Workbook teaches kids 2nd Amendment includes gun control

reply to post by Kali74


If we are the people, then the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

reply to post by macman


Now can you point out my bias? Did you fully read any of my posts? Miss the part where I said I support the 2nd as it is interpreted now though I don't see registering guns as an infringement, if it were 1789 you would be joining a militia and be on a register anyway. Regardless of all of that... the 2nd had only to do with forming militias, not about the right to bear arms. It's pretty clear reading debates etc... about the 2nd that took place prior to adding it into the Constitution.

reply to post by Kali74



I respectfully disagree. The issue I have with that interpretation is that, in reality, Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution already provided for raising, arming and training the militia:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So it seems extremely unlikely to me that they would intend for the 2nd Amendment to again provide for the same thing. It would be redundant. Furthermore, our Bill of Rights was influenced to some degree by the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which included the following:

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

Link

And others in this thread have mentioned the first Militia Act and how soldiers were expected to supply their own weapons and ammunition, not to mention various quotes that could be attributed to the founders during these debates. To me, it all adds up to the conclusion that the 2nd was intended to confer an individual right, and in doing so, it would have the secondary purpose of strengthening the militia.

I really would like to know why people think the term "infringe" means there can be no laws or rules for owning a weapon.

infringe (ɪnˈfrɪndʒ)

—vb
1. (tr) to violate or break (a law, an agreement, etc)
2. (intr; foll by on or upon) to encroach or trespass

By having rules or laws...it does not infringe on your rights to own a weapon. I read it as simply stating that in order to own a weapon, you must follow certain guidelines and rules/laws. If you think anyone should be able to own a weapon, does that also mean murderers, pedophiles..etc should be able to own one, no matter what they did with the weapon?

If you believe otherwise, then why is that rule OK but no the others? If you believe, that breaking the rules/laws should stop you having a gun..then is it not common sense to make strict rules/laws in order to stop these type of people from owning a gun or having the opportunity to use a gun again?

Don't give me the argument about law abiding..how many law abiding citizens have turned into criminals. There has to be stricter rules/laws for owning weapons. Mental illness tests, past violent history..etc

What is it with Americans and there stupid political colouring in kids books?

What dumb arse lazy parent buys this sort of crap for there kids?

Again from the article in the OP, the schools version of the 2nd Amendment:

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.

This is not remotely how the 2nd Amendment reads. Why use twice as many words with edited meaning unless you were trying to frame a certain mindset into the children?

Unless of course you are trying to brainwash them.

reply to post by Bassago


I don't think it's their 'version' but a description.

reply to post by Kali74


Well, if it's a description it would be more accurate to call it a "bad description" and that's probably being overly generous.

I believe it is simply another progressive attempt to steer the narrative. Of course we'll never know and I doubt those who are willing to modify the 2nd would be willing to admit to that.

reply to post by Bassago


Well in some State's Constitutions you are required to register firearms. So maybe some idiot somewhere mixed things up. I'm sorry that I've found reason to be so contrary in your thread but I see things how I do, not to mention anything by the Blaze tends to be over-reactionary. Every faction has an agenda.

Kali74
reply to post by Bassago

 

Well in some State's Constitutions you are required to register firearms. So maybe some idiot somewhere mixed things up. I'm sorry that I've found reason to be so contrary in your thread but I see things how I do, not to mention anything by the Blaze tends to be over-reactionary. Every faction has an agenda.

Specifically what states require registration in their constitutions?

reply to post by Onslaught2996


Should there be laws for owning certain books? How about checking your mental health before you are allowed to purchase a book?

Would you support that?

doubletap
reply to post by Onslaught2996

 

Should there be laws for owning certain books? How about checking your mental health before you are allowed to purchase a book?

Would you support that?

Depends...has some one ever went on a rampage with a book striking people over the head..and killed them..how about multiple deaths such as in a mall, movie theater?

Then no.

reply to post by doubletap


Laws*

Onslaught2996

Depends...has some one ever went on a rampage with a book striking people over the head..and killed them..how about multiple deaths such as in a mall, movie theater?

Then no.

Yea, because religious texts have never caused someone to kill a person, or thousands, or millions.

Right?

doubletap


Yea, because religious texts have never caused someone to kill a person, or thousands, or millions.

Right?

So was it the book itself or the words? How were so many unable to defend themselves against someone running around bashing their heads in with books...

But to answer your question..books have never caused anything..the sick minds that interpret it did.

Books sole purpose was never intended to end life...but guns..sole purpose is to terminate life.

Onslaught2996


Books sole purpose was never intended to end life...but guns..sole purpose is to terminate life.

100% wrong. Now you are either being willfully ignorant, or you seriously have no clue.

A firearms sole purpose is to fire a projectile. Where that projectile goes is determined by its human operator.

A simple question that you can just answer yes or no to:

I have quite a few guns, and none of them have ever terminated a life.

Are my guns defective?

reply to post by doubletap


Now who is being ignorant..

You know very well what a gun sole intent is for.

Tell me why did you buy a gun..for protection? If it is to be used as such would you shoot to kill or injure. If kill then, is that not why you bought it..to end life?

reply to post by Onslaught2996


there have been books written and published with the sole intent to instruct on how to kill. with or with out a gun.
there have been books written and published with the sole intent incite rebellion.
there have been books written and published with the sole intent to instruct how to commit all kinds of terror.

books and the written ideas are far more dangerous than a gun.

Onslaught2996


You know very well what a gun sole intent is for.

Tell me why did you buy a gun..for protection? If it is to be used as such would you shoot to kill or injure. If kill then, is that not why you bought it..to end life?

You neglected to answer my question. Are my guns defective?

Can you cite a single case of a gun killing anyone by itself?

I buy firearms for many reasons....some are good investments, some are used for my recreational long range shooting, some are used for trap and skeet, and others are used when I shoot my IPSC matches.

Have I ever bought a gun with the sole purpose of using it to kill? Nope. Are my guns capable of killing? Of course, so is my truck, my bow, my crossbow, my hammer, my knives, my pencils, my baseball bat, and yes, even my books if it came down to it.

Now, since you claim guns are made with the purpose to kill, and none of mine have ever taken a life...

that means you are wrong, or my guns are simply defective. Which one is it?