TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?!

Since you're the literalist among us, David, and since Jefferson told him to take along his gun, but he did not tell him to take along his powder horn and his bullet pouch, he clearly didn't mean for him to actually fire it, at least not more than once. However, as POM says, flintlocks were heavy, and Jefferson does tell him to exercise, so you would reasonably conclude that the exercise was the Manual of Arms--you know, "Right Shoulder H'ARMS, Port ARMS, Left Should H'ARMS, Trail Arms"> Drill team stuff, which is what militias did, which would really give you some good exercise. Fire it? Ha. Like this, from a later period (and a lighter gun)

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Since you're the literalist among us, David,

U mean there is ONLY one of us?????

MontereyJack wrote:

and since Jefferson told him to take along his gun, but he did not tell him to take along his powder horn and his bullet pouch, he clearly[ ?? ] didn't mean for him to actually fire it, at least not more than once.

U have fallen into the fallacy of non-sequitur.
That a man says what he means does not require
of him that he that he opposes what he does not say.
He did not tell the boy to wear clothing nor shoes either.
Do u hold that Jefferson was thereby promoting nudism in his letter ?

MontereyJack wrote:

However, as POM says, flintlocks were heavy,

I imagine that his pistol was not as heavy as a shoulder weapon
and more convenient for walking.

MontereyJack wrote:

and Jefferson does tell him to exercise, so you would reasonably conclude that the exercise was the Manual of Arms--you know, "Right Shoulder H'ARMS, Port ARMS, Left Should H'ARMS, Trail Arms"> Drill team stuff, which is what militias did, which would really give you some good exercise.

That IS a possible interpretation,
but I doubt that there was any manual of arms for pistols.
Drills in the manual of arms r usually done with shouted commands;
the letter contemplated the boy being alone.

MontereyJack wrote:

Fire it? Ha. Like this, from a later period (and a lighter gun)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDhN28-Cbg0[/youtube]

My experience with the discharge of firearms
has been limited to 20th Century ordnance.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

What leads u to believe
that the gun in question was a shoulder weapon??

Do u know for a fact that it was not a pistol ?

The "fact" is that Jefferson did not specify the sort of weapon. He said gun. Therefore, it doesn't matter and your hissy fit is a red herring.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

NO, Parados. Its just that u don 't get Jefferson's point,
and that is the reason that u cannot
and have not answered my repeated requests
that u tell us an alternate theory
of what YOU believe Jefferson wanted
the boy to DO with his gun.

There are two points to be made here.

The first is that you are almost alone here on A2K with your over-the-top pro-gun rhetoric. If anyone transfers his own beliefs to Jefferson's words, it is you and not parados.

The second is that like many righties, you do not read well. Parados has never demonstrated deficient reading skills. I trust his grasp and not yours, based on experience.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Once again, david demonstrates that he has no idea what it is he is typing.

0 Replies

David, do you know for a fact that it was not a ship's cannon (usually called a gun, as in "she's a 44-gunner" for a fairly heavy warship of the time), that Jefferson was talking about? I don't think you can rule it out. Why would you think it was a pistol? Pistols were relatively uncommon compared with long arms.The object was healthful exercise, dragging a ton-and-a-half cannon along with him would certainly provide that. You always jump to ill-founded conclusions.

1 Reply

Hsve you been reading the news lately, David?

Police, of course, are the most consistently armed people in the country, and presumably amongst the best-trained in the use of firearms, and THEIR GUNS ARE NOT KEEPING THEM SAFE.

4 cops shot in Detroit yesterday, by a guy who walked into a police station with a pistol-grip shotgun. One of them was shot in the chest and would likely have died, except she was wearing a bullet-proof vest. I do not regard the necessity of wearing a bulletproof vest to protect me from my fellow citizens exercising their "right of self-defense" (which all too often turns into "self offense")as you keep blathering, is a sane way to run a society.

2 arned cops wounded in a parking lot today as they confronted a suspicious person who ran and drew on them. They were wounded and unable to return fire. It took a newly-arriving cop to take the guy out. Having guns didn't help. Making sure that guns weren't as easy to get as a can of beans would have. But obsessives just won';t see that.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

David wrote:

What leads u to believe
that the gun in question was a shoulder weapon??

Do u know for a fact that it was not a pistol ?

plainoldme wrote:

The "fact" is that Jefferson did not specify the sort of weapon. He said gun.
Therefore, it doesn't matter and your hissy fit is a red herring.

Plain, U brought up the subject of weight,
which u estimated at 30 pounds; pistols weigh less
than shoulder weapons. I was addressing your comment. THAT's HOW IT MATTERS, Plain.

U seem to have NO IDEA what u r typing.
(Consuming too much of the merchandise, are we ??)

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Jefferson means that it shoud be applied
to its natural purpose, which is target practice

If Jefferson wanted his nephew to spend 2 hours in target practice why did he go on and on about the benefits of walking when he talked about setting aside 2 hours a day for exercise?

Taking the gun on a 2 hour walk doesn't mean he is supposed to spend hours at a time shooting. If he sees something and shoots I am fine with that. You however seem to think that Jefferson wanted 500 rounds of ammunition fired every day which would be ridiculous. The gun was a reason to be aware of his surroundings as he walked. It was not the purpose of the walk.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

U have fallen into the fallacy of non-sequitur.
That a man says what he means does not require
of him that he that he opposes what he does not say.
He did not tell the boy to wear clothing nor shoes either.

That a man does not say something doesn't mean he means it either. You are of the opinion that Jefferson was as obsessed about guns as you are. Yet, he barely mentions the gun in 2 paragraphs about walking. I would say he was obsessed with walking and not guns based on what he DID say. You however want to ignore 2 paragraphs to concentrate all the meaning in one sentence. And you claim you are a mensan?

1 Reply

@parados,

The energy devoted here to parsing an old text to infer indecipherable shades of meaning is truly remarkable.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Quote:

NO, Parados. Its just that u don 't get Jefferson's point,
and that is the reason that u cannot
and have not answered my repeated requests
that u tell us an alternate theory
of what YOU believe Jefferson wanted
the boy to DO with his gun.

plainoldme wrote:

There are two points to be made here.

The first is that you are almost alone here on A2K
with your over-the-top pro-gun rhetoric.[Its a good thing that the USSC agrees with me,
even tho it is not on A2K; multiple be the chuckles.]

How is that SIGNIFICANT?
Is this a popularity contest?
Christopher Columbus was almost alone
when he told the King n Queen of Spain
that the Earth is round.

Einstein was almost alone
when he contradicted Newton,
to the extent that his Theory of Relativity did.
Maybe your parents were almost alone when thay conceived u; were thay ALL rong, Plain ??

plainoldme wrote:

If anyone transfers his own beliefs to Jefferson's words, it is you and not parados.

BALONEY!

and HORSEFEATHERS!

plainoldme wrote:

The second is that like many righties, you do not read well.
Parados has never demonstrated deficient reading skills.
I trust his grasp and not yours, based on experience.

Please do not change your mind (what there is OF it).
I 'd be most alarmed indeed, if u agreed with me
and I 'd need to re-evaluate, in quest of errrorr.

From your posting history,
I 've lost all confidence in your evaluative abilities; its a shame.

David

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

David, do you know for a fact that it was not a ship's cannon
(usually called a gun, as in "she's a 44-gunner" for a fairly heavy warship of the time),
that Jefferson was talking about?

Yes, upon the basis of accepted history that Jefferson had not lost his mind
(unlike other statesman, e.g. Woodrow Wilson).
Jefferson woud not recommend that the boy do something impossible.
I think that 's obvious; maybe u disagree.

MontereyJack wrote:

I don't think you can rule it out. Why would you think it was a pistol?

Because thay were very common
and better suited to walking, more convenient, than shoulder weapons
and Jefferson was a man of extreme intelligence.

MontereyJack wrote:

Pistols were relatively uncommon compared with long arms.

That is false.

MontereyJack wrote:

The object was healthful exercise, dragging a ton-and-a-half cannon
with him would certainly provide that.

Yeah, Y don 't u try that
n let us know how it works out ?
He recommended gunnery practice
(in preference to ball games) for character development.

MontereyJack wrote:

You always jump to ill-founded conclusions.

Your mother wears Army shoes.

David

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Hsve you been reading the news lately, David?

Police, of course, are the most consistently armed people in the country,
and presumably amongst the best-trained in the use of firearms,
and THEIR GUNS ARE NOT KEEPING THEM SAFE.

The police woud be very, very upset if thay were told
to leave their guns home and just take their chances.
No one; absolutely no one, alleges that bearing defensive guns is a panacea;
u erect a straw man argument, Jack.
According to your reasoning,
we shoud all leave our spare tires and our jacks
at home, because thay will NOT prevent us from getting flat tires.
We are better off WITH THEM, than without them.

U can leave YOURS at home, Jack.

MontereyJack wrote:

4 cops shot in Detroit yesterday, by a guy who walked into a police station with a pistol-grip shotgun. One of them was shot in the chest and would likely have died, except she was wearing a bullet-proof vest.

Thay r very good at preventing penetration from shotgun fire.

MontereyJack wrote:

I do not regard the necessity of wearing a bulletproof vest to protect me
from my fellow citizens exercising their "right of self-defense"

Well, the police do.
U don't have to wear them if u don't wanna.

MontereyJack wrote:

(which all too often turns into "self offense"[ ?? ])as you keep blathering,
is a sane way to run a society.

I am very pleased and satisfied
that the Founders of this Republic saw things MY way, not yours.

MontereyJack wrote:

2 arned cops wounded in a parking lot today as they confronted a suspicious person who ran and drew on them. They were wounded and unable to return fire. It took a newly-arriving cop to take the guy out. Having guns didn't help.

Making sure that guns weren't as easy to get as a can of beans would have.

That is IMPOSSIBLE, in addition to being unAmerican and unConstitutional.
For years and decades, criminals have been secretly making guns even in prisons,
with the guards around.

U might as well suggest that we make GOLD out of water, for all the good that it will do.

MontereyJack wrote:

But obsessives just won';t see that.

Its not true; therefore it is not seen.

Jack, your post falsely implies
that if there were a prohibition,
like that in the 1920s against alcohol
or the one against marijuana now,
that the robbers and the murderers
woud all throw their guns in the garbage
and go back to knives (in their zeal to obay the law)
and that no blackmarket gunsmiths woud provide desired gunnery;
i.e., the Law of Supply and Demand woud end and be forgotten.

When Columbus brought guns to the New World
that were not new to him. People made guns by hand,
without the aid of electric tools nor the engineering plans
that are available from libraries and from the Internet.

People love guns (better than thay love cars)
and will make sure that thay have enuf of them,
whether u approve or not.

Do u understand that, Jack?

When people adopt YOUR filosofy,
no one will smoke marijuana (except for medical reasons) because it is against the law.
It 'll be a long wait.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

U seem to have NO IDEA what u r typing.
(Consuming too much of the merchandise, are we ??)

Ah, when confronted with your own illogic, you insult.

No wonder no one takes your alleged membership in Mensa seriously.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Right.. indecipherable...

There are hardly shades of meaning. Jefferson tells his nephew to go for walks as exercise. He expounds on the benefit of walking. He tells him to take a gun instead of a book on the walks so he observes what is around him. Not much there that is indecipherable. The only thing that is indecipherable is David's argument that his sole intention was to get his nephew to use the gun.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Is this a popularity contest?
Quote:

A text book example of a strawman argument.

But, then again, david has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to read, so, perhaps, this is a text book case of marginal literacy.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I sincerely and seriously doubt that a pistol weighed 30 pounds. That sort of weight, balanced only in the extended hand, would lead to inaccuracy.

BTW, women have steadier hands than men do, which is why women can hold a camera at a slower opening and take better pictures than men can. Perhaps, then Jefferson's niece could have aimed a heavy pistol than his nephew.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Quote:

U seem to have NO IDEA what u r typing.
(Consuming too much of the merchandise, are we ??)

plainoldme wrote:

Ah, when confronted with your own illogic, you insult.

No wonder no one takes your alleged membership in Mensa seriously.

U harbor the delusion
that u know what "no one" takes seriously.
Did u take a survay of everyone?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

No one; absolutely no one, alleges that bearing defensive guns is a panacea;
u erect a straw man argument, Jack.

Two reactions:

1.) This is a retraction.

2.) How is it an alleged lawyer can not recognize a strawman?

0 Replies

TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know