Workbook teaches kids 2nd Amendment includes gun control

I'm curious about something regarding the self-defence argument.

Why are convicted felons and the mentally Ill prohibited from owning firearms if the basic 'right' is supposed to be about self-defence?

A felon has served their time, and someone with a diagnosed mental illness hasn't infringed on any laws.

If self-defence is a 'right', then why is someone with a spent conviction or a diagnosed psychological illness prevented from having it?

reply to post by NonsensicalUserName


That has already been settled by the SCOTUS, but to to clarify. "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." You have to look at the punctuation as much as wording.

This- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is the reason for this- "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If the people have arms there is no need for a "militia" to defend them as they can become the militia. It is not about foreign threat either, it is solely about the prevention of tyranny that our founders had just escaped. (At least the book got that right.)

reply to post by Bassago


Well regulated in the second amendment does not mean in good working order. Militias of the founding era were regulated in the "follows a set of rules" context. Not anyone could just join a militia and be handed Arms, it was a very serious thing... much like joining the military today and by joining a militia you became a registered person issued Arms for the purpose of resisting the British.

Quite literally the 2nd Amendment was intended to be the right for well regulated militias to exist, not for individuals to own anything more than hunting weapons unless you were on the western expansion frontier (came a bit later). That is the truth of the origin of the 2nd.

Obviously the 20th century changed all that including the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd and that's where we are now, individuals now by Constitutional interpretation have the right to keep and bear Arms. The cat having long been out of the bag now, I think it should stay that way. However, registering guns is not an infringement. Registration has always been part of the deal.

reply to post by AnimatedMatter

I'm curious about something regarding the self-defence argument.

Why are convicted felons and the mentally Ill prohibited from owning firearms if the basic 'right' is supposed to be about self-defence?

A felon has served their time, and someone with a diagnosed mental illness hasn't infringed on any laws.

If self-defence is a 'right', then why is someone with a spent conviction or a diagnosed psychological illness prevented from having it?

As far as felons owning gun I believe people who have been convicted of non-violent crimes and have paid their debt to society should have all rights restored.

The mentally ill having guns is complicated. Obviously we don't want paranoid schizophrenic's running around with hand guns and assault weapon but what about someone who was once treated for anxiety and is now fine? It's a slippery slope.

Most of the laws (I've seen) in regards to gun ownership remove that right if a person has been forcibly committed to a mental institution. That appears to be changing for the worse now as we've seen with our returning veterans diagnosed with PTSD and being disarmed.There are other examples as well.

reply to post by Kali74


Respectfully Kali, you are Totally misreading the intent of the Founding Fathers in regards to the Second Amendment.

Please do some research to back up your assertion from Colonial/Revolutionary times. I'd love to see what you come up with from actual writings of the Founding Fathers.

The Founding Fathers did not subscribe to your reading of the Second Amendment. They barely had won their Independence from England and they wanted to make sure that a Tyrannical Government would never threaten them again, even it came from their own elected Government.

reply to post by pavil


I have. I think the modern SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd is very different than those whose input mattered in the writing of the Constitution. However I also said it's too late to go back to it.

The comic strip seems to suggests that the 2nd Amendment is for protecting yourself against home robberies, as opposed to protecting yourself against a tyrannical government. As always, for brainwashing purposes, they intentionally leave that part out.

1. I home school.

2. My son learned how to shoot at the age of 6.

This indoctrination is bull-dookey.

Kali74


Well regulated in the second amendment does not mean in good working order. Militias of the founding era were regulated in the "follows a set of rules" context. Not anyone could just join a militia and be handed Arms, it was a very serious thing... much like joining the military today and by joining a militia you became a registered person issued Arms for the purpose of resisting the British.

Quite literally the 2nd Amendment was intended to be the right for well regulated militias to exist, not for individuals to own anything more than hunting weapons unless you were on the western expansion frontier (came a bit later). That is the truth of the origin of the 2nd.

Obviously the 20th century changed all that including the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd and that's where we are now, individuals now by Constitutional interpretation have the right to keep and bear Arms. The cat having long been out of the bag now, I think it should stay that way. However, registering guns is not an infringement. Registration has always been part of the deal.

Wow. You are literally insane if you actually believe what you just typed. That, or you are just trolling.

There is no sane, logical, or intelligent human being who could actually believe that disaster of an opinion.

Since I need a good laugh, could you post proof to substantiate that goofy little opinion?

It's frightening that you have the ability to vote given your obvious lack of anything even remotely close to knowledge of the history of this nation, Constitutional law, or common sense.

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.

Your overly defensive, offensive, reactionary reply is not even remotely warranted as I said I support the 2nd as it's interpreted now. Don't go popping any veins on my account.

Linky
Linky

reply to post by Kali74


Your first link doesnt back up anything you stated in regards to the 2nd amendment being regulated. It deals mainly with religious scruples as a way out of the militia.

Your 2nd link doesnt mention arms, the 2nd amendment, militia, or anything even close to those. - Failure to provide a source to back up your comment.

DId you even read the links you posted, or are you just trolling again.

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. Not even close. You do know that right?

Membership in a well regulated militia is not required in order to keep and bear arms.

History, the founding fathers own words, common sense, the supreme court, and logic all prove you wrong.

Why wont you accept it instead of coming up with lunatic theories that have no basis in reality?

reply to post by doubletap


The 1st link goes far beyond religion.

The second was just more about how focused Jefferson was on militias.

“The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.” ~Letter to Thomas Cooper (1814).

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.

reply to post by Kali74


My understanding of the militia was when people are called up they are required to provide their own weapon and ammunition at least initially. This is also a good reason not to restrict weapons to citizens who may be called to the militia's service.

However, registering guns is not an infringement. Registration has always been part of the deal.

To me requiring firearm registration is an infringement. Many states have no such laws, here in WA when you purchase through a dealer they will simply run the NICS background check. Personal firearm sales require no checks. The only record of sale is kept by the dealer and granted it can be accessed by law enforcement if they need the information.

Bassago

"the description was written by teachers at the school some years ago. It predated Common Core..."

I wonder how the 'common core' version will read?

Not to mention the fact that this has been going on for long enough to use as an excuse.

AnimatedMatter
I'm curious about something regarding the self-defence argument.

Why are convicted felons and the mentally Ill prohibited from owning firearms if the basic 'right' is supposed to be about self-defence?

A felon has served their time, and someone with a diagnosed mental illness hasn't infringed on any laws.

If self-defence is a 'right', then why is someone with a spent conviction or a diagnosed psychological illness prevented from having it?

Give that man a cigar!



Rights are not conditional.

I will add that concealed carry is the only way to reap all of the potential benefits of a society of free people secure in their persons and effects.

The universality of it allows for all to benefit while no one in particular is obliged to carry.

Besides, except for some physical inability to shoot straight, there is no medical preclusion that could be applied en mass.

reply to post by greencmp


That's an interesting question. A while back something mentioned in another thread had me go looking for common core curriculum but my search was unsuccessful. Did find a teachers web that supposed had much of it but I couldn't access it. Wonder if they don't want people to know.

Bassago
reply to post by greencmp

 

That's an interesting question. A while back something mentioned in another thread had me go looking for common core curriculum but my search was unsuccessful. Did find a teachers web that supposed had much of it but I couldn't access it. Wonder if they don't want people to know.

Our own benrl did a thread on one a while back that I believe was a common core text.

High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

Kali74
reply to post by Bassago

 

Well regulated in the second amendment does not mean in good working order. Militias of the founding era were regulated in the "follows a set of rules" context. Not anyone could just join a militia and be handed Arms, it was a very serious thing... much like joining the military today and by joining a militia you became a registered person issued Arms for the purpose of resisting the British.

Quite literally the 2nd Amendment was intended to be the right for well regulated militias to exist, not for individuals to own anything more than hunting weapons unless you were on the western expansion frontier (came a bit later). That is the truth of the origin of the 2nd.

Obviously the 20th century changed all that including the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd and that's where we are now, individuals now by Constitutional interpretation have the right to keep and bear Arms. The cat having long been out of the bag now, I think it should stay that way. However, registering guns is not an infringement. Registration has always been part of the deal.

Not anyone could just join a militia and be handed Arms,

the second amendment was ratified in december 1791, the first militia act was passed on may 2, 1791, this one gave the president the right to call out the militia, and use them for marshal law. read the first and second sections of the first act linked below. the second militia act was passed on may 8,1791, the second set the regulations for the militia, that is just five months after the second was ratified. see the same link for both on the same page below.

in the first section of the second militia act it states very plainly that every able bodied white free male citizen from 18 to 45 is to join the states militias, which in later years was change to all races and to 17 to 54.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

that each and every free able bodied white male citizen 18 to 45. it doesn't say one word about anything else. just able bodied.it says nothing about being qualified, other than able bodied, which in that era meant being physically fit. it says nothing about any mental defect, or addictions.

by joining a militia you became a registered person issued Arms for the purpose of resisting the British.

they became a registered member of the militia, not registered as a gun owners, although i guess if you were enrolled as a militia member you also were a known gun owner. the law says they must provide one themselves as a militia members. militia were not issued a weapon, they had to provide their own. if you read further in the same section it reads.

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed,
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

did you notice the key words,provide himself with a good musket or firelock, these words would not be there if the government issued weapons to the militia. as i have said time and time again, the founders/framers used words as well as they did arms. they knew what the words meant and how they were used in that day and time.if they were required to provide their own weapon, then in fact it was against the law not to have one. for each and every able bodied man enrolled in the militia.
also in the same section it says this,

and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms,

in other words rifles that are equivalent to the armies of the day. some also say this was also meant for the arms manufacturers to produce said weapons so citizens could buy them.

Quite literally the 2nd Amendment was intended to be the right for well regulated militias to exist, not for individuals to own anything more than hunting weapons unless you were on the western expansion frontier (came a bit later). That is the truth of the origin of the 2nd.

again as i said in the past and say again now no where and again i say no where does it say hunting weapons , rifles or any thing like that. it says arms.
the text of the second amendment.

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.

show me where in that text does it say to bear registered arms or hunting rifles. it doesn't. they were talking about the peoples right and duty to fight invaders or domestic conflicts as well as the right to fight back against a tyrannical and oppressive government, and for their own personal defense.

as far as the founder/framers views, here are a couple of quotes.

Thomas Jefferson
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Proposed Virginia Constitution, June, 1776. "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Occasionally this phony quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson is given with the following citation: Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950). The publication exists, but the quote does not. And the editor's correct name is Julian P. Boyd, not C.J. Boyd. In other cases, this quote is added to the end of a proven Jefferson quote "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms..." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344.

What he actually said, in context is: "No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms in his own lands or tenements." The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, ... or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press. Letter to Major John Cartwright (5 June 1824).

John Adams
[color=Red]Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence.
As defense attorney for the British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre. Reported in L. Kinvin Wroth and Hiller B. Zobel, ed., Legal Papers of John Adams (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1965), 3:248.

these and more at the links below.

as i have said the founder are very clear on their intent for the Second Amendment, it those that want to take them away who are not. i could go on all night posting these from the framers writings, but i'm afaird that it mostly falls on death ears.

links for the quotes.
1st & 2nd Militia Acts of 1792
Text and Quotes for Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

i didn't address this,

Registration has always been part of the deal.

show me any law that the federal government has that said that guns had to be registered before the 20th century, there may have been some states that required it, but as far as i know there was never any law before the the 1930's about any registering guns. i take that back, there are certain guns that fall under the National FIrearms Act (NFA,), that have to be, but other than that you do not have to register your guns with the federal government.

Kali74
reply to post by doubletap

 

The 1st link goes far beyond religion.

The second was just more about how focused Jefferson was on militias.

“The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.” ~Letter to Thomas Cooper (1814).

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.

seeing how you like Jefferson here are some more from him.

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

above quotes Thomas Jefferson Quotes

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson -

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson -

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson - See more at:

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy." - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778 -

above quotes from Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers
i may even go and post other such as Washington, Adams, Hamalton, Franklin.
like i said they were more focued on protecting freedom from a runaway government than just militia. and believed that you should carry a weapon or have one.

reply to post by NonsensicalUserName


maybe in modern english but in the 18th century the term well regulated meant well maintained or kept in good working condition.