Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

It isn't enough to simply look up a word. You must look up a word in context especially when you are dealing with historic documents. If you look up men in a dictionary from the time of the writing of the constitution so as to know the mind set of the men who wrote the document you will find that men is defined as: "Persons; people; mankind; in an indefinite sense".

I agree with you... that's exactly what I've been saying.

When you look at the words or wording in historical documents you have to interpret them by what was their norm back then, not now.

I would not be, becuse I know you have that, and thus have set up a ICBM with a 20 megaton nuke ready to fire at you should you fire said SAM...also my private jet now has Flares, chaff, and Electronic systems that help distrupt your SAM...thanks to my right to arms..though I did need to buy more land to hold it.....

A simple answer from a simple mind.

GREAT, and I'm going to ask all of the conservatives to do the same about every one of your "insults" regardless of how trivial it might be. That ought to go over REALLY well, let's just bury the Mods with post reports and they won't have time to do anything else but deal with them. WHAAAAAA! WHAAAAA!

And you STILL insist on LYING! And exactly how would YOU know how many Baliffs are assigned to OUR courtrooms? YOU WOULDN'T. As to your constantly repeating your LIE that I said that I wasn't allowed, perhaps if we refresh your memory.

Please take note that the exact verbiage I used was CITIZENS. I wasn't talking about myself, I was talking about EVERYONE, but as usual comprehension of the English language isn't exactly your forte`. No, you're just tweeked because I've "busted" you so badly on every flawed point that you've tried to make that you've invented this slander to try to get under my skin, but all you're doing is proving how much of a pitiful, petty, and generally ignorant individual you really are.

Don't lie. Resorting to "reports" is the only thing you've got left because you know that in a battle of wits, you're an unarmed man. To use the vernacular of the younger generation, you've been PWNED!!

And again you insist on demonstrating your ignorance. Understanding the proper definition of a word is not "interpreting" it. To "interpret" something refers to an individual understanding of something whereas the "definition" of something refers to its ACTUAL meaning.

California for starters, what with all the "metrosexual" feminine 'males'.

There's nothing "inconsistent" about it PLC1. One of the very first laws enacted in America was the Militia Act of 1798, which required that EVERY able bodied male between 17 and 45 years of age own and maintain a weapon of the normal military issue, along with all of the necessary accoutrement's, as well as to report regularly for militia training (usually once a month, on Sunday after church). The same concept still applies in that under Title 10 Section 311 and Title 32 Section 313 of the United States Code, EVERY able bodied male between 17 and 45, and every able bodied female between 17 and 45 who has served in the armed forces, as well as every able bodied male up to the age of 64 who has served in the armed forces comprises the unorganized militia. Other sections of Title 10 and Title 32 clearly define when, and under what circumstances the Governor or President may call up the unorganized militia. Simply put, you're probably ALREADY in the militia whether you knew it or not, and as such it is your duty to own a weapon and know how to use it.

Having a Surface to Air Missile, and firing it indiscriminately are two entirely different issues. You can own a cannon, a Howitzer, or even a tank (as I demonstrated through the posting of the videos), and you can even shoot them if you want to, BUT if you shoot them at the wrong thing, or at the wrong time, well, let's just say that you probably won't enjoy the vacation the government is going to send you on. That wonderful resort community on the banks of the Missouri River sure ain't San Diego!

Actually it meant the same thing back then too.

Well, if you really want to play it that way, fine, when the Constitution was written, for the sake of arguement we'll assume it meant only white property owning males, but the FF's were smart enough to include Article 5 through which we were able to Amend it to include the 13th, 15th, and 19th Amendments which freed the slaves and extended suffrage to blacks and women as well, so now everyone is included, which clearly demonstrates the wisdom and forethought of the FF's.

Because I have a friend that's "a real Deputy" that does prisoner transfer that works a hell of a lot bigger courthouse than you're talkin' about. There's all kinds of police officers in and out but no place that has 3 armed bailiffs at one time per courtroom and at all times to boot. And you'll never post any proof to the contrary because you just pull stuff out of your tiny little butt to try and poser yourself as somebody of stature and not just little Bob the builder.

POSER CENTRAL I'm Bob the builder, I mean Bob the Cop, I mean Bob the astronaut, I mean Bob the fireman, Indian chief, gay bar owner, really just Bob the liar.

But if Bob wasn't just a poser and was a Deputy... what kind of "Deputy" would Bob really be, hmmm....

You're correct... that's what it meant "legally" at the time. Slaves and women didn't hold the same standing as they do today. But in the broader context "all men" was often used to mean "all people".

You point out though what I was referring to in regard to interpretation and I appreciate the rational response.

And the social progress you bring up is also an important issue to consider. Imagine how different everything was without cars or even electric lights. Blacks were slaves and women couldn't even vote, they were completely subjugated by men.

Something to consider huh?

You mean your "real" friend Barney Fife? I notice you posted your tribute to your friend at the bottom of your post.

Don't talk about yourself that way, I mean, we all know that you're the "pivot man" at the circle jerk down at the YMCA, but bragging about it really is a bit over the top, even for a pervert like you!

TOP GUN!!

And now...TOP GUN FROM BEHIND!!!

Bob the Builder... wouldn't know a degree of truth if he was using it as a deodorant!

Ah yes, now he's down to selectively editing posts, taking them out of context, and inserting his own lies!

Dude you are SOOOO busted! ROTFLMFAO!!!

Bob the Builder AKA Bob the Poser...

Dude seriously! You must really hate your life to go on forums and be a Cop poser. I mean what in the world ever made you think you could pull that one off? I mean come on we've all read your posts! And then to try and divert from the Cop poser thing by whipping' out your gay picture collection... that ain't gonna do it... that made ya look worse than the poser in the first place!

POSER PRODUCTIONS starring Bob the Builder in: I'm a Cop & A Fighter...

Grab yourself a dictionary from the time period. I provided you with a definiton already that came from a dictionary published within 50 years of the writing of the constitution. As I pointed out, the definition of men back then was as follows:

men - "Persons; people; mankind; in an indefinite sense".

I completely understand what you're saying. On the dictionary thing that was brought up for instance...

I'd make the observation that a dictionary only in the general range of 50 years around the time something was said is interesting and possibly accurate but not certain or absolute. And there is no doubt whatsoever that at this very same time in history people were also saying the words "all men" and did only mean "just men" as in... All men come to the tavern tonight so we may talk of the need for a new blacksmith.

But this all shows the twists & turns in looking at and interpreting 200 year old documents.

In this particular case however I think it's reasonable to assume they meant "all people" when they said "all men" but how absurdly hypocritical to declare all men are created equal when Blacks were slaves and held only 3/5 of a person worth legally and women couldn't by law do many things including make wills, own property or vote.

I actually see this as very good insight as to how historically old documents can be terribly out of step and sometimes cry out for modern day influence.

OK PLC, here's a straight up challenge for you. Present ANY documentary evidence, written in Jeffersons own hand, that gives credence to your position that when Thomas Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal", the he meant ANYTHING other than "mankind".