High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

reply to post by benrl


These days, the "history" books are so revisionist, the kids aren't learning any real history at all. This is just another step. "Common Core" stuff is even worse. We home school, and I looked for a while for good history materials, that actually teach the facts.

ownbestenemy
It speaks nothing to a "firearm", but rather the means to defend one self.

To Arm:
To furinsh with armour of defense, or weapons of offense....

So you think it only pertains to a firearm? Nothing else? Let us discuss...

There is a difference when one says "to arm" and one says "to bare arms"

arms
/ärmz/
noun

plural noun: arms

1. weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"they were subjugated by force of arms"
synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments

A well-regulated militia does not have hammers on their hips.



Noah Webster

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."

Does this mean swords?



Thomas Jefferson
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands]"

Does the mean a baseball bat?


Alexander Hamilton

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

Does this mean a chainsaw?

The term "arms" has been used in the 1700s to mean "military weapons", so if you want the literal translation it would be any military weapon. Further writings in the Federalist Papers suggest it means singular use arms i.e. not cannons....

Xtrozero
There is a difference when one says "to arm" and one says "to bare arms"

arms
/ärmz/
noun

plural noun: arms

1. weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"they were subjugated by force of arms"
synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments

A well-regulated militia does not have hammers on their hips.

But an individual may and I see why you so callously jump over this and stick to your points that it must mean a militia. Surely if we are to retain our natural rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, we must be able to defend ourselves no?

With your logic, we can only defend ourselves now with a firearm? Nothing else? I gave you the definition from 1775; the definition in which Madison relied upon to convey the importance of restricting the Government from denying the People their natural right to defend themselves via arms; may it be a firearm, a sword or an ax. All of which can be utilized offensively and defensively.

Noah Webster

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."

Does this mean swords?

Yes it does. You are contorting these definitions to fit your view that the Second Amendment only applies to a militia. Regardless if the several states themselves have mostly identified that the right is the Peoples' and the States'.

Thomas Jefferson
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands]"

Does the mean a baseball bat?

Yes, why is that hard to see? So in your view, only that which the Government has deemed an "arm" shall be afforded to the People and the States respectively?

The term "arms" has been used in the 1700s to mean "military weapons", so if you want the literal translation it would be any military weapon. Further writings in the Federalist Papers suggest it means singular use arms i.e. not cannons....

Uh....did you just flippantly ignore the definition I gave you in regards to what "arms" meant during the late 18th century? Me thinks you are playing games now.

1104light
I asked a simple question and I guess I can ask it again. Where does the 2nd mention guns?

Which is why I am a bit confused because I never have made that point nor do I even agree to it. It says arms; as in any device in which you use to protect yourself or utilize as an offensive weapon.

ownbestenemy

1104light
I asked a simple question and I guess I can ask it again. Where does the 2nd mention guns?

Which is why I am a bit confused because I never have made that point nor do I even agree to it. It says arms; as in any device in which you use to protect yourself or utilize as an offensive weapon.

I am missing your point. The 2nd is about two events.

1. Personal protection, maybe that is a sword, spoon or chainsaw, but let me ask you a question... What is the one weapon that is considered THE equalizer? Take a 110 pound female, what is the one weapon that would be considered an equalizer again myself that is 270 6'5"?

2. Defense against a tyrannical Government...the big one... How does one defend against this if you do not have like capabilities? And out forefathers were all about like capabilities....as in to actually win.

On a side note...What did our forefathers use to fight against tyranny with? You didn't really address my point that "to arm" is different than "to bare arms". Please get to your point, since to me it seems that your point is that the 2nd means a person has the right to defend and some higher authority can regulate what the tool will be they use to defend.

Since the 2nd states "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" basically suggests the people choose what type of arms they want to use, and for a higher authority to dictate what that tool will be would be infringement.

Why would anyone ask a question like "where does the 2nd use the word "gun", it doesn't, but seems in your point about "to arm", arm is the verb in the generic sense of defense. In "to bare arms" bare is the verb and arms is the noun. I gave you the definition of arms used as a noun, so what else do you want?

ownbestenemy

With your logic, we can only defend ourselves now with a firearm? Nothing else? I gave you the definition from 1775; the definition in which Madison relied upon to convey the importance of restricting the Government from denying the People their natural right to defend themselves via arms; may it be a firearm, a sword or an ax. All of which can be utilized offensively and defensively.

The point is your choice of defense shall not be infringed on, so if you want to use a spoon or a full automatic M4 it is your choice....

Uh....did you just flippantly ignore the definition I gave you in regards to what "arms" meant during the late 18th century? Me thinks you are playing games now.

No I didn't... You gave a definition of a verb and I gave it as an noun... Yours is not used in the correct context when dealing with the 2nd.

Xtrozero
Which is why I am a bit confused because I never have made that point nor do I even agree to it. It says arms; as in any device in which you use to protect yourself or utilize as an offensive weapon.

That question was to the person that asked me to point out where it states guns...now I understand it is an open forum, but how are you confused since I never made such a claim nor did I ever claim to you it is about such.

1. Personal protection, maybe that is a sword, spoon or chainsaw, but let me ask you a question... What is the one weapon that is considered THE equalizer? Take a 110 pound female, what is the one weapon that would be considered an equalizer again myself that is 270 6'5"?

The Second doesn't identify a specific equalizer; the equalizer is our natural right to defend ourselves. To do so, James Madison restricted the Government from making laws against such self-defense in the terms of our ability to "bare arms".

2. Defense against a tyrannical Government...the big one... How does one defend against this if you do not have like capabilities? And out forefathers were all about like capabilities....as in to actually win.

I am beginning to think you are focusing too hard here. I understand what you are stating, but to back the Second into a corner and then pigeonhole it in meaning only "like arms", defeats the true nature of the Amendment in my opinion.

On a side note...What did our forefathers use to fight against tyranny with? You didn't really address my point that "to arm" is different than "to bare arms". Please get to your point, since to me it seems that your point is that the 2nd means a person has the right to defend and some higher authority can regulate what the tool will be they use to defend.

Why would I address that? I pointed out what an "arm" was; an instrument to either defend and/or move to the offense with. To "bare" those, is our natural Right and a Right enumerated and recognized as being protected. Is it that hard?

...but seems in your point about "to arm", arm is the verb in the generic sense of defense. In "to bare arms" bare is the verb and arms is the noun. I gave you the definition of arms used as a noun, so what else do you want?

No my definition wasn't about "to arm"; that is your editorializing. The definition given was what "arms" meant. To bare would be the verb you are thinking of. As in to show without concealment. The Rights of the People to show their arms without concealment shall not be infringed.