your citizens with the right to protect themselves from a tyrannical Govt has nothing to do with "rebelling" because you don't agree with a specific law being implemented. If it was one of a long string of laws and diktats suppressing the freedom and liberties of the people, then yes, they then have the right to "rebel."

[spartan]

The letter showed that Washington didn't support the right to armed insurrection against the Union. His quote was to suggest what the founders meant by the 2nd amendment.

Let's clarify, the Washington quote referred to his opinion on armed insurrections. The Mason quote was to suggest the 2nd amendment's true purpose by quoting a person who was opposed to the whole idea of the US Constitution, therefor serves as no direct influence in decoding it's meanings and intent on a particular amendment.

Got that?

Nope.

Of course you don't. Because like everything else brought to light in this thread, it is inconvenient for you. Washington was among the majority of founders who were federalists, those who supported the drafting of a new Constitution expanding federal authority. George Mason was among a minority of founders who were anti-federalists, those who wished to keep in place the Articles of Confederation.

Of those two, who would have a more significant insight towards the true intent of the Constitution, the guy who called for it, or the guy who wanted no part of it?

Actually I don't get it because you seem to be saying Washington's opinion counts because you think it supports your corner,  but Masons opinion doesn't because it doesn't.

No. I'm saying that Washington's opinion matters since he supported and had direct influence in the drafting of the Constitution, and Mason's doesn't in regards to the Constitution, because he did not.

So his opinion does not count?

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were not involved in writing the Constitution either, do their opinions count?

[spartan]

The letter showed that Washington didn't support the right to armed insurrection against the Union. His quote was to suggest what the founders meant by the 2nd amendment.

Let's clarify, the Washington quote referred to his opinion on armed insurrections. The Mason quote was to suggest the 2nd amendment's true purpose by quoting a person who was opposed to the whole idea of the US Constitution, therefor serves as no direct influence in decoding it's meanings and intent on a particular amendment.

Got that?

Nope.

Of course you don't. Because like everything else brought to light in this thread, it is inconvenient for you. Washington was among the majority of founders who were federalists, those who supported the drafting of a new Constitution expanding federal authority. George Mason was among a minority of founders who were anti-federalists, those who wished to keep in place the Articles of Confederation.

Of those two, who would have a more significant insight towards the true intent of the Constitution, the guy who called for it, or the guy who wanted no part of it?

I have decided I am going to err on the side of George Mason.

George Mason IV (December 11, 1725 – October 7, 1792) was an American Patriot, statesman and a delegate from Virginia to the U.S. Constitutional Convention. Along with James Madison, he is called the "Father of the United States Bill of Rights. For these reasons he is considered one of the "Founding Fathers" of the United States.