Workbook teaches kids 2nd Amendment includes gun control

reply to post by NonsensicalUserName


Not really. Thats not how it was meant, but time changing language and dumbing down has brought it open to interpretation.

That comma holds meaning.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed is pretty clear and if you are bringing up the interpretation of the former half in order to limit the rights.. well there is a good chance you have intention to infringe on those rights. It just means you are particularly manipulative in your method.

Kali74


The 2nd was written about militias, end of story. Regardless, the current interpretation is that it protects an individuals right to bear arms. I was simply bringing up a point with Bassago whom is capable of a rational discussion and seems to understand he need not foam at the mouth to disagree with someone.

The 2nd link was about militias? That must be why the word "militia" appears in it exactly ZERO times, right?

There is no need to be civil or polite when faced with an opinion so out of touch with reality, history, and common sense, that is simply becomes laughable.

Your commentary on the 2nd Amendment shows you have no knowledge of history, the founding fathers, or the Constitution. It would help a great deal if you actually knew something about the topic at hand before you choose to opine on it.

This quote of yours right here is a perfect example of the your ignorance on the 2nd Amendment:

Militias of the founding era were regulated in the "follows a set of rules" context

Seriously? Quit trolling.

reply to post by Kali74


What you are saying is absolutely wrong. The Militia Acts of 1792 required all able body white male 18-45 (all citizens at that time) to provide himself within six months of the Act, with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.

Nothing was handed out.

Interestingly on a side note, the first gun law required you to own one.

Kali74
reply to post by doubletap

 

Why don't you try reading the federalist papers or any of the Constitutional debates, the individual amendments, the individual State amendments... what the people in power then wrote previous to agreeing upon how the 2nd amendment would be put into the Constitution. It was all about militias and standing armies during peace times and whether or not a religious person (specifically citing Quakers and Puritans and their beliefs about war or killing anyone for any reason) could be compelled to serve in militias or should they be allowed exemption upon paying for someone to take their place. In other words how to regulate militias.

Yes, and the choice was still made to not call for a standing army, as the exspense would be too much for a new nation.

Instead, the right to arms, being vital to maintain a state citizen based militia.

Was chosen, as with that right the need for a standing army was minimized.

As the armed citizen, could be called to defend with their own arms.

THE RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION DEALT WITH THAT ASPECT AND ONLY THAT.

Its scary that some people are so willfully ignorant, yet they still vote.

That is a large part of the reason as to why this nation is in the shape that its in.

reply to post by Bassago

Welcome to the Progressive means to educate the children....I give you Common Core.

What is to be expected???

reply to post by Bassago


You say that 'obviously we don't want a paranoid schizophrenic from owning a firearm'.

So, if the aforementioned schizopreniac has his home burgled by armed thugs, then he's denied his constitutional 'right' to defend himself and his family?

That is the very definition of 'pre-crime'.

This is why, thankfully, the USA is modernising towards the European social model.

Those who defend the constitution appear to be both knowingly selective and hypocritical.

reply to post by AnimatedMatter

You say that 'obviously we don't want a paranoid schizophrenic from owning a firearm'.

So, if the aforementioned schizopreniac has his home burgled by armed thugs, then he's denied his constitutional 'right' to defend himself and his family?

That is the very definition of 'pre-crime'.

This is why, thankfully, the USA is modernising towards the European social model.

Those who defend the constitution appear to be both knowingly selective and hypocritical.

The core concept of Schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders include significant distortions of reality and impairment to reason. That's paraphrased from the DSM-IV and I doubt many (just a guess on my part) will argue that people with an impairment of reality or reason should be carrying firearms.

Not sure what European social model you are referring to or specifically what you consider hypocritical.

reply to post by Bassago


If someone is diagnosed with schizophrenia, and their right to self-defence (owning firearms) is violated, then that is clearly 'pre-crime'.

There is no valid argument, vis a vis the constitution, to deny these people their right to self-defence.

The hypocrisy I speak of is those who quote the constitution as some kind of argument, yet are willing to make 'exceptions' so long as they back up their personal beliefs.

reply to post by AnimatedMatter


Well those "pre-crime exceptions" are purely mine and may be influenced by the fact that I've been involved with and in one case had to care for someone who lived in a distorted reality frame of mind.

Still it's just my opinion and by no means overrides the 2nd amendment, any more than than BS laws requiring gun registration do.

reply to post by doubletap


The 2nd Amendment ...

Trolling =/= disagreeing.

reply to post by Bassago


That may be so.

My only point here was the 2nd was written about militias not the right to bear arms. Obviously one could make the barely existent leap and say well if men were compelled to join the militia and with their own weapons as a requirement then not only are the people mandated to join the militia but by default are also mandated to own Arms.

It just is interesting to me that the 2nd never had anything to do with the right to bear arms but a mandate to join the militia. That would make an interesting thread I think (if it doesn't exist already), to pour over everything pertaining to the writing and adoption into the Constitution of the 2nd Amendment.

reply to post by benrl


I don't think it had anything to do with money. Specifically, Jefferson but most with input agreed with him, that a standing army was a sure path to a tyrannical government. He greatly admired the Ancient Greeks with their system of government and their style of defending their Nation and ideals... with militias. Jefferson was obsessed with militias vs a standing army, he emphatically wanted the States to be in charge of their own militias for the defense of the Republic and the Federal Government to have nothing to do with it.

reply to post by Kali74

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.

So,

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

, who do you feel the "people" are?


Clearly your bias and uneducated point of view clouds your ability to see truth in this. But, lets play this out.

macman
reply to post by Kali74

 

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.

So,

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

, who do you feel the "people" are?


Clearly your bias and uneducated point of view clouds your ability to see truth in this. But, lets play this out.

What exactly is my bias since you're so sure that I am?

reply to post by Kali74


Answer the question and I will demonstrate it for you.

reply to post by Bassago


I know a little off topic but is very relevant to this conversation:

A video on You Tube is being shared that shows Masked Armed Men shooting full auto weapons, while the names/addresses of Connecticut Politicians who voted for the gun ban are shown. This is government propaganda. They want the law abiding Patriot to commit the first attack to justify their agenda. Check out the story here:

themindfulpatriot.blogspot.com...

reply to post by joshua207


There are Psyops, brainwashing and indoctrination going on everywhere in the US on many fronts. Glad to see that video called out for what it most likely is. In regard to the topic of the video I have only one comment;

"They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind"

macman
reply to post by Kali74

 

Answer the question and I will demonstrate it for you.

We are the people... but that doesn't have anything to do with my point.