The 2nd Amendment

[Biggs3535]

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.

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.

lolz

[Chief Joseph]

Man, this thread has been a brutal beating. Can't wait for everyone to get tired of slapping CBW around - so he can crawl up off the ground and declare victory! lol. You know he will too.

[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.

So his opinion does not count?

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

Not if you intend to use them to explain the intention of the 2nd amendment, or any other amendment, they don't. Mason was right about a great number of things, but using a quote from someone who had no involvement in writing a statement to explain what the authors of that statement intended it's meaning to be is specious.

Jefferson and Adams expressed support of the Constitution however, even though they weren't in attendance.

[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?

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.

Mason was opposed to the drafting of the constitution. Among other reasons, one was the fact that it lacked a bill of rights. James Madison and the other federalist simply phrased the first 10 amendments of the constitution to be called a bill of rights to appease the anti-federalists on the advice of Thomas Jefferson. Mason didn't draft the bill of rights, his opposition simply lead to the first 10 amendments being called the bill of rights. Even after that fact, he still didn't support the document, and refused to sign it.

History happened the way it happened. All it takes is a little research to find out how that was. Sheesh...

[spartan]

but using a quote from someone who had no involvement in writing a statement to explain what the authors of that statement intended it's meaning to be is specious.

I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by this. Please explain.

[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.

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."

No, you don't. There is no such right  afforded to you, and therein lies the flaw in your position. The statement Madison made about an armed citizenry was in response to an encroachment of military force onto a state government, not a perceived loss of liberties by a minority as voted on by the majority. You are taking from his words what you want them to mean, not what they actually mean withing the context that they were written.

[CBWx2]

but using a quote from someone who had no involvement in writing a statement to explain what the authors of that statement intended it's meaning to be is specious.

I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by this. Please explain.

It means that if you wrote a statement and someone used a quote from me to express to someone else what the intended meaning of your statement was, that would likely be giving a fallible explanation.

Madison and Mason held opposing viewpoints on the issues of federalism and the need for a strong central government. To use Mason's quote to express Madison's intent is essentially akin to using a quote from me to explain your intent.

[spartan]

Mason was opposed to the drafting of the constitution. Among other reasons, one was the fact that it lacked a bill of rights. James Madison and the other federalist simply phrased the first 10 amendments of the constitution to be called a bill of rights to appease the anti-federalists on the advice of Thomas Jefferson. Mason didn't draft the bill of rights, his opposition simply lead to the first 10 amendments being called the bill of rights. Even after that fact, he still didn't support the document, and refused to sign it.

History happened the way it happened. All it takes is a little research to find out how that was. Sheesh...

The Bill of Rights is based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights which George Mason wrote. He also was not opposed to drafting the Constitution, he was against ratifying it in it's (as then) current form. i.e. without a bill of rights (where the 2nd Amendment is ) and without addressing slavery. All it takes is a little research to find out how that was. Sheesh...

[spartan]

but using a quote from someone who had no involvement in writing a statement to explain what the authors of that statement intended it's meaning to be is specious.

I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by this. Please explain.

It means that if you wrote a statement and someone used a quote from me to express to someone else what the intended meaning of your statement was, that would likely be giving a fallible explanation.

Madison and Mason held opposing viewpoints on the issues of federalism and the need for a strong central government. To use Mason's quote to express Madison's intent is essentially akin to using a quote from me to explain your intent.

Mason's objections were that it did not go far enough, not what was in it was wrong. Is this your point? Mason did not sign the Constitution so therefore he cannot be quoted on it's contents?

[Dolorous Jason]

Man, this thread has been a brutal beating. Can't wait for everyone to get tired of slapping CBW around - so he can crawl up off the ground and declare victory! lol. You know he will too.

I'm done with his dumb ass . After I owned him with the federalist papers , and he flat out denied it's entire content , I officially refused to spiral any deeper into the black hole.

[Dolorous Jason]

The Bill of Rights is based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights which George Mason wrote. He also was not opposed to drafting the Constitution, he was against ratifying it in it's (as then) current form. i.e. without a bill of rights (where the 2nd Amendment is ) and without addressing slavery. All it takes is a little research to find out how that was. Sheesh...

You are correct , sir.

[spartan]

CBW, VP Biden stated today that they may circumvent Congress and implement Gun control by means of Presidential Decree. Do you agree with this?

[Durango 95]

but using a quote from someone who had no involvement in writing a statement to explain what the authors of that statement intended it's meaning to be is specious.

I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by this. Please explain.

What it means is that he's too dumb to realize this before he started a crusade to redefine the 2nd amendment.

[mwk]

Here is an interesting study on multiple victim crimes. Multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period was performed by renowned economists at the University of Chicago and Yale, William Landes and John Lott. It concluded that the only policy to reduce the incidence of, and casualties from, mass shootings are concealed-carry laws.

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/multiple_victim_shootings_study.htm

mwk

[CBWx2]

Mason was opposed to the drafting of the constitution. Among other reasons, one was the fact that it lacked a bill of rights. James Madison and the other federalist simply phrased the first 10 amendments of the constitution to be called a bill of rights to appease the anti-federalists on the advice of Thomas Jefferson. Mason didn't draft the bill of rights, his opposition simply lead to the first 10 amendments being called the bill of rights. Even after that fact, he still didn't support the document, and refused to sign it.

History happened the way it happened. All it takes is a little research to find out how that was. Sheesh...

The Bill of Rights is based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights which George Mason wrote.

The Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Declaration of Rights were actually both based on the English Bill of Rights. Tell me if any of this sounds vaguely familiar:

no royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge.

no taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of the parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes

freedom to petition the monarch without fear of retribution

no standing army may be maintained during a time of peace without the consent of parliament.[7]

no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law

no royal interference in the election of members of parliament

the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament

"grants and promises of fines or forfeitures" before conviction are void

no excessive bail or "cruel and unusual" punishments may be imposed

In drafting the Virginia Declaration of rights, all Mason did was tweak the English Bill of Rights, and that's all Madison did too. Mason's great influence wasn't in the language of the Bill of Rights, it was in the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. Madison is the one who wrote it, not Mason.

He also was not opposed to drafting the Constitution, he was against ratifying it in it's (as then) current form. i.e. without a bill of rights (where the 2nd Amendment is ) and without addressing slavery. All it takes is a little research to find out how that was. Sheesh...

You are wrong, sir. Mason was opposed to the very idea of it. He was opposed to the creation of the office of presidency, to the creation of the Supreme Court, to the creation of the Senate, to pretty much the whole darned thing. To say he was just opposed to it in it's form at the time is a complete and utter fallacy. He wanted no part of it.

http://www.gunstonhall.org/library/archives/manuscripts/objections.html

All it takes is a little more research, in your case.