The 2nd Amendment

[CBWx2]

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.

The fact that you think you owned me in that exchange goes beyond the pale of intellectual dishonesty, it's flat out lying to yourself. And the fact that all you cons are circling the wagons in your true to form circle jerk fashion to get behind a clearly debunked premise only shows your desperation. The words Delirious posted from Madison are there for all to read. All one need do is read them to see how specious his assertions are about their meaning.

[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.

The fact that you think you owned me in that exchange goes beyond the pale of intellectual dishonesty, it's flat out lying to yourself. And the fact that all you cons are circling the wagons in your true to form circle jerk fashion to get behind a clearly debunked premise only shows your desperation. The words Delirious posted from Madison are there for all to read. All one need do is read them to see how specious his assertions are about their meaning.

You lose , comrade.

[CBWx2]

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.

The fact that you think you owned me in that exchange goes beyond the pale of intellectual dishonesty, it's flat out lying to yourself. And the fact that all you cons are circling the wagons in your true to form circle jerk fashion to get behind a clearly debunked premise only shows your desperation. The words Delirious posted from Madison are there for all to read. All one need do is read them to see how specious his assertions are about their meaning.

You lose , comrade.

The only people buying your line of crap are those who have the political motivations to do so, your conservative circle jerk buddies. Everyone else can see right through you. And I see another pointless and played out "comrade" post coming in 3...2...1...

[Dolorous Jason]

Illuminator is not a conservative , Durango is not a conservative, I am not a conservative.... why do we all agree that you're a horse's ass ?


You lose , comrade.

[Dolorous Jason]

Nice Post Jason. I am sure certain half sentences could be picked apart, but the overall direction, tone and intent of the paragraph is clear and incisive. The intent of a militia is to resist tyranny, from wherever it arises, and what's most, militias would not exist if Americans were not already armed and willing to serve.

You have greatly underestimated the sheer stupidity of the Black Hole , lol.

[olafberserker]

22 pages (in this thread, countless in other threads) and people are still arguing with this guy ..... smh

[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.

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.

So what are you suggesting? He simply plagiarized the English Bill of Rights without understanding its contents?

As for his objections, his primary objection was the absence of a Bill of Rights. Without it the Constitution gave way too much power to the Presidency which he saw as a potential monarch like figure. There were others, yes, but they generally wound their way back to that point.

[CBWx2]

I am not a conservative....

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

That was great, man. I appreciate you bringing a little levity into the discussion.

why do we all agree that you're a horse's ass ?

Because it's convenient for their, and your position to label anyone presenting an opposing viewpoint as being "crazy." Don't let that ego of yours get over inflated by the fact that they are sack riding your completely specious posts. They need to believe you are making some sort of valid argument in order to salvage their own viewpoints. They would be high-fiving you and patting you on the butt regardless of what you typed. That's how the circle jerk works.

You lose , comrade.

Awesome! Now do it again. Jump through the hoop, Fido!

[wreck ship]

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.

pwned!

 

[wreck ship]

So what are you suggesting? He simply plagiarized the English Bill of Rights without understanding its contents?

As for his objections, his primary objection was the absence of a Bill of Rights. Without it the Constitution gave way too much power to the Presidency which he saw as a potential monarch like figure. There were others, yes, but they generally wound their way back to that point.

If Obama makes an executive order on gun control, it may stop the sale of certain guns but no ones coming to your house to check for illegal weapons.

[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.

So what are you suggesting? He simply plagiarized the English Bill of Rights without understanding its contents?

Not at all. I'm suggesting that he simply plagiarized the English Bill of Rights fully aware of it's contents. All of the rights and freedoms granted to us in the Bill of Rights, or granted to Virginians in the Declaration of Rights came from the English Bill of Rights. Very little of what is in the Bill of Rights was invented by the founders.

 What Mason did for the state of Virginia, and what Madison did for the country at large, was to simply extend all of these rights to the citizenry, whereas the English Bill of Rights, although extending some to the citizenry, was primarily concerning Royal interference with Parliament. I don't mean to trivialize this action, because especially for the time, it was a massive shift in the idea of governance. But to suggest that Mason defined the meaning of the 2nd amendment because he drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights is incorrect. The Federalists had very different opinions on the role of government than the Anti-Federalists did. It is likely that the meaning of many of the articles in the Constitution would have been as hotly debated by the founders as they would be by you and I.

As for his objections, his primary objection was the absence of a Bill of Rights. Without it the Constitution gave way too much power to the Presidency which he saw as a potential monarch like figure. There were others, yes, but they generally wound their way back to that point.

The lack of a Bill of Rights was his chief objection, yes. But you are wrong in asserting that all of his objections found their way back to that point. His objections to the office of the presidency, the creation of the Senate, and the creation of the Supreme Court were all independent of his criticism of a lack of a Bill of Rights. His objections to their role in governance were not even things that a Bill of Rights would fix, which is why he continued to object to the Constitution even after the Bill of Rights was added. In short, Mason did not support the current Constitution or our current existing government. He wished to simply amend the Articles of Confederation, not to create a new government.

[spartan]

"I have received much Satisfaction from the Amendments to the federal Constitution, which have lately passed the House of Representatives, I hope they will also pass the Senate. With two or three further Amendments . I could cheerfully put my Hand & Heart to the new Government." 

George Mason in a letter to Samuel Griffin on the introduction to the Bill of Rights.

[CBWx2]

"I have received much Satisfaction from the Amendments to the federal Constitution, which have lately passed the House of Representatives, I hope they will also pass the Senate. With two or three further Amendments . I could cheerfully put my Hand & Heart to the new Government." 

George Mason in a letter to Samuel Griffin on the introduction to the Bill of Rights.

What were those "two or three" further amendments, and did they ever pass, spartan?

[CBWx2]

Bottom line is that Mason did not support the Constitution, and until his death, he never was any more than lukewarm to it. His views on the Constitution actually had adverse affects on his relationships with George Washington, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, and to his public standing, as the majority of the public favored the new Constitution, as evident by it's passage.

Only recently has Mason even been deemed a "founding father", and that's only because a historical revisit of the Philadelphia Convention revealed his insistence on a Bill of Rights. Up until the early 20th century he was not seen as one by most historians, because of his refusal to vote for or sign the Constitution.

[Dolorous Jason]

Hey CBW .... you lose , comrade.