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  
•       •       •

3832 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Mar 2014 at 6:04 PM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.
 
2014-03-24 08:42:26 PM

The_Sponge: It's even dumber to think that you have a right to incest.


Haha, I love how you can't get over that.
 
2014-03-24 08:45:14 PM

DamnYankees: The_Sponge: It's even dumber to think that you have a right to incest.

Haha, I love how you can't get over that.


It just shows how people should show little regard to your opinions you believe in something that silly.
 
2014-03-24 08:47:49 PM

The_Sponge: DamnYankees: The_Sponge: It's even dumber to think that you have a right to incest.

Haha, I love how you can't get over that.

It just shows how people should show little regard to your opinions you believe in something that silly.


"when you believe"
 
2014-03-24 08:58:27 PM

Gyrfalcon: 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


Those acts pre-dated the Constitution and the Second Amendment by far. The Constitution and the amendments weren't written until 1787, some 11 years after declaring independence, and 4 years after the Treaty of Paris.
 
2014-03-24 09:14:53 PM
Why would the Teabaggers care about book-learnin'?
 
2014-03-24 09:31:58 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 ...


Yeah, but this workbook implies that the writers of the Constitution put all of those restrictions and regulations in place, when they didn't. Regardless of the amendment involved, this is completely off base, and really a poor way to teach the Constitution.
 
2014-03-24 09:33:29 PM
Well, unfortunately, THIS part will be left out when my FB buddies start forwarding this...

Apparently, this is the first time this issue had been raised at the school as Kinison was told that the workbook was several years old, predating Common Core...

They LOVE banding together against that evil 'Common Core' stuff...
 
2014-03-24 09:34:12 PM
This does beg the question, "given a glimpse in to our era, how might the founders have written the 2nd amendment ?"
Back then the same weapon you took up in arms, was also needed for putting dinner on the table. So prohibition was out.
 
2014-03-24 09:36:02 PM

Mikey1969: Well, unfortunately, THIS part will be left out when my FB buddies start forwarding this...

Apparently, this is the first time this issue had been raised at the school as Kinison was told that the workbook was several years old, predating Common Core...

They LOVE banding together against that evil 'Common Core' stuff...


LOL, just looked through the comments, and Common Core made it into the statements of 3 different 'educated patriots', despite being in the actual farking article they were commenting on.
 
2014-03-24 09:43:51 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?


I had always understood that "well - regulated", in the context of the 2nd amendment meant "competent to use", but given that the majority of Americans are either insipid lackwits who lack the fortitude to volunteer for military service, or are too fat, uneducated,  or criminal to allow to go to military training, I guess real competence for "the militia" ("all of the people except certain elected officials") is more hallucination than vision.
 
2014-03-24 10:24:45 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 ...


So if we modify the 1st amendment so that you can only say things that I like, if you have a permit given by me, and can only speak to so many people at one time, I'm not infringing on your rights at all?
 
2014-03-24 10:25:32 PM
images.t-nation.com
 
2014-03-24 10:30:27 PM

Facetious_Speciest: The whole "providing that they register them" is pretty obviously an imaginative reinterpretation.


Yes, and it's also bad usage - the writer was looking for "provided," not "providing" - and I hate seeing errors like that in educational materials.
 
2014-03-24 10:31:27 PM
While the article is correct that the workbook incorrectly describes what the Second Amendment says, there is absolutely no support provided for the claim that the workbook represents "purposeful misinformation" being "fed to our nation's children".  Far more likely it's just a lazy publisher who sloppily combined the description of the Second Amendment with additional details regarding its later interpretation by the courts without properly separating those sections out.
 
2014-03-24 10:33:22 PM
Oh, and also: "Fail" tag + trollerific headline + "some guy" = no click.
 
2014-03-24 10:34:46 PM

Cubicle Jockey: 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.


You don't understand.  The Second Amendment is the only one that matters.
 
2014-03-24 10:51:36 PM
*bored*
 
2014-03-24 10:57:21 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 ...


There's a world of difference between saying that the state can regulate something and adding words to a constitutional amendment.

It is in no way "technically" what SCOTUS said.
 
2014-03-24 10:59:24 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?


That's not part of the main clause. This has been pointed out by leading legal scholars for the benefit of slower-witted folk.
 
2014-03-24 11:00:06 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?


You do know that the word "regulated" has been changed, don't you (and that it was changed in order the government to violate this and the 'interstate commerce' clause)? When the Constitution was written, "regulate" meant "equip." The founding fathers wanted a well-equipped militia, not a well-controlled one.
 
2014-03-24 11:09:10 PM

Fart_Machine: Your blog sucks.


Pretty much this.

While I'm here, oh, would that the Tea Party were such staunch defenders of the rest of the Bill of Rights.... *sigh*
 
2014-03-24 11:34:49 PM

SlothB77: area man.


I have never agreed with you before because you are astoundingly miscalibrated with reality. But sometimes you can cross the zero line and at that very fraction of time, you connect with real life. It is, however, fleetingly small.
 
2014-03-24 11:35:38 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.


Ah No, please show a copy of a  Colony law/ county or city/town regulation about writing down the possession and ownership of Mr. Colonist's musketoon; and the muster roles and weapons inventory which results from just such a registry. Sorry, your google foo is weak; and you will have to show your work...

I haven't seen any State Historical society lists of militia roles for colony/ state residents who own weapons ( I'll give you an easy "A", so you can include pole arms, bows and arrows ( even those which are self made, so no serial numbers, or micro stamping on the notches); and of course all muskets/musketoons/ matchlocks, etc, pistols, swords and daggers, and oh too, if they had some cannon (either stone or iron shot!)... You can go on to show the law where dirt poor farmers where denied the permission to buy any/all such weapons which they might afford; never seen/heard of that law ever!

And a paragraph or two on horse troops would be nice!  I know, I know, only the rich white gentlemen had horses... not some poor dirt farmer from the old country!  Well show your work, please cover all 14* original colonies ( I will cut some slack so you don't have to include Bermuda, Jamaica or the Bahamas ).

* The one which didn't join the southern rebels, as they were too busy trying to be French! They lost anyhow! Just goes to show you Fishermen don't make good Infantry!
 
2014-03-25 12:11:48 AM

Sensei Can You See: 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."



I assume your statement also applies to the part about being in prison.
 
2014-03-25 12:51:54 AM
Wait, I was told by the knowledgeable and sensible firearm advocates on the internet that the Second Amendment GUARANTEES that any American can have access to any deadly weapon they so wish. If little Billy who suffers from schizophrenia wants a chain gun with bandolier for his 8th birthday, the government has absolutely no authority to stop me with claims that it is "irresponsible" and that it is a danger to "other people." After all, one day the government says I cannot give a weapon which fires over 500 rounds per minute to a mentally unstable child, the next we are all arriving on boats along the shores of North Korea as refugees, looking for freedom and opportunity.

Are you saying that this is not the case?
 
2014-03-25 01:05:41 AM

Electrify: Wait, I was told by the knowledgeable and sensible firearm advocates on the internet that the Second Amendment GUARANTEES that any American can have access to any deadly weapon they so wish. If little Billy who suffers from schizophrenia wants a chain gun with bandolier for his 8th birthday, the government has absolutely no authority to stop me with claims that it is "irresponsible" and that it is a danger to "other people." After all, one day the government says I cannot give a weapon which fires over 500 rounds per minute to a mentally unstable child, the next we are all arriving on boats along the shores of North Korea as refugees, looking for freedom and opportunity.

Are you saying that this is not the case?


No they didn't.
 
2014-03-25 01:06:02 AM
I predict polite and respectful discussion about this subject as usual by people with opposing view points.  *pops corn and pours coke*
 
2014-03-25 01:08:09 AM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: 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.


img2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-03-25 02:36:47 AM
Way back in high school i had a student's guide to the Bill of Rights.  For each of the first ten amendments it had great background information and included important Supreme Court citations.  It was extremely well written.  Except for the 2nd amendment chapter.  It used a dissenting opinion arguing against personal gun rights instead of any proper citations.

I see things have not improved in our schools.
 
2014-03-25 02:37:26 AM

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.


Fortunately, we have Posse Comitatus, so hypothetically it's really really difficult for the President to use the military on the populous. At one point it supposedly constituted a coup. Unfortunately, congress doesn't have those limitations.
 
2014-03-25 02:47:44 AM

GodComplex: 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.

Fortunately, we have Posse Comitatus, so hypothetically it's really really difficult for the President to use the military on the populous. At one point it supposedly constituted a coup. Unfortunately, congress doesn't have those limitations.


In a third world backwater country, the army is often limited to only the "right tribe".  That is, people who would go along with the asshole with the funny hat.  In this country, if there was an attempt by the president or some other higher up to seize absolute power, the military would go through a very messy "sorting out".  I don't want to believe that the majority of our soldiers would follow an order to attack civilian targets in their own country.  Sure, some would.  There are always going to be psychopaths.

I believe Congress was not given a limitation because Congress technically doesn't have the authority to give our military orders.  They are limited to authorizing the president to give orders.  Sure, a Congress critter on an important military appropriations committee will be able to get some generals to do a little dance, but there are limits to how far that dance can go.
 
2014-03-25 03:16:01 AM

wellreadneck: 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.


But it didn't ban bagpipes. The Brits obviously didn't learn to ban what was really important.
 
2014-03-25 04:11:54 AM

OgreMagi: Way back in high school i had a student's guide to the Bill of Rights.  For each of the first ten amendments it had great background information and included important Supreme Court citations.  It was extremely well written.  Except for the 2nd amendment chapter.  It used a dissenting opinion arguing against personal gun rights instead of any proper citations.

I see things have not improved in our schools.


They hate it, and they know amending it will fail, so they pretend that it does not mean what it actually says.
 
2014-03-25 06:04:34 AM
I have to agree that the part about having to register them is off base and should not be there, especially considering the sensitivity of the subject. I think a better approach would be to have the amendments all printed in their whole without commentary. Maybe have a list of discussion questions regarding them, their meanings, and limitations we have put as a society on those rights; whether those limitations are justified or not. Stuff like freedom of speech and yelling "fire" in a crowded room, or the 4th with such things like the Patriot Act, and of course the limits on the 2nd for felons or the mentally insane. Then the subject of gun registration can come up also and stuff like the "original" meaning of the 2nd Amendment can be discussed as well as how the meaning has changed as the nation has changed through court rulings.

Of course doing it the way I discussed will probably tick off those on the political extremes because it allows the student to decide for themselves through critical thinking; and that decision might not be the one either side approves.
 
2014-03-25 07:28:10 AM
Wow.

Can't get an amendment changed?

No problem! Just change it's meaning.

/War is peace
 
2014-03-25 07:46:58 AM

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 ...


The workbook in question is a one or two sentence explanation of the Constitution and Bill or Rights. It is not a 200 page SCOTUS decision about nit picking the 2nd amendment.
 
2014-03-25 07:48:25 AM

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.


As a Brit who never will understand why everyone gets their panties in a twist over the second amendment...

The workbook should have given the proper text and an explanation that you should never take anything written at face value, without context.*

Unless I wrote it, naturally.

* age of class dependent
 
2014-03-25 07:52:46 AM

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."


You apparently missed the section on Lexington and Concord & Paul Revere in your history book. In April 1775, 600 redcoats marched from Boston to Concord MA to seize the colonial milita arsenal and search for 2 militia cannon. Said cannon had been locked up by the regular army in Boston a few months before, but the colonists broke into the warehouse to steal them back. The Brittish army most certainly tried to take away the colonial militias weapons.
 
2014-03-25 08:00:56 AM

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?


Have you seriously never been in a thread where this was discussed before?

In 1700s idiom "well-regulated" in this context typically referred to training, i.e. a well-regulated militia was any group of people that can load their weapons without setting themselves on fire and generally hit what they were aiming at.  It didn't imply government oversight... in fact, oversight would  directly contradict what "militia" means.  A military unit under government control is an army, not a militia, and that was something that the writers of the constitution were very, very vocally against.
 
2014-03-25 08:45:05 AM

Swampmaster: 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.

Ah No, please show a copy of a  Colony law/ county or city/town regulation about writing down the possession and ownership of Mr. Colonist's musketoon; and the muster roles and weapons inventory which results from just such a registry. Sorry, your google foo is weak; and you will have to show your work...



" There are no less than twelve thousand six hundred and seventy-eight Rifles reported as private property, and two thousand and thirty-eight public rifles .... Sharp Shooting, Good Marksmanship, is eminently a trait in the American Character .... "

DEMOCRATIC PRESS (Phila.), Mar. 8, 1823
 
2014-03-25 08:46:43 AM

OgreMagi: GodComplex: 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.

Fortunately, we have Posse Comitatus, so hypothetically it's really really difficult for the President to use the military on the populous. At one point it supposedly constituted a coup. Unfortunately, congress doesn't have those limitations.

In a third world backwater country, the army is often limited to only the "right tribe".  That is, people who would go along with the asshole with the funny hat.  In this country, if there was an attempt by the president or some other higher up to seize absolute power, the military would go through a very messy "sorting out".  I don't want to believe that the majority of our soldiers would follow an order to attack civilian targets in their own country.  Sure, some would.  There are always going to be psychopaths.

I believe Congress was not given a limitation because Congress technically doesn't have the authority to give our military orders.  They are limited to authorizing the president to give orders.  Sure, a Congress critter on an important military appropriations committee will be able to get some generals to do a little dance, but there are limits to how far that dance can go.


You should read up about what the military did in Puerto Rico in the 1930s.
 
2014-03-25 08:47:08 AM

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.


Amazing how butthurt the Rambo squad gets when you bother to explain that the legalese used to write the Constitution isn't the same as common day language and that this description really is how the 2nd Amendment is applied IRL in courts of law that can actually send you to prison, even if this interpretation differs from what they'd like to see the courts use. OH NOES providing case law info for one of the most commonly and stupidly misinterpreted Amendments in the US Constitution THIS IS AN OUTRAGE
 
2014-03-25 08:54:48 AM

The_Sponge: Electrify: Wait, I was told by the knowledgeable and sensible firearm advocates on the internet that the Second Amendment GUARANTEES that any American can have access to any deadly weapon they so wish. If little Billy who suffers from schizophrenia wants a chain gun with bandolier for his 8th birthday, the government has absolutely no authority to stop me with claims that it is "irresponsible" and that it is a danger to "other people." After all, one day the government says I cannot give a weapon which fires over 500 rounds per minute to a mentally unstable child, the next we are all arriving on boats along the shores of North Korea as refugees, looking for freedom and opportunity.

Are you saying that this is not the case?

No they didn't.


Perhaps it was a bit of an exaggeration, but not as much as you would think. Many talks about gun regulation (ie: backgrpund checks at gun shows) get rebutted with "Second Amendment" and that the US government will commit mass genocide if not for the ability to own an AK47.
 
2014-03-25 09:20:31 AM

Jim_Callahan: 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?

Have you seriously never been in a thread where this was discussed before?

In 1700s idiom "well-regulated" in this context typically referred to training, i.e. a well-regulated militia was any group of people that can load their weapons without setting themselves on fire and generally hit what they were aiming at.  It didn't imply government oversight... in fact, oversight would  directly contradict what "militia" means.  A military unit under government control is an army, not a militia, and that was something that the writers of the constitution were very, very vocally against.


Absolutely, let's interpret this though the perspective of 1700s Colonial America. And help yourself to all the muskets you want.

Either we take the Constitution literally, or we interpret the meaning and intention of the framers.  But we have to pick one and stick with it.  If "well-regulated" cannot be taken literally in present-day terms, than neither can "arms".
 
2014-03-25 10:25:53 AM

Sensei Can You See: 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 lacks a very important comma, thus proving why paying attention in your English class is a good idea."


FTFY.

/my only pet peeve with this amendment
//really, if we need to update the law we need to update the law; it's a legal document, not a theological text. But how exactly can you leave a sentence with what sounds like half a clause?
///I mean, read the thing aloud. Where do you  pause?
 
2014-03-25 10:29:50 AM
AteMyBrain

Either we take the Constitution literally, or we interpret the meaning and intention of the framers.

Obviously true, and the latter seems much more logical than the former. Given that, and taking the other sources of information we have regarding their intent into account, it seems rather clear (to me) that their desired situation was one where most people had personal arms comparable to a regular soldier. So no nukes.
 
2014-03-25 10:33:03 AM

AteMyBrain: Jim_Callahan: 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?

Have you seriously never been in a thread where this was discussed before?

In 1700s idiom "well-regulated" in this context typically referred to training, i.e. a well-regulated militia was any group of people that can load their weapons without setting themselves on fire and generally hit what they were aiming at.  It didn't imply government oversight... in fact, oversight would  directly contradict what "militia" means.  A military unit under government control is an army, not a militia, and that was something that the writers of the constitution were very, very vocally against.

Absolutely, let's interpret this though the perspective of 1700s Colonial America. And help yourself to all the muskets you want.


Why limit it to muskets?  Do you think if people like James Puckle could predict the advancement of technology that the founders couldn't?
 
2014-03-25 10:49:14 AM

Electrify: The_Sponge: Electrify: Wait, I was told by the knowledgeable and sensible firearm advocates on the internet that the Second Amendment GUARANTEES that any American can have access to any deadly weapon they so wish. If little Billy who suffers from schizophrenia wants a chain gun with bandolier for his 8th birthday, the government has absolutely no authority to stop me with claims that it is "irresponsible" and that it is a danger to "other people." After all, one day the government says I cannot give a weapon which fires over 500 rounds per minute to a mentally unstable child, the next we are all arriving on boats along the shores of North Korea as refugees, looking for freedom and opportunity.

Are you saying that this is not the case?

No they didn't.

Perhaps it was a bit of an exaggeration, but not as much as you would think. Many talks about gun regulation (ie: backgrpund checks at gun shows) get rebutted with "Second Amendment" and that the US government will commit mass genocide if not for the ability to own an AK47.


Perhaps nothing....you implied that we supported kids having a right meant for adults, and for good measure, you mentioned chain guns.

Do you even know what "the gun show loophole" is? And don't cheat and use a search engine for your answer.
 
2014-03-25 10:55:37 AM

DrPainMD: 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?

You do know that the word "regulated" has been changed, don't you (and that it was changed in order the government to violate this and the 'interstate commerce' clause)? When the Constitution was written, "regulate" meant "equip." The founding fathers wanted a well-equipped militia, not a well-controlled one.


You might want to check the definitions and first usage dates for "regulated".
i858.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-25 10:55:54 AM

Jim_Callahan: In 1700s idiom "well-regulated" in this context typically referred to training, i.e. a well-regulated militia was any group of people that can load their weapons without setting themselves on fire and generally hit what they were aiming at.  It didn't imply government oversight... in fact, oversight would  directly contradict what "militia" means.


Well, is the entire thing an oxymoron? Militia, by definition, are irregular troops. A well-regulated militia would seem to therefore be regular irregulars.
 
2014-03-25 11:08:38 AM
Theaetetus

Well, is the entire thing an oxymoron? Militia, by definition, are irregular troops. A well-regulated militia would seem to therefore be regular irregulars.

In the early days of the country, the militia were supposed to train together every so often to ensure competency.
 
2014-03-25 11:17:05 AM

NkThrasher: 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".


Complicated thoughts will just confuse the derps.

That is clearly how the amendment has been interpreted. They just didn't explain that correctly in the book.
 
2014-03-25 11:26:01 AM

Mouldy Squid: DrPainMD: 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?

You do know that the word "regulated" has been changed, don't you (and that it was changed in order the government to violate this and the 'interstate commerce' clause)? When the Constitution was written, "regulate" meant "equip." The founding fathers wanted a well-equipped militia, not a well-controlled one.

You might want to check the definitions and first usage dates for "regulated".
[i858.photobucket.com image 850x918]


A lot of people seemed to have missed that this is a "misinterpret the constitution" thread.
 
2014-03-25 12:21:14 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."


You're overlooking Britain's history a mere century before the revolution.  The 1689 Bill of Rights included, among other things, the restoration of the cherished British right to bear arms (well, for Protestants anyway, but after the Glorious Revolution, they're the only British who the crown and Parliament ever cared about) which had been interfered with by James II.

The personal right to bear arms has a long-standing history in British/American constitutional law; it's not merely a "gotta be able to fight off invaders" thing.
 
2014-03-25 12:26:44 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.


Nnnnnnnnnnnope.

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.

Yyyyyyup.  All they had to do was look back to James II, who started keeping a large standing army during peacetime (which ran contrary to traditional British practice).  And he did specifically because he wanted to be able to put down rebellions.
 
2014-03-25 12:53:42 PM

LiberalWeenie: 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.


So. It doesn't matter if the militia is absent.  The Amendment doesn't hang on the militia. If the 2A said "As long as militia is necessary..." it would be valid to say that the 2A is now invalid/defunct/anachronistic.  But it doesn't, so it's still in effect and protects the peoples' right to keep and bear arms.
 
2014-03-25 12:59:08 PM
Of course, almost none of the people demanding their "constitutional right" to have guns are even in a well-regulated militia, so it doesn't really have anything to do with them.
 
2014-03-25 01:12:53 PM

uberjim83: Of course, almost none of the people demanding their "constitutional right" to have guns are even in a well-regulated militia, so it doesn't really have anything to do with them.


Bless your heart.
 
2014-03-25 01:12:57 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.


The first link was well written (grammatically,) but horribly inaccurate.  The argument that the "original meaning" meant guns were more regulated is bogus. If you read the amendment the way he wants to, in line with the original meaning (as if we're not doing it now) you'd come to the following conclusions.

1. Every able bodied male would HAVE to have standardized "military-grade" (standing army equivalent) long gun (or handgun, depending on your "specialty",) at a MINIMUM.  This means you'd have to keep AT LEAST what they told you to keep and be able to present it at muster. Does he (or you) believe that the government/militia at the time (in line with the "original intent") would have been upset if you had/supplied MORE than the minimum equipment required (as long as you still had the minimum)?

2. Guns weren't "registered" in the contemperary sense. A log was kept of who had their required equipment and who didn't. They didn't keep a log of EVERY weapon you owned (as long as you had the minimum requirement) nor did they keep a record of the serial number of all your weapons...weapons didn't have serial numbers.

3. If you had specialty equipment that would help the militia, you kept it for use in the militia.  Privateers were legal and endorsed by letters of marque by the government...ships, with cannons that were privately owned.

I don't know if you agreed with his argument, but he doesn't actually make the point he thinks he does, nor is he as clever as he thinks he is. Under his thinking, more people would have more and more powerful weapons as a requirement plus whatever they wanted on top of that.
 
2014-03-25 01:20:53 PM
uberjim83

Of course, almost none of the people demanding their "constitutional right" to have guns are even in a well-regulated militia, so it doesn't really have anything to do with them.

Many Americans that exercise their right to firearms are actually part of a reserve militia as defined by the Militia Act of 1903.

Under this regulation, a militia (when organised for service) had to meet the training standards of the regular Army or lose funding.

As the reserve militia hasn't been mobilised, complaining they don't meet the requirements of a mobilised militia is kinda silly. Regardless, both the organised and reserve militias are regulated by law, so your point seems rather lacking.
 
2014-03-25 01:40:49 PM

AteMyBrain: Jim_Callahan: 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?

Have you seriously never been in a thread where this was discussed before?

In 1700s idiom "well-regulated" in this context typically referred to training, i.e. a well-regulated militia was any group of people that can load their weapons without setting themselves on fire and generally hit what they were aiming at.  It didn't imply government oversight... in fact, oversight would  directly contradict what "militia" means.  A military unit under government control is an army, not a militia, and that was something that the writers of the constitution were very, very vocally against.

Absolutely, let's interpret this though the perspective of 1700s Colonial America. And help yourself to all the muskets you want.

Either we take the Constitution literally, or we interpret the meaning and intention of the framers.  But we have to pick one and stick with it.  If "well-regulated" cannot be taken literally in present-day terms, than neither can "arms".


It doesn't matter. "Arms" is a general term. Sure you could argue that sense only muskets and similar weapons existed at the time, that's what it's limited to. But you could just as easily argue that it applies to any "arms" that a militia might legitimately use (U.S. v Miller) or literally any "arms" at all. Saying "muskets only" is not the only logical interpretation of that, nor is it clever.

Either way, it doesn't say that the PEOPLE (the one's who actually HAVE the right to keep and bear arms) are regulated at all, just the militia. Nor does it say anything about the arms being regulated. So, no matter what, the 2A protects individuals' rights to keep any weapon that can be "borne" and has a legitimate militia purpose.

/Free speech only covers in person voise comms, quill and ink, and manual movable type printing press...no radio, TV, internet, ball-point pens, etc.
 
2014-03-25 02:07:41 PM

AteMyBrain: Jim_Callahan: 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?

Have you seriously never been in a thread where this was discussed before?

In 1700s idiom "well-regulated" in this context typically referred to training, i.e. a well-regulated militia was any group of people that can load their weapons without setting themselves on fire and generally hit what they were aiming at.  It didn't imply government oversight... in fact, oversight would  directly contradict what "militia" means.  A military unit under government control is an army, not a militia, and that was something that the writers of the constitution were very, very vocally against.

Absolutely, let's interpret this though the perspective of 1700s Colonial America. And help yourself to all the muskets you want.

Either we take the Constitution literally, or we interpret the meaning and intention of the framers.  But we have to pick one and stick with it.  If "well-regulated" cannot be taken literally in present-day terms, than neither can "arms".


Nor can freedom of the press.  Unless you are using a genuine hand operated printing press.
 
2014-03-25 11:09:58 PM
OgreMagi:

In a third world backwater country, the army is often limited to only the "right tribe".  That is, people who would go along with the asshole with the funny hat.  In this country, if there was an attempt by the president or some other higher up to seize absolute power, the military would go through a very messy "sorting out".  I don't want to believe that the majority of our soldiers would follow an order to attack civilian targets in their own country.  Sure, some would.  There are always going to be psychopaths.


Oh, you can't tell me they wouldn't love to gun down some hippies. Even more so hippies with guns. Most of the military (right-wing gun nuts) would support whatever tyrant was in power and would see troublemakers as traitors, and they would love to use their expensive toys to put them down like dogs.

The cops have the same mindset and love violently cracking down on peaceful protests. They think it's fun, they are serving the public good, and the kids are getting what they deserve.

GodComplex:

Fortunately, we have Posse Comitatus, so hypothetically it's really really difficult for the President to use the military on the populous. At one point it supposedly constituted a coup. Unfortunately, congress doesn't have those limitations.


Well, hypothetically. But while the act prevents the president from using the military to enforce laws, we've already got this whole legal wild card with suspected militants and enemy combatants. The president can already order assassinations without trial, and executive power is only going to continue to expand.
 
2014-03-25 11:15:28 PM

LiberalWeenie: OgreMagi:

In a third world backwater country, the army is often limited to only the "right tribe".  That is, people who would go along with the asshole with the funny hat.  In this country, if there was an attempt by the president or some other higher up to seize absolute power, the military would go through a very messy "sorting out".  I don't want to believe that the majority of our soldiers would follow an order to attack civilian targets in their own country.  Sure, some would.  There are always going to be psychopaths.


Oh, you can't tell me they wouldn't love to gun down some hippies. Even more so hippies with guns. Most of the military (right-wing gun nuts) would support whatever tyrant was in power and would see troublemakers as traitors, and they would love to use their expensive toys to put them down like dogs.

The cops have the same mindset and love violently cracking down on peaceful protests. They think it's fun, they are serving the public good, and the kids are getting what they deserve.


The vast majority of my friends and family who have been in the military would be sickened by the very idea.  They would be more likely to shoot an officer giving such an illegal order.  Cops, however, are a different matter.  I'm sure they would love to have the opportunity.
 
2014-03-26 02:29:42 AM

AteMyBrain: Jim_Callahan: 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?

Have you seriously never been in a thread where this was discussed before?

In 1700s idiom "well-regulated" in this context typically referred to training, i.e. a well-regulated militia was any group of people that can load their weapons without setting themselves on fire and generally hit what they were aiming at.  It didn't imply government oversight... in fact, oversight would  directly contradict what "militia" means.  A military unit under government control is an army, not a militia, and that was something that the writers of the constitution were very, very vocally against.

Absolutely, let's interpret this though the perspective of 1700s Colonial America. And help yourself to all the muskets you want.

Either we take the Constitution literally, or we interpret the meaning and intention of the framers.  But we have to pick one and stick with it.  If "well-regulated" cannot be taken literally in present-day terms, than neither can "arms".


Even assuming that the Second Amendment doesn't cover modern weapons, it most assuredly does not give the government the authority to prohibit or control modern weapons. In fact, the 2nd does not grant the government ANY authority. That authority would have to be found elsewhere in the Constitution. It's not there, and the Tenth limits the federal government's authority to only that which is specified in the Constitution.
 
2014-03-26 02:49:05 AM

Mouldy Squid: DrPainMD: 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?

You do know that the word "regulated" has been changed, don't you (and that it was changed in order the government to violate this and the 'interstate commerce' clause)? When the Constitution was written, "regulate" meant "equip." The founding fathers wanted a well-equipped militia, not a well-controlled one.

You might want to check the definitions and first usage dates for "regulated".
[i858.photobucket.com image 850x918]


See #2 in the reference you provided. Not exactly the same, but has the same effect. A WELL FUNCTIONING militia is what the 2nd is all about. You've got to be well equipped to be well functioning.

"To adjust, in respect of time, quantity, force, etc., with reference to some standard or purpose; esp. to adjust (a clock or other machine) so that the working may be accurate."
 
Displayed 116 of 116 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report