***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[Carolina Hustler]

It's pretty much over. You guys won.Universal background checks seemed like a pretty good idea to me (and to 90% of the public). But the NRA doesn't want them so we're not going to get them. Congratulations.

IMO, the gun control crowd made 2 critical mistakes. 1. Try to pass gun laws beyond the universal background check. 2. Saying that all these gun laws must be done because of Newtown, when the proposed laws would not have stopped Newtown.

this

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It's pretty much over. You guys won.

Universal background checks seemed like a pretty good idea to me (and to 90% of the public). But the NRA doesn't want them so we're not going to get them. Congratulations.

Instead of pouting why don't you urge the government to enforce the laws that already exist? Prosecuting prohibited people who illegally attempt to purchase a gun is easy, the form 4473 is enough evidence to convict. No new laws are necessary.

Many pro 2Aers think Lindsey Graham was awesome in this clip. The truth is every thing he says is deliberately deceptive and stupid. I'm not going to defend that because if you listen to those trying to be rational with him the explanation is plain as day.

I disagree.. He made many strong points.. If we aren't prosecuting people who are trying to buy guns illegally, why make more laws that won't be enforced..?

 

[Hoosier16]

This was too good to not share.

Diana DeGette in yet another example of someone who is clueless on guns.

Why doesn't anyone from the control side comment on this? I don't really expect a comment and know why they ignore it, but this is the kind of crap the pro gun side has to deal with and you have to admit, it's a bit frustrating to argue with ignorance. If the sponsors of the the bills are ignorant, what kind of knowledge do you think the general public has?

 

[[icon]]

Gonna be selling two AR-15 Lower receivers to the first 2 strangers who will hand me $150 apiece for them at a gun show next saturday. I don't even think I'll bother asking their name.

Suck it hippies.

 

[boots11234]

Gonna be selling two AR-15 Lower receivers to the first 2 strangers who will hand me $150 apiece for them at a gun show next saturday. I don't even think I'll bother asking their name. Suck it hippies.

They forged or stamped? Oh and ill give u a fake name if u ask anyways.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

http://www.bonzerwolf.com/today/2013/4/5/the-truth-about-guns-in-america.html

 

[mad sweeney]

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

http://www.bonzerwolf.com/today/2013/4/5/the-truth-about-guns-in-america.html

What does he say about the "well regulated" part? If the militia is the whole people, then the Constitution says it (the people) should be well regulated.

 

[tom22406]

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

http://www.bonzerwolf.com/today/2013/4/5/the-truth-about-guns-in-america.html

What does he say about the "well regulated" part? If the militia is the whole people, then the Constitution says it (the people) should be well regulated.

I guess the next question is what exactly did you think they meant when they put in "well regulated"?

To me I take it as something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.It doesn't mean what we take it to mean now,thus the confusion.

 

[mad sweeney]

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

http://www.bonzerwolf.com/today/2013/4/5/the-truth-about-guns-in-america.html

What does he say about the "well regulated" part? If the militia is the whole people, then the Constitution says it (the people) should be well regulated.

I guess the next question is what exactly did you think they meant when they put in "well regulated"? To me I take it as something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.It doesn't mean what we take it to mean now,thus the confusion.

Maybe if the subject of the sentence was guns, then that would be a possibility. But since militia was the subject of the sentence, then the well regulated part refers to the militia, or whole people.

 

[tom22406]

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

http://www.bonzerwolf.com/today/2013/4/5/the-truth-about-guns-in-america.html

What does he say about the "well regulated" part? If the militia is the whole people, then the Constitution says it (the people) should be well regulated.

I guess the next question is what exactly did you think they meant when they put in "well regulated"? To me I take it as something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.It doesn't mean what we take it to mean now,thus the confusion.

Maybe if the subject of the sentence was guns, then that would be a possibility. But since militia was the subject of the sentence, then the well regulated part refers to the militia, or whole people.

So what is your definition of well regulated?

My take is they wanted the militia to be well trained or working properly.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

http://www.bonzerwolf.com/today/2013/4/5/the-truth-about-guns-in-america.html

What does he say about the "well regulated" part? If the militia is the whole people, then the Constitution says it (the people) should be well regulated.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troopsalways ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.

--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)

But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.

--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))

And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:

One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops

--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))

The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning.

 

[JHuber77]

It's pretty much over. You guys won.Universal background checks seemed like a pretty good idea to me (and to 90% of the public). But the NRA doesn't want them so we're not going to get them. Congratulations.

Instead of pouting why don't you urge the government to enforce the laws that already exist? Prosecuting prohibited people who illegally attempt to purchase a gun is easy, the form 4473 is enough evidence to convict. No new laws are necessary.

Like to, but the NRA has prevented this. They have both demonized and weakened the power of the ATF to the point where it is helpless. There's no way to enforce laws if the state is not given the power to do so.

lol, that's delusional. It's absurd to suggest the ATF can't follow up when a violent criminal attempts to buy a gun. I'd argue that's one of the most important tasks of their job! It's even more absurd to blame it on the NRA. On the other hand the ATF doesn't seem to mind bending laws as they see fit. The various laws they broke during the Fast and Furious operation is cause for concern, and a good argument for MORE oversight.

It's absurd if ATF total agents number right around 2000 for the entire country

 

[5 digit know nothing]

It's pretty much over. You guys won.Universal background checks seemed like a pretty good idea to me (and to 90% of the public). But the NRA doesn't want them so we're not going to get them. Congratulations.

Instead of pouting why don't you urge the government to enforce the laws that already exist? Prosecuting prohibited people who illegally attempt to purchase a gun is easy, the form 4473 is enough evidence to convict. No new laws are necessary.

Like to, but the NRA has prevented this. They have both demonized and weakened the power of the ATF to the point where it is helpless. There's no way to enforce laws if the state is not given the power to do so.

lol, that's delusional. It's absurd to suggest the ATF can't follow up when a violent criminal attempts to buy a gun. I'd argue that's one of the most important tasks of their job! It's even more absurd to blame it on the NRA. On the other hand the ATF doesn't seem to mind bending laws as they see fit. The various laws they broke during the Fast and Furious operation is cause for concern, and a good argument for MORE oversight.

It's absurd if ATF total agents number right around 2000 for the entire country

It's absurd that people keep using this as an excuse, when form 4473 is filled out with a valid name and address it takes very little resources to prosecute and the last time I checked ATF agents don't hold law degrees.

 

[JHuber77]

It's pretty much over. You guys won.Universal background checks seemed like a pretty good idea to me (and to 90% of the public). But the NRA doesn't want them so we're not going to get them. Congratulations.

Instead of pouting why don't you urge the government to enforce the laws that already exist? Prosecuting prohibited people who illegally attempt to purchase a gun is easy, the form 4473 is enough evidence to convict. No new laws are necessary.

Like to, but the NRA has prevented this. They have both demonized and weakened the power of the ATF to the point where it is helpless. There's no way to enforce laws if the state is not given the power to do so.

lol, that's delusional. It's absurd to suggest the ATF can't follow up when a violent criminal attempts to buy a gun. I'd argue that's one of the most important tasks of their job! It's even more absurd to blame it on the NRA. On the other hand the ATF doesn't seem to mind bending laws as they see fit. The various laws they broke during the Fast and Furious operation is cause for concern, and a good argument for MORE oversight.

It's absurd if ATF total agents number right around 2000 for the entire country

It's absurd that people keep using this as an excuse, when form 4473 is filled out with a valid name and address it takes very little resources to prosecute and the last time I checked ATF agents don't hold law degrees.

So you want ATF agents to be paper pushers? Gotcha. It would be easier to have the local jurisdiction follow up on form 4473

 

[5 digit know nothing]

It's pretty much over. You guys won.

Universal background checks seemed like a pretty good idea to me (and to 90% of the public). But the NRA doesn't want them so we're not going to get them. Congratulations.

Instead of pouting why don't you urge the government to enforce the laws that already exist? Prosecuting prohibited people who illegally attempt to purchase a gun is easy, the form 4473 is enough evidence to convict. No new laws are necessary.

Like to, but the NRA has prevented this. They have both demonized and weakened the power of the ATF to the point where it is helpless. There's no way to enforce laws if the state is not given the power to do so.

lol, that's delusional. It's absurd to suggest the ATF can't follow up when a violent criminal attempts to buy a gun. I'd argue that's one of the most important tasks of their job! It's even more absurd to blame it on the NRA.

On the other hand the ATF doesn't seem to mind bending laws as they see fit. The various laws they broke during the Fast and Furious operation is cause for concern, and a good argument for MORE oversight.

It's absurd if ATF total agents number right around 2000 for the entire country

It's absurd that people keep using this as an excuse, when form 4473 is filled out with a valid name and address it takes very little resources to prosecute and the last time I checked ATF agents don't hold law degrees.

So you want ATF agents to be paper pushers? Gotcha. It would be easier to have the local jurisdiction follow up on form 4473

Maybe they should, why should it fall on the ATF? Oh yeah, they don't care either:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/police-chief-battles-with-gop-senator-over-gun-background-checks-youre-wrong/

 

[Apple Jack]

If only they had a Director who didn't have a full time job doing something else to give the agency some focus, traction, and accountability.

 

[mad sweeney]

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

http://www.bonzerwolf.com/today/2013/4/5/the-truth-about-guns-in-america.html

What does he say about the "well regulated" part? If the militia is the whole people, then the Constitution says it (the people) should be well regulated.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

>The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troopsalways ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.

--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)

But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.

--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))

And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:

One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops

--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))

The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning.

Which one of those was from Mason?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

http://www.bonzerwolf.com/today/2013/4/5/the-truth-about-guns-in-america.html

What does he say about the "well regulated" part? If the militia is the whole people, then the Constitution says it (the people) should be well regulated.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:>The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. --- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troopsalways ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.

--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.

--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops

--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning.

Which one of those was from Mason?

Seriously?

 

[mad sweeney]

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

http://www.bonzerwolf.com/today/2013/4/5/the-truth-about-guns-in-america.html

What does he say about the "well regulated" part? If the militia is the whole people, then the Constitution says it (the people) should be well regulated.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:>The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. --- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troopsalways ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.

--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.

--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops

--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning.

Which one of those was from Mason?

Seriously?

Yes, as my question was what did he (Mason) think about the well regulated part, and as far as I can tell, none of those replies are from Mason (maybe I'm missing something int he committees), then the replies I was looking for woud need to be from him to answer my question.

Seems to me that the 2A is pretty clearly talking about the right of citizens to bear arms in a well regulated militia. Not sure which well regulated militia you're in, but for the most part, those don't seem to exist, yet private ownership of guns is obviously rampant, whilst well regulated militias are not. Doesn't seem to fit into the way the 2a is written.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

http://www.bonzerwolf.com/today/2013/4/5/the-truth-about-guns-in-america.html

What does he say about the "well regulated" part? If the militia is the whole people, then the Constitution says it (the people) should be well regulated.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:>The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. --- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troopsalways ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.

--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.

--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops

--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning.

Which one of those was from Mason?

Seriously?

Yes, as my question was what did he (Mason) think about the well regulated part, and as far as I can tell, none of those replies are from Mason (maybe I'm missing something int he committees), then the replies I was looking for woud need to be from him to answer my question.

Seems to me that the 2A is pretty clearly talking about the right of citizens to bear arms in a well regulated militia. Not sure which well regulated militia you're in, but for the most part, those don't seem to exist, yet private ownership of guns is obviously rampant, whilst well regulated militias are not. Doesn't seem to fit into the way the 2a is written.

You are clueless.

 

[mad sweeney]

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

http://www.bonzerwolf.com/today/2013/4/5/the-truth-about-guns-in-america.html

What does he say about the "well regulated" part? If the militia is the whole people, then the Constitution says it (the people) should be well regulated.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:>The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. --- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troopsalways ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.

--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.

--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops

--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning.

Which one of those was from Mason?

Seriously?

Yes, as my question was what did he (Mason) think about the well regulated part, and as far as I can tell, none of those replies are from Mason (maybe I'm missing something int he committees), then the replies I was looking for woud need to be from him to answer my question.

Seems to me that the 2A is pretty clearly talking about the right of citizens to bear arms in a well regulated militia. Not sure which well regulated militia you're in, but for the most part, those don't seem to exist, yet private ownership of guns is obviously rampant, whilst well regulated militias are not. Doesn't seem to fit into the way the 2a is written.

You are clueless.

Sorry, you were giong to post something by Mason and posted this instead?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

http://www.bonzerwolf.com/today/2013/4/5/the-truth-about-guns-in-america.html

What does he say about the "well regulated" part? If the militia is the whole people, then the Constitution says it (the people) should be well regulated.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:>The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. --- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troopsalways ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.

--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.

--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops

--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning.

Which one of those was from Mason?

Seriously?

Yes, as my question was what did he (Mason) think about the well regulated part, and as far as I can tell, none of those replies are from Mason (maybe I'm missing something int he committees), then the replies I was looking for woud need to be from him to answer my question.

Seems to me that the 2A is pretty clearly talking about the right of citizens to bear arms in a well regulated militia. Not sure which well regulated militia you're in, but for the most part, those don't seem to exist, yet private ownership of guns is obviously rampant, whilst well regulated militias are not. Doesn't seem to fit into the way the 2a is written.

You are clueless.

Sorry, you were giong to post something by Mason and posted this instead?

Yes keep making ridiculous demands about quotes from dead people and ignore the pile of evidence posted to contradict your silly assumptions based on nothing but your delusions.

 

[mad sweeney]

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

http://www.bonzerwolf.com/today/2013/4/5/the-truth-about-guns-in-america.html

What does he say about the "well regulated" part? If the militia is the whole people, then the Constitution says it (the people) should be well regulated.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:>The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. --- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troopsalways ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.

--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.

--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops

--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning.

Which one of those was from Mason?

Seriously?

Yes, as my question was what did he (Mason) think about the well regulated part, and as far as I can tell, none of those replies are from Mason (maybe I'm missing something int he committees), then the replies I was looking for woud need to be from him to answer my question.

Seems to me that the 2A is pretty clearly talking about the right of citizens to bear arms in a well regulated militia. Not sure which well regulated militia you're in, but for the most part, those don't seem to exist, yet private ownership of guns is obviously rampant, whilst well regulated militias are not. Doesn't seem to fit into the way the 2a is written.

You are clueless.

Sorry, you were giong to post something by Mason and posted this instead?

Yes keep making ridiculous demands about quotes from dead people and ignore the pile of evidence posted to contradict your silly assumptions based on nothing but your delusions.

Oops, you mistyped again. It was a simple request, to match up definitions from a person you quoted. Why is that so hard? I'm not debating the right or wrong of what you did post. Just want to hear from the same person what the definitions are. Again, why is that so hard?

I haven't said much, if anything, about the assault weapon ban, and Mason wasn't alive for it, so not sure why you included that.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

http://www.bonzerwolf.com/today/2013/4/5/the-truth-about-guns-in-america.html

What does he say about the "well regulated" part? If the militia is the whole people, then the Constitution says it (the people) should be well regulated.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:>The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. --- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troopsalways ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.

--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.

--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops

--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning.

Which one of those was from Mason?

Seriously?

Yes, as my question was what did he (Mason) think about the well regulated part, and as far as I can tell, none of those replies are from Mason (maybe I'm missing something int he committees), then the replies I was looking for woud need to be from him to answer my question.

Seems to me that the 2A is pretty clearly talking about the right of citizens to bear arms in a well regulated militia. Not sure which well regulated militia you're in, but for the most part, those don't seem to exist, yet private ownership of guns is obviously rampant, whilst well regulated militias are not. Doesn't seem to fit into the way the 2a is written.

You are clueless.

Sorry, you were giong to post something by Mason and posted this instead?

Yes keep making ridiculous demands about quotes from dead people and ignore the pile of evidence posted to contradict your silly assumptions based on nothing but your delusions.

 

[mad sweeney]

I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. -George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginias Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

http://www.bonzerwolf.com/today/2013/4/5/the-truth-about-guns-in-america.html

What does he say about the "well regulated" part? If the militia is the whole people, then the Constitution says it (the people) should be well regulated.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:>The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. --- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troopsalways ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.

--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.

--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.

--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops

--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning.

Which one of those was from Mason?

Seriously?

Yes, as my question was what did he (Mason) think about the well regulated part, and as far as I can tell, none of those replies are from Mason (maybe I'm missing something int he committees), then the replies I was looking for woud need to be from him to answer my question. Seems to me that the 2A is pretty clearly talking about the right of citizens to bear arms in a well regulated militia. Not sure which well regulated militia you're in, but for the most part, those don't seem to exist, yet private ownership of guns is obviously rampant, whilst well regulated militias are not. Doesn't seem to fit into the way the 2a is written.

You are clueless.

Sorry, you were giong to post something by Mason and posted this instead?

Yes keep making ridiculous demands about quotes from dead people and ignore the pile of evidence posted to contradict your silly assumptions based on nothing but your delusions.

Seriously, get out of here. You had your chance to shut me up but you talked way too big if a game and couldn't back it up. You embarrassed yourself completely and now you're doing it again. I haven't even made a point or assumption about what was said (usually a requirement when trying to prove someone's assumptions are wrong), but here you are jumping in. Go away. You're a child. You lost your right to debate with me with your complete inability to back up your nonsense. Though it does seem natural that you'd give a gp to a post that doesn't answer the question asked. For brain surgeons like you two, googling a quote certainly qualifies as a ridiculous demand.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Yes, as my question was what did he (Mason) think about the well regulated part, and as far as I can tell, none of those replies are from Mason (maybe I'm missing something int he committees), then the replies I was looking for woud need to be from him to answer my question. Seems to me that the 2A is pretty clearly talking about the right of citizens to bear arms in a well regulated militia. Not sure which well regulated militia you're in, but for the most part, those don't seem to exist, yet private ownership of guns is obviously rampant, whilst well regulated militias are not. Doesn't seem to fit into the way the 2a is written.

You are clueless.

Sorry, you were giong to post something by Mason and posted this instead?

Yes keep making ridiculous demands about quotes from dead people and ignore the pile of evidence posted to contradict your silly assumptions based on nothing but your delusions.

Why people try to argue with you is beyond me.. You have no interest in the topics you post in.. you're a trol, nothing else... Demanding a particular response from someone is silly.. You're a toolbag.. Why should anyone even respond to you? I haven't seen you involved in any real conversation inn this forum ever.. You're only here to amuse yourself by taunting others..

 

[mad sweeney]

Yes, as my question was what did he (Mason) think about the well regulated part, and as far as I can tell, none of those replies are from Mason (maybe I'm missing something int he committees), then the replies I was looking for woud need to be from him to answer my question. Seems to me that the 2A is pretty clearly talking about the right of citizens to bear arms in a well regulated militia. Not sure which well regulated militia you're in, but for the most part, those don't seem to exist, yet private ownership of guns is obviously rampant, whilst well regulated militias are not. Doesn't seem to fit into the way the 2a is written.

You are clueless.

Sorry, you were giong to post something by Mason and posted this instead?

Yes keep making ridiculous demands about quotes from dead people and ignore the pile of evidence posted to contradict your silly assumptions based on nothing but your delusions.

And yet, you are. 5D posted a quote by Mason about one point of the 2A. I asked what he said about a different point of it. That's not a "ridiculous demand". 5D gave a whole bunch of quotes from people NOT named Mason (as far as I could tell). So I asked again, without actually questioning anything about what the other quotes said. Apparently that's the same to you mouth breathers as calling the entire 2A into question and making "ridiculous demands". If there's no quote from him specifically about it about it, then fine. I was curious about it. But you guys can't say I don't know, or I can't find it. You go on the offensive and start making indignant replies to questions/arguments that aren't even there and then tell me I'm not interested in the topic. All because you won't actually reply to what was asked. It was a simple question, what did Mason say about the "well regulated" part of the 2A.

PS. Until you find the 3rd shooter from the Texas college shooting, don't complain about me being in here. I offered you my silence on a silver platter but you were so wrong you couldn't even back up your own useless rhetoric. So either put up or shut up.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Yes, as my question was what did he (Mason) think about the well regulated part, and as far as I can tell, none of those replies are from Mason (maybe I'm missing something int he committees), then the replies I was looking for woud need to be from him to answer my question. Seems to me that the 2A is pretty clearly talking about the right of citizens to bear arms in a well regulated militia. Not sure which well regulated militia you're in, but for the most part, those don't seem to exist, yet private ownership of guns is obviously rampant, whilst well regulated militias are not. Doesn't seem to fit into the way the 2a is written.

You are clueless.

Sorry, you were giong to post something by Mason and posted this instead?

Yes keep making ridiculous demands about quotes from dead people and ignore the pile of evidence posted to contradict your silly assumptions based on nothing but your delusions.

You're going to go on being a troll under this name or another regardless.. Why should anyone actually engage in a discussion with someone who does what you do? You can pretend that you're really interested in the topic, but anyone who has read your posts knows that's not the case..

 

[mad sweeney]

Yes, as my question was what did he (Mason) think about the well regulated part, and as far as I can tell, none of those replies are from Mason (maybe I'm missing something int he committees), then the replies I was looking for woud need to be from him to answer my question. Seems to me that the 2A is pretty clearly talking about the right of citizens to bear arms in a well regulated militia. Not sure which well regulated militia you're in, but for the most part, those don't seem to exist, yet private ownership of guns is obviously rampant, whilst well regulated militias are not. Doesn't seem to fit into the way the 2a is written.

You are clueless.

Sorry, you were giong to post something by Mason and posted this instead?

Yes keep making ridiculous demands about quotes from dead people and ignore the pile of evidence posted to contradict your silly assumptions based on nothing but your delusions.

Blah blah blah I'm a troll too and I can't back myself up but call others out anyway blah blah blah blah. My questions were for 5D, he didn't answer them. It has nothing to do with you. Go pretend you're not a troll in some other thread, one you haven't wussed out of spectacularly. Stop complaining, you had your chance. All you had to do was something that you repeatedly said was easy.

 

[timschochet]

Sweeney asked a pertinent question: did James Mason write anything about what the phrase "well-regulated militia" meant? Obviously others have . But did Mason?

 

[tom22406]

Sweeney asked a pertinent question: did James Mason write anything about what the phrase "well-regulated militia" meant? Obviously others have . But did Mason?

Would you say it's safe to assume that the others who used that term in that same period meant something similar?

That's what I took away from how they all seemed to use it in the same manner,so why would he be any different?

 

[mad sweeney]

Sweeney asked a pertinent question: did James Mason write anything about what the phrase "well-regulated militia" meant? Obviously others have . But did Mason?

Would you say it's safe to assume that the others who used that term in that same period meant something similar?That's what I took away from how they all seemed to use it in the same manner,so why would he be any different?

If he's no different, and I'm not saying he is different, then why wouldn't he have said the same? It's very simple. If someone asks for a quote from X, don't provide a quote from Y or Z. It's debate skills 101

 

[timschochet]

Sweeney asked a pertinent question: did James Mason write anything about what the phrase "well-regulated militia" meant? Obviously others have . But did Mason?

Would you say it's safe to assume that the others who used that term in that same period meant something similar?That's what I took away from how they all seemed to use it in the same manner,so why would he be any different?

So all off the Founding Fathers agreed on everything?

 

[tom22406]

Sweeney asked a pertinent question: did James Mason write anything about what the phrase "well-regulated militia" meant? Obviously others have . But did Mason?

Would you say it's safe to assume that the others who used that term in that same period meant something similar?That's what I took away from how they all seemed to use it in the same manner,so why would he be any different?

So all off the Founding Fathers agreed on everything?

Who said the Founding Fathers agreed on everything?I said the term was used by others in the same period. And way to answer my questions.

 

[tom22406]

Sweeney asked a pertinent question: did James Mason write anything about what the phrase "well-regulated militia" meant? Obviously others have . But did Mason?

Would you say it's safe to assume that the others who used that term in that same period meant something similar?That's what I took away from how they all seemed to use it in the same manner,so why would he be any different?

If he's no different, and I'm not saying he is different, then why wouldn't he have said the same? It's very simple. If someone asks for a quote from X, don't provide a quote from Y or Z. It's debate skills 101

Of course I got your point.I was merely pointing out what 5 had posted was from the same period.

You still didn't answer my previous question either.Define "well regulated"?

 

[timschochet]

Sweeney asked a pertinent question: did James Mason write anything about what the phrase "well-regulated militia" meant? Obviously others have . But did Mason?

Would you say it's safe to assume that the others who used that term in that same period meant something similar?That's what I took away from how they all seemed to use it in the same manner,so why would he be any different?

So all off the Founding Fathers agreed on everything?

Who said the Founding Fathers agreed on everything?I said the term was used by others in the same period. And way to answer my questions.

Which is why Sweeney's question is pertinent. NRA supporters emphatically reject the idea that "well-regulated" means ANY kind of government restriction. To the rest of us, however, it's only common sense that it does, no matter how many people you quote otherwise.

 

[timschochet]

To me well-regulated means that the federal government has the right to prohibit certain types of guns and/or ammunition, prohibit certain people from owning them, and carefully monitor all sales and ownership of firearms.

 

[mad sweeney]

Sweeney asked a pertinent question: did James Mason write anything about what the phrase "well-regulated militia" meant? Obviously others have . But did Mason?

Would you say it's safe to assume that the others who used that term in that same period meant something similar?That's what I took away from how they all seemed to use it in the same manner,so why would he be any different?

If he's no different, and I'm not saying he is different, then why wouldn't he have said the same? It's very simple. If someone asks for a quote from X, don't provide a quote from Y or Z. It's debate skills 101

Of course I got your point.I was merely pointing out what 5 had posted was from the same period.You still didn't answer my previous question either.Define "well regulated"?

People from the same period disagreed quite a bit about everything, so what you're saying is completely inapplicable to the situation. When 5D answers my question and I can move on in that direction, I'll get to answering yours, probably in the process of doing so. I also gave a little bit of an answer above. I will say now that well regulated militia is in the same sentence as to why the people should need to be able to bear arms. I see no reason that it should mean something completely separated from being in a militia.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Sweeney asked a pertinent question: did James Mason write anything about what the phrase "well-regulated militia" meant? Obviously others have . But did Mason?

If you can not find a quote from Mason defining "Well Regulated" then finding a quote from his piers in regards to the same subject in the same era is the next best step... better then not providing a quote at all.. Like you, who have not provided a quote where Mason agrees with your definition..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Yes, as my question was what did he (Mason) think about the well regulated part, and as far as I can tell, none of those replies are from Mason (maybe I'm missing something int he committees), then the replies I was looking for woud need to be from him to answer my question. Seems to me that the 2A is pretty clearly talking about the right of citizens to bear arms in a well regulated militia. Not sure which well regulated militia you're in, but for the most part, those don't seem to exist, yet private ownership of guns is obviously rampant, whilst well regulated militias are not. Doesn't seem to fit into the way the 2a is written.

You are clueless.

Sorry, you were giong to post something by Mason and posted this instead?

Yes keep making ridiculous demands about quotes from dead people and ignore the pile of evidence posted to contradict your silly assumptions based on nothing but your delusions.

lol.. typical sweeney... Amasses me that anyone engages you as if you really intend on discussing the topic..

 

[tom22406]

Sweeney asked a pertinent question: did James Mason write anything about what the phrase "well-regulated militia" meant? Obviously others have . But did Mason?

Would you say it's safe to assume that the others who used that term in that same period meant something similar?That's what I took away from how they all seemed to use it in the same manner,so why would he be any different?

If he's no different, and I'm not saying he is different, then why wouldn't he have said the same? It's very simple. If someone asks for a quote from X, don't provide a quote from Y or Z. It's debate skills 101

Of course I got your point.I was merely pointing out what 5 had posted was from the same period.You still didn't answer my previous question either.Define "well regulated"?

People from the same period disagreed quite a bit about everything, so what you're saying is completely inapplicable to the situation. When 5D answers my question and I can move on in that direction, I'll get to answering yours, probably in the process of doing so. I also gave a little bit of an answer above. I will say now that well regulated militia is in the same sentence as to why the people should need to be able to bear arms. I see no reason that it should mean something completely separated from being in a militia.

I found this on Wikiquote from Mason http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Mason#Quotes

• That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided.
• Draft proposal, 3 Elliot, Debates at 659

I will leave it up to you to read into that what you will but it seemed pretty clear to me what his intentions were.

 

[mad sweeney]

Sweeney asked a pertinent question: did James Mason write anything about what the phrase "well-regulated militia" meant? Obviously others have . But did Mason?

If you can not find a quote from Mason defining "Well Regulated" then finding a quote from his piers in regards to the same subject in the same era is the next best step... better then not providing a quote at all.. Like you, who have not provided a quote where Mason agrees with your definition..

No, it's not better. Those are definitions from other people, they do not answer the question. The better answer would be "I don't know" or "I can't find it". Furthermore, it wasn't just giving different answers. It was the supposition that I'd made some kind of a statement about it, when in fact I hadn't. So, between the two of you, you've avoided answering the question, made up my argument for me, and then blasted me for wanting my question answered and derided me for the position that you decided I was taking.

 

[mad sweeney]

Sweeney asked a pertinent question: did James Mason write anything about what the phrase "well-regulated militia" meant? Obviously others have . But did Mason?

Would you say it's safe to assume that the others who used that term in that same period meant something similar?That's what I took away from how they all seemed to use it in the same manner,so why would he be any different?

If he's no different, and I'm not saying he is different, then why wouldn't he have said the same? It's very simple. If someone asks for a quote from X, don't provide a quote from Y or Z. It's debate skills 101

Of course I got your point.I was merely pointing out what 5 had posted was from the same period.You still didn't answer my previous question either.Define "well regulated"?

People from the same period disagreed quite a bit about everything, so what you're saying is completely inapplicable to the situation. When 5D answers my question and I can move on in that direction, I'll get to answering yours, probably in the process of doing so. I also gave a little bit of an answer above. I will say now that well regulated militia is in the same sentence as to why the people should need to be able to bear arms. I see no reason that it should mean something completely separated from being in a militia.

I found this on Wikiquote from Mason http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Mason#Quotes

[*]That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided.

[*]Draft proposal, 3 Elliot, Debates at 659

I will leave it up to you to read into that what you will but it seemed pretty clear to me what his intentions were.

Seems like his intentions were that people were to bear arms in militias. Im not seeing where the right for individuals to have unregulated access to whatever arms they want is in there. He also seems to be against the Armed Forces.

 

[mad sweeney]

You are clueless.

Sorry, you were giong to post something by Mason and posted this instead?

Yes keep making ridiculous demands about quotes from dead people and ignore the pile of evidence posted to contradict your silly assumptions based on nothing but your delusions.

Blah blah blah I'm a blowhard coward that can't back up what I say and still think I can castigate the guy from whom I cowardly ran away from blah blah blah. Hint: I have no intention of discussing the topic with YOU because I know when it's time to back up what you say or admit that you were wrong, that you'll bluster and bluster and then run away. You're nothing.

 

[tom22406]

Sweeney asked a pertinent question: did James Mason write anything about what the phrase "well-regulated militia" meant? Obviously others have . But did Mason?

Would you say it's safe to assume that the others who used that term in that same period meant something similar?That's what I took away from how they all seemed to use it in the same manner,so why would he be any different?

If he's no different, and I'm not saying he is different, then why wouldn't he have said the same? It's very simple. If someone asks for a quote from X, don't provide a quote from Y or Z. It's debate skills 101

Of course I got your point.I was merely pointing out what 5 had posted was from the same period.You still didn't answer my previous question either.Define "well regulated"?

People from the same period disagreed quite a bit about everything, so what you're saying is completely inapplicable to the situation. When 5D answers my question and I can move on in that direction, I'll get to answering yours, probably in the process of doing so. I also gave a little bit of an answer above. I will say now that well regulated militia is in the same sentence as to why the people should need to be able to bear arms. I see no reason that it should mean something completely separated from being in a militia.

I found this on Wikiquote from Mason http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Mason#Quotes

[*]That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided.

[*]Draft proposal, 3 Elliot, Debates at 659

ockquote>I will leave it up to you to read into that what you will but it seemed pretty clear to me what his intentions were.

Seems like his intentions were that people were to bear arms in militias. Im not seeing where the right for individuals to have unregulated access to whatever arms they want is in there. He also seems to be against the Armed Forces.

He didn't want standing armies because of the threat they would turn on the people so thus he wanted the people to be armed and have the ability to defend themselves and the country.I believe it was a fine for any male over 18 to not own a weapon back then but I could be wrong on that part.

I certainly am not asking for unregulated weapons.

 

[mad sweeney]

Sweeney asked a pertinent question: did James Mason write anything about what the phrase "well-regulated militia" meant? Obviously others have . But did Mason?

Would you say it's safe to assume that the others who used that term in that same period meant something similar?That's what I took away from how they all seemed to use it in the same manner,so why would he be any different?

If he's no different, and I'm not saying he is different, then why wouldn't he have said the same? It's very simple. If someone asks for a quote from X, don't provide a quote from Y or Z. It's debate skills 101

Of course I got your point.I was merely pointing out what 5 had posted was from the same period.You still didn't answer my previous question either.Define "well regulated"?

People from the same period disagreed quite a bit about everything, so what you're saying is completely inapplicable to the situation. When 5D answers my question and I can move on in that direction, I'll get to answering yours, probably in the process of doing so. I also gave a little bit of an answer above. I will say now that well regulated militia is in the same sentence as to why the people should need to be able to bear arms. I see no reason that it should mean something completely separated from being in a militia.

I found this on Wikiquote from Mason http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Mason#Quotes

>

[*]That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided.

[*]Draft proposal, 3 Elliot, Debates at 659

ockquote>I will leave it up to you to read into that what you will but it seemed pretty clear to me what his intentions were.lockquote>Seems like his intentions were that people were to bear arms in militias. Im not seeing where the right for individuals to have unregulated access to whatever arms they want is in there. He also seems to be against the Armed Forces.

He didn't want standing armies because of the threat they would turn on the people so thus he wanted the people to be armed and have the ability to defend themselves and the country.I believe it was a fine for any male over 18 to not own a weapon back then but I could be wrong on that part.

I certainly am not asking for unregulated weapons.

5 Digit, to whom I was responding, certainly is a hard core gun rights guy.

 

[Otis]

How about the 10 and 11 year old who just were caught with a handgun in school on the brink of murdering a 5th grade classmate? Praise The Lord these young Americans had their rights to bear arms.

Hoo rah!

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Sweeney asked a pertinent question: did James Mason write anything about what the phrase "well-regulated militia" meant? Obviously others have . But did Mason?

Would you say it's safe to assume that the others who used that term in that same period meant something similar?That's what I took away from how they all seemed to use it in the same manner,so why would he be any different?

If he's no different, and I'm not saying he is different, then why wouldn't he have said the same? It's very simple. If someone asks for a quote from X, don't provide a quote from Y or Z. It's debate skills 101

This is your interpretation of debate skills: Did Elvis prefer Mozart or Beethoven? Show me a quote. Can't show me a quote? I'm going to keep making a stink until you find me a quote from Elvis that says which one he prefers. You can't post something about Elvis without being able to backup his views on any question I might want to ask him no matter how obvious the answer is. I'm not going to bother doing the research myself, I'll just assume whatever my opinion is of something is true even though a mountain of evidence points otherwise, because that is debating 101.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

How about the 10 and 11 year old who just were caught with a handgun in school on the brink of murdering a 5th grade classmate? Praise The Lord these young Americans had their rights to bear arms.Hoo rah!

If only there was a law requiring a minimum age to own a firearm this never would have happened.

If only schools were gun free zones this never would have happened.

 

[Otis]

How about the 10 and 11 year old who just were caught with a handgun in school on the brink of murdering a 5th grade classmate? Praise The Lord these young Americans had their rights to bear arms.Hoo rah!

If only there was a law requiring a minimum age to own a firearm this never would have happened.If only schools were gun free zones this never would have happened.

Thank goodness Mrs. Pendergast went through military training on the AK47 she was sporting in art class so she could take down the perps.