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  
•       •       •

3830 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 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.
 
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