If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TPNN)   Old and busted: Teaching what it says in the Constitution. New hotness: Teaching what you think it SHOULD say in the Constitution if the guys who wrote it had been properly enlightened   (tpnn.com) divider line 116
    More: Fail, constitutions, second amendment, The Big Issue, tea party, useful idiots  
•       •       •

3831 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Mar 2014 at 6:04 PM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-24 04:37:45 PM
area man.
 
2014-03-24 04:40:02 PM
Page won't load, but I doubt that the Tea Party News Network is providing an unbiased account.
 
2014-03-24 04:43:12 PM
Well, website won't load for me, but from the page title it sounds like someone is shiatting themselves over phrasing in a gradeschooler's workbook.
 
2014-03-24 04:53:50 PM
Won't load for me, either.


SlothB77: area man.


For once we're in agreement. They've made The Onion obsolete.
 
2014-03-24 04:57:10 PM
Got a partial load...


From TFA, supposedly from the workbook:

"This amendment states that people  have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and have not been in prison. The founding fathers included the amendment to prevent the United States from acting like the British who had tried to take weapons away from the colonists."

And an alternate link searching for the schools name:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/21/middle-school-workbook-re po rtedly-includes-what-could-be-the-most-outrageous-definition-of-the-se cond-amendment-yet/
 
2014-03-24 05:10:22 PM
Well, technically, that's the way the Second Amendment was recently explained by the SCOTUS.

Americans have the right to bear arms, but the state can regulate the ownership with laws, i.e. felons can't possess guns, automatic fire weapons are limited access only and must be registered, CCW permits are issued by the state, people under 21 can't buy guns, etc. The SCOTUS addressed those issues at the same time in different cases.

/The more you know ...
 
2014-03-24 05:15:21 PM

AirForceVet: Well, technically, that's the way the Second Amendment was recently explained by the SCOTUS.

Americans have the right to bear arms, but the state can regulate the ownership with laws, i.e. felons can't possess guns, automatic fire weapons are limited access only and must be registered, CCW permits are issued by the state, people under 21 can't buy guns, etc. The SCOTUS addressed those issues at the same time in different cases.

/The more you know ...


Its a nuance perspective difference, the amendment doesn't say "You can only have certain weapons and must register them", the caselaw surrounding it says "The goverment can, when it has an amazingly good reason, restrict you from access to certain weapons, and sometimes require you to register some of them".
 
2014-03-24 05:23:17 PM

NkThrasher: Its a nuance perspective difference, the amendment doesn't say "You can only have certain weapons and must register them", the caselaw surrounding it says "The goverment can, when it has an amazingly good reason, restrict you from access to certain weapons, and sometimes require you to register some of them".


Depends on how this workbook is set up.

If it was simply explaining the U.S. Constitution, then direct quotes and explanation of those quotes are warrented.

If it was explaining how the U.S. Constitution is applied today, case law and rulings are warrented, sometimes in simplified format.

As I haven't read the entire workbook or any associated textbook, I honestly don't know.
 
2014-03-24 05:28:11 PM

AirForceVet: NkThrasher: Its a nuance perspective difference, the amendment doesn't say "You can only have certain weapons and must register them", the caselaw surrounding it says "The goverment can, when it has an amazingly good reason, restrict you from access to certain weapons, and sometimes require you to register some of them".

Depends on how this workbook is set up.

If it was simply explaining the U.S. Constitution, then direct quotes and explanation of those quotes are warrented.

If it was explaining how the U.S. Constitution is applied today, case law and rulings are warrented, sometimes in simplified format.

As I haven't read the entire workbook or any associated textbook, I honestly don't know.


Fair enough.  For what it's worth:

www.theblaze.com
(hot)

"This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison."
 
2014-03-24 05:36:08 PM
I don't see the problem here.  Isn't it implied that any well-regulated militia would regulate which weapons its members used and maintain an inventory?  How do you go about calling a militia "well-regulated" if you don't even know who its members are?
 
2014-03-24 05:36:19 PM

NkThrasher: AirForceVet: NkThrasher: Its a nuance perspective difference, the amendment doesn't say "You can only have certain weapons and must register them", the caselaw surrounding it says "The goverment can, when it has an amazingly good reason, restrict you from access to certain weapons, and sometimes require you to register some of them".

Depends on how this workbook is set up.

If it was simply explaining the U.S. Constitution, then direct quotes and explanation of those quotes are warrented.

If it was explaining how the U.S. Constitution is applied today, case law and rulings are warrented, sometimes in simplified format.

As I haven't read the entire workbook or any associated textbook, I honestly don't know.

Fair enough.  For what it's worth:

[www.theblaze.com image 610x455]
(hot)

"This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison."


I have to agree that's kinda farked up.


/I reserve the right to remain dubious, given the source.
 
2014-03-24 05:48:15 PM
As someone who's about as anti-2nd amendment as people on this site can be, this is wrong and the teacher should not have done that.
 
2014-03-24 05:52:16 PM

serial_crusher: I don't see the problem here.  Isn't it implied that any well-regulated militia would regulate which weapons its members used and maintain an inventory?  How do you go about calling a militia "well-regulated" if you don't even know who its members are?


Sure, if you want to make up your own version of the law.
 
2014-03-24 05:57:21 PM
If they are going the screw around with the Bill of Rights like that, they should at least make it practical:

"The first amendment guarantees free speech, except when you're in class.....so STFU and put away your smart phone."
 
2014-03-24 06:14:21 PM
I swear some people are more testy about the 2nd amendment being "misinterpreted" than images of the prophet Muhammad.

It just seems so ridiculous how guns are such SRS BUSINESS. I don't think they're as important as the time we spend arguing about them.

I guarantee that if was any other amendment, and was similarly summarized no one would pitch a fit.
 
2014-03-24 06:24:40 PM
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE
 
2014-03-24 06:25:13 PM

NkThrasher: "This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison."

img.fark.net


Which is historically correct. Guns were extremely registered in the days of the Constitution, since everyone was required to have them and could be conscripted into service under tight regulation. You can ask James Madison about that. No one's ever convinced a court that the general populace can have nukes, nor that murder and arson convicts can have some kind of arsenal. This is indeed both true historically and true today. The legal battles ensuing for hundreds of years prove the Constitution is not a self-explanatory document and without legal and historical context teaching it is meaningless.
 
2014-03-24 06:26:21 PM

DamnYankees: As someone who's about as anti-2nd amendment as people on this site can be, this is wrong and the teacher should not have done that.


And as someone who is pro-2nd Amendment and pro-historical accuracy, this is right and the teacher is absolutely correct to have done this.
 
2014-03-24 06:31:44 PM

Somacandra: DamnYankees: As someone who's about as anti-2nd amendment as people on this site can be, this is wrong and the teacher should not have done that.

And as someone who is pro-2nd Amendment and pro-historical accuracy, this is right and the teacher is absolutely correct to have done this.


cdn.dejanseo.com.au
 
2014-03-24 06:35:05 PM
Your blog sucks.
 
2014-03-24 06:38:04 PM

Somacandra: NkThrasher: "This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison."

[img.fark.net image 610x455]

Which is historically correct. Guns were extremely registered in the days of the Constitution, since everyone was required to have them and could be conscripted into service under tight regulation. You can ask James Madison about that. No one's ever convinced a court that the general populace can have nukes, nor that murder and arson convicts can have some kind of arsenal. This is indeed both true historically and true today. The legal battles ensuing for hundreds of years prove the Constitution is not a self-explanatory document and without legal and historical context teaching it is meaningless.


Sure, but there's a difference between "The amendment states" and "the reality of the implementation of the amendment and so on...".  As  AirForceVet pointed out, context might help a lot and there might be a raw-text section followed by "And what does this mean?"  but even so, the wording is poor if that's the case.
 
2014-03-24 06:39:56 PM

NkThrasher: Sure, but there's a difference between "The amendment states" and "the reality of the implementation of the amendment and so on...".  As  AirForceVet pointed out, context might help a lot and there might be a raw-text section followed by "And what does this mean?"  but even so, the wording is poor if that's the case.


Exactly so. I think it would be great for a teacher to teach each amendment plainly, and then break it into two discussion points - (1) why is this necessary and helpful and (2) what are the problems this amendment could create. That should be done for every amendment, not just the 2nd. But you need to teach the basic language of the amendment first.
 
2014-03-24 06:44:05 PM

DamnYankees: NkThrasher: Sure, but there's a difference between "The amendment states" and "the reality of the implementation of the amendment and so on...".  As  AirForceVet pointed out, context might help a lot and there might be a raw-text section followed by "And what does this mean?"  but even so, the wording is poor if that's the case.

Exactly so. I think it would be great for a teacher to teach each amendment plainly, and then break it into two discussion points - (1) why is this necessary and helpful and (2) what are the problems this amendment could create. That should be done for every amendment, not just the 2nd. But you need to teach the basic language of the amendment first.


And more generally speaking, it's of extreme value to get students to understand that while there is text on a page, there can be exceptions to that text when an amazingly good reason presents itself and is properly vetted by the courts.  Raw text is important, historical context is important, and how it has been shaped/understood by the courts is very important.
 
2014-03-24 06:50:44 PM

NkThrasher: Somacandra: NkThrasher: "This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison."

[img.fark.net image 610x455]

Which is historically correct. Guns were extremely registered in the days of the Constitution, since everyone was required to have them and could be conscripted into service under tight regulation. You can ask James Madison about that. No one's ever convinced a court that the general populace can have nukes, nor that murder and arson convicts can have some kind of arsenal. This is indeed both true historically and true today. The legal battles ensuing for hundreds of years prove the Constitution is not a self-explanatory document and without legal and historical context teaching it is meaningless.

Sure, but there's a difference between "The amendment states" and "the reality of the implementation of the amendment and so on...".  As  AirForceVet pointed out, context might help a lot and there might be a raw-text section followed by "And what does this mean?"  but even so, the wording is poor if that's the case.


Are you really whining about something for kids that's written in farking comic sans not being excruciatingly and pedantically correct?
 
2014-03-24 06:54:38 PM
Theaetetus:

Are you really whining about something for kids that's written in farking comic sans not being excruciatingly and pedantically correct?

I'm not sure where I'm "whining" exactly, but yes the difference between "the amendment states" and "the amendment means to you" is an important distinction.  One is factually inaccurate, the other is a representation of the reality of the implementation of the text.
 
2014-03-24 06:54:50 PM
New hotness my ass. They've been doing that since they started indoctrinating the boomers.
 
2014-03-24 06:56:50 PM
Love the cartoon. I wish all gun conversations would end like that. Talking cat helps.
 
2014-03-24 07:00:18 PM
Nuh uh you doubters, "shall not be infringed" literally means "banninate and regulate the shiat outa 'em"

/works for every other amendment, because drugs are bad and stuff...
 
2014-03-24 07:00:21 PM

SovietCanuckistan: Talking cat helps.


'Abilify' might help even better.
 
2014-03-24 07:11:49 PM
First, it's a 7th grade workbook.  The workbook probably had the intention of explaining the amendment.  Second, you generally don't teach the arguments surrounding this amendment to 7th graders who are generally not mature enough to understand the nuances of the argument.  At the same time, you also need to teach what the amendment actually says.  That's the piece we are probably missing.  There is most likely a textbook or some accompanying article/reading that has the actual amendments.  If you were trying to explain what the amendment means legally today, that's not quite how I would go about it, but it would be pretty close.  I would add that some weapons, like ATGMs, are illegal to own because they are used exclusively by the military.
Lastly, this isn't a bastion of constitutionalism we're talking about here.  It's Illinois, home to Chicago and the finest politicians that money can buy.  I'm not surprised it was done in this this state.  I'm actually surprised this hasn't popped up in other liberal states.
 
2014-03-24 07:25:03 PM

NkThrasher: AirForceVet: NkThrasher: Its a nuance perspective difference, the amendment doesn't say "You can only have certain weapons and must register them", the caselaw surrounding it says "The goverment can, when it has an amazingly good reason, restrict you from access to certain weapons, and sometimes require you to register some of them".

Depends on how this workbook is set up.

If it was simply explaining the U.S. Constitution, then direct quotes and explanation of those quotes are warrented.

If it was explaining how the U.S. Constitution is applied today, case law and rulings are warrented, sometimes in simplified format.

As I haven't read the entire workbook or any associated textbook, I honestly don't know.

Fair enough.  For what it's worth:

[www.theblaze.com image 610x455]
(hot)

"This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison."


Too much emphasis on the first sentence, not enough on the second.

"The founding fathers included this amendment to prevent the United States from becoming like the British who had tried to take weapons away from the colonists."

But, of course, ZOMG REGULATION LIBBY LIB LIBS!
 
2014-03-24 07:28:07 PM
It is very badly written. Clearly it should say the amendment states 'x' and so 'y' or that the amendment 'means' something. The word 'states' is explicit. Even in a document for little kids there is no reason to be flatly innacurate.
 
2014-03-24 07:35:23 PM
I'd have to see the entries for the other amendments to see if they did them all this way before I have an opinion.
 
2014-03-24 07:36:02 PM

Somacandra: DamnYankees: As someone who's about as anti-2nd amendment as people on this site can be, this is wrong and the teacher should not have done that.

And as someone who is pro-2nd Amendment and pro-historical accuracy, this is right and the teacher is absolutely correct to have done this.


You shouldn't be. It's historically inaccurate. The British did not, in fact, attempt to take weapons away from the colonists, nor did they ever try at any point prior to or during the Revolution. The 2d Amd. is "in there" because the Framers knew that the ability of the people to defend the nation against interlopers--from either inside or outside--was absolutely essential and required all members of the population to be armed. Hence the clause "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state."

They knew quite well what happened to a nation that was less well-armed than its neighbors; being a newly-minted country, America needed all the able-bodied soldiers it could get; and personal weapons were cheaper for the nascent country than filling a national armory. That's my interpretation, of course; but the fact is that Great Britain never "tried to take weapons away from the colonists."
 
2014-03-24 07:38:57 PM
justtray:They should have just paraphrased from Heller.

You mean Catch-22?  Here, I'll give it a go:

You shouldn't be allowed to own guns if you are crazy.  But the fact that you want a gun implies that you are completely off balance.
 
2014-03-24 07:39:47 PM

AirForceVet: Well, technically, that's the way the Second Amendment was recently explained by the SCOTUS.


FTFA: ""This amendment states that people  have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and have not been in prison."

No it doesn't. The amendments STATES that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Not certain arms. Not to certain people. Not under certain conditions.

Yes, SCOTUS has refined and elaborated on the Second Amendment since then. That doesn't make this accurate. Simplifying it for grade school students does not require stating things that simply are not true.

Why not something like this?

"The Second Amendment is controversial. It states that citizens have the right to bear arms, but since then the government has added some restrictions, including requiring registration and restricting who can own weapons and what weapons they can own."
 
2014-03-24 07:40:09 PM

Nabb1: serial_crusher: I don't see the problem here.  Isn't it implied that any well-regulated militia would regulate which weapons its members used and maintain an inventory?  How do you go about calling a militia "well-regulated" if you don't even know who its members are?

Sure, if you want to make up your own version of the law.



Well, grammatically, it says the reason we need a right to bear arms is that we need a well-regulated militia.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Absent a militia, there is no purpose to the rest of the amendment. Nowhere else in the Bill of Rights is a reason given for anything.
 
2014-03-24 07:40:21 PM

DamnYankees: As someone who's about as anti-2nd amendment as people on this site can be, this is wrong and the teacher should not have done that.


Really, you are anti-2nd Amendment. Why?
 
2014-03-24 07:41:30 PM

Gyrfalcon: Somacandra: DamnYankees: As someone who's about as anti-2nd amendment as people on this site can be, this is wrong and the teacher should not have done that.

And as someone who is pro-2nd Amendment and pro-historical accuracy, this is right and the teacher is absolutely correct to have done this.

You shouldn't be. It's historically inaccurate. The British did not, in fact, attempt to take weapons away from the colonists, nor did they ever try at any point prior to or during the Revolution. The 2d Amd. is "in there" because the Framers knew that the ability of the people to defend the nation against interlopers--from either inside or outside--was absolutely essential and required all members of the population to be armed. Hence the clause "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state."

They knew quite well what happened to a nation that was less well-armed than its neighbors; being a newly-minted country, America needed all the able-bodied soldiers it could get; and personal weapons were cheaper for the nascent country than filling a national armory. That's my interpretation, of course; but the fact is that Great Britain never "tried to take weapons away from the colonists."


Yep. The 2nd Amendment exists only because we didn't, at the time, have a standing army. Once we formed a standing army, the 2nd Amendment became obsolete.
 
2014-03-24 07:48:42 PM
The whole "providing that they register them" is pretty obviously an imaginative reinterpretation.
 
2014-03-24 07:50:18 PM
LordJiro:

Yep. The 2nd Amendment exists only because we didn't, at the time, have a standing army. Once we formed a standing army, the 2nd Amendment became obsolete.


In fact, they were very much against creating a standing army. What does a tyrant do when the people rise up against him? He uses the army to control them.
 
2014-03-24 07:50:42 PM

Gyrfalcon: They knew quite well what happened to a nation that was less well-armed than its neighbors; being a newly-minted country, America needed all the able-bodied soldiers it could get; and personal weapons were cheaper for the nascent country than filling a national armory.


That's inconsistent with its appearance in the Constitution. If it were for the purpose you think, then it would be in Article I or II, under the powers of the legislature to raise armies - or rather, order militias to arm themselves - or under the powers of the executive. Instead, it appears in the Bill of Rights, as a  restriction on the government from infringing that right.

Why would that restrictionpossibly exist, if the Founders were simply concerned about invasion? Did they assume that the federal government would, at some future point, surrender the country to its neighbors and order all of the citizenry's weapons seized? Wouldn't that already be covered under treason? And is it really a realistic fear?

No, it only makes sense if you have a fear of a tyrannical government preemptively seizing weapons to present insurrection and revolution.

That's my interpretation, of course; but the fact is that Great Britain never "tried to take weapons away from the colonists."

... although they did prevent firearms and powder from being imported to the country, and they did take all of the powder out of magazines that were in danger of being seized by the colonists (see the Powder Alarm and the Port Act of Boston). But those were weapons that the colonists didn't yet have, or weapons that Great Britain claimed were its own, so they weren't  really seizing weapons, right?
 
2014-03-24 07:53:37 PM

pmdgrwr: DamnYankees: As someone who's about as anti-2nd amendment as people on this site can be, this is wrong and the teacher should not have done that.

Really, you are anti-2nd Amendment. Why?


I think its dumb as hell to provide for a right to use a piece of technology. It's as if the first amendment didn't say you have a right to free speech, but merely says you have a right to own ink.
 
2014-03-24 07:56:26 PM

Theaetetus: Are you really whining about something for kids that's written in farking comic sans not being excruciatingly and pedantically correct?


Can't speak for NkThrasher, but as I said before: Simplified doesn't mean untrue.

Reminds me of the whole issue over how you explain reproduction to your kids.

Question: Where do babies come from?

Answer:

To a 3-year old: Mommies and daddies make babies together.

To a 5-year-old: Mommies and daddies make babies together, and the babies grow in mommies' tummies until they're ready to be born.

To an 8-year-old: Dads put seeds in Moms' insides. Moms' bodies know how to make the seeds grow into babies.

To a 12-year-old: Sperm, eggs, sex.

15 and up: Sperm, eggs, sex, IVF, abortion, rape, adoption, etc.

Some of these are simplified. All of these are true.
 
2014-03-24 08:12:53 PM

Theaetetus: ... although they did prevent firearms and powder from being imported to the country, and they did take all of the powder out of magazines that were in danger of being seized by the colonists (see the Powder Alarm and the Port Act of Boston). But those were weapons that the colonists didn't yet have, or weapons that Great Britain claimed were its own, so they weren't really seizing weapons, right?


In the context of the "workbook" (if you can call it that) it's clear that they mean "the mean government was taking guns away from the good people of America by force of law." So the Constitution was written so that the mean government could no longer take guns away from the good people of America by force of law.

This is incorrect, because there were never laws passed by Great Britain seizing weapons from colonists, and the mean government of King George never attempted to do so; furthermore, the Acts you mention didn't occur until the Revolution was in full swing. The 2d Amd. was not written to prevent the government from "taking away guns just like Britain" like it says in the workbook. We can argue about why it WAS written; but historical revisionism makes me crazy.
 
2014-03-24 08:19:02 PM

Gyrfalcon: Theaetetus: ... although they did prevent firearms and powder from being imported to the country, and they did take all of the powder out of magazines that were in danger of being seized by the colonists (see the Powder Alarm and the Port Act of Boston). But those were weapons that the colonists didn't yet have, or weapons that Great Britain claimed were its own, so they weren't really seizing weapons, right?

In the context of the "workbook" (if you can call it that) it's clear that they mean "the mean government was taking guns away from the good people of America by force of law." So the Constitution was written so that the mean government could no longer take guns away from the good people of America by force of law.

This is incorrect, because there were never laws passed by Great Britain seizing weapons from colonists, and the mean government of King George never attempted to do so; furthermore, the Acts you mention didn't occur until the Revolution was in full swing. The 2d Amd. was not written to prevent the government from "taking away guns just like Britain" like it says in the workbook. We can argue about why it WAS written; but historical revisionism makes me crazy.


The Proscription Act of 1747 banned weapons in the Scottish Highlands. The founders were most likely aware  of the consequences of that.
 
2014-03-24 08:26:33 PM

LiberalWeenie: LordJiro:

Yep. The 2nd Amendment exists only because we didn't, at the time, have a standing army. Once we formed a standing army, the 2nd Amendment became obsolete.


In fact, they were very much against creating a standing army. What does a tyrant do when the people rise up against him? He uses the army to control them.


I think that the United States found a clever way of avoiding this - a soldier in the US military swears allegiance to the Constitution, rather than to any leader. His duty is to the social contract, and he has no personal oath to any individual. This is even spelled out in the "obey any lawful order" part.

I can understand where the Founders were coming from in their fear of (and unwillingness to pay for) a standing army, but we got away from the dangers culturally.
 
2014-03-24 08:33:10 PM

DamnYankees: pmdgrwr: DamnYankees: As someone who's about as anti-2nd amendment as people on this site can be, this is wrong and the teacher should not have done that.

Really, you are anti-2nd Amendment. Why?

I think its dumb as hell to provide for a right to use a piece of technology. It's as if the first amendment didn't say you have a right to free speech, but merely says you have a right to own ink.


It's even dumber to think that you have a right to incest.
 
2014-03-24 08:37:43 PM
If you're not allowed an unregistered nuke, which you aren't, it sounds like the book is right.

The constitution's meaning is filtered through case law decisions.
 
2014-03-24 08:39:28 PM

Gyrfalcon: Theaetetus: ... although they did prevent firearms and powder from being imported to the country, and they did take all of the powder out of magazines that were in danger of being seized by the colonists (see the Powder Alarm and the Port Act of Boston). But those were weapons that the colonists didn't yet have, or weapons that Great Britain claimed were its own, so they weren't really seizing weapons, right?

This is incorrect, because there were never laws passed by Great Britain seizing weapons from colonists, and the mean government of King George never attempted to do so


Which part is incorrect - the part where I agreed with you? Okay, you're wrong. Or right about being wrong. Or something. Perhaps you shouldn't just say an ambiguous "this".

furthermore, the Acts you mention didn't occur until the Revolution was in full swing.

1774, yo.

The 2d Amd. was not written to prevent the government from "taking away guns just like Britain" like it says in the workbook. We can argue about why it WAS written; but historical revisionism makes me crazy.

Oh, it certainly was. Now, we can argue about whether it was just to prevent the  federal government from taking away guns while states could have regulated militias and prevent private ownership, but certainly, a quick glance at Federalist #46 tells you that the point was to prevent the federal government from imposing its will on the states:
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition... Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Now, certainly, an argument could be made that the 2nd amendment should be read merely as a limitation on the federal government. But that's a separate argument.  Either way, your earlier justification - raising an army against foreign invaders - is clearly wrong, which is probably why you never responded to my earlier point, which I reiterate here:

[Your suggestion is] inconsistent with its appearance in the Constitution. If it were for the purpose you think, then it would be in Article I or II, under the powers of the legislature to raise armies - or rather, order militias to arm themselves - or under the powers of the executive. Instead, it appears in the Bill of Rights, as a  restriction on the government from infringing that right.

Why would that  restriction possibly exist, if the Founders were simply concerned about invasion? Did they assume that the federal government would, at some future point, surrender the country to its neighbors and order all of the citizenry's weapons seized? Wouldn't that already be covered under treason? And is it really a realistic fear?

No, it only makes sense if you have a fear of a tyrannical government preemptively seizing weapons to present insurrection and revolution.
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report