High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

daskakik
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

It's a book for preparing for an advanced placement exam so, it is likely that nothing is covered properly.

Which is all the more reason to be accurate !!

Right ?

God forbid we introduce "advanced" knowledge into higher education !!

reply to post by xuenchen

The second amendment has 27 words. The entry in this book has 14.

So condensed and simplified, even if not in the way many would have prefered.

daskakik
reply to post by xuenchen

 

The second amendment has 27 words. The entry in this book has 14.

So condensed and simplified, even if not in the way many would have prefered.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed "

There condensed, done, original intent still intact.

Was that so hard, oh wait, I don't want to deny people their Constitutional rights, I must have an agenda.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I still think the context of the 2nd Amendment was written in that those that had firearms would be spending there times in the townsquares practiceing every week as part of a orginised militia (which was the norm back in 1776) , not as in OMGZ I WANTZ ME A FREE GUNZ WITH OUTZ REPOSNIBILITYZ !1!!!11!

I think madatoary training every year a regiration with a non goverment owned local body with strict privacy laws on membership unless a registerd gun was used in a crime would satify BOTH parts of the 2nd amendment but alas the majority on here will complety ignore the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and focus ONLY on the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." IE I want a gun without the repsonsibility.

crazyewok
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

I still think the context of the 2nd Amendment was written in that those that had firearms would be spending there times in the townsquares practiceing every week as part of a orginised militia (which was the norm back in 1776) , not as in OMGZ I WANTZ ME A FREE GUNZ WITH OUTZ REPOSNIBILITYZ !1!!!11!

They had just fought a war with an oppressive regime that tried to bar the ownership of firearms from every free man in the colony.

Some of the early battles that started it where over the attempts to confiscate arms in mass.

With that in mind, its fairly clear why the 2nd is there and what it meant.

benrl


" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed "

There condensed, done, original intent still intact.

Was that so hard, oh wait, I don't want to deny people their Constitutional rights, I must have an agenda.

As stated above, typical conservative American claiming to hold the constitution dear yet completly ignoreing the first part of the amendment!

If you valued your constitution you would follow BOTH parts!

crazyewok

benrl


" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed "

There condensed, done, original intent still intact.

Was that so hard, oh wait, I don't want to deny people their Constitutional rights, I must have an agenda.

As stated above, typical conservative American claiming to hold the constitution dear yet completly ignoreing the first part of the amendment!

If you valued your constitution you would follow BOTH parts!

Your arguing something that the American courts ruled on long ago.

reply to post by benrl

You left out the part about militias. You don't want the people organizing to oppose tyrannical government?

daskakik
reply to post by benrl

 

You left out the part about militias. You don't want the people organizing to oppose tyrannical government?

Its Militias are important, SO FREE people can have guns.

NOT

MIlitias are important, SO Militias need guns.

benrl


They had just fought a war with an oppressive regime that tried to bar the ownership of firearms from every free man in the colony.

Some of the early battles that started it where over the attempts to confiscate arms in mass.

With that in mind, its fairly clear why the 2nd is there and what it meant.

Actually its based on British common law at the time.

Of course not denying the mass confication at the start but thats a given right or wrong in a volitile situation And it wasnt every Free man nor all weapons but thats just splitting hairs really.

Fact is my point stands why was the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" written if not for those who own firearms to train in a local yet organised way! Or did they just stick that bit in as a typo or for people to ignore!

reply to post by benrl

So now you are further interpreting the 2nd but complain if somebody else does it.

Doesn't change the fact that you left it out so, by your logic, you must have an agenda against the people.

crazyewok
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

I still think the context of the 2nd Amendment was written in that those that had firearms would be spending there times in the townsquares practiceing every week as part of a orginised militia (which was the norm back in 1776) , not as in OMGZ I WANTZ ME A FREE GUNZ WITH OUTZ REPOSNIBILITYZ !1!!!11!

I think madatoary training every year a regiration with a non goverment owned local body with strict privacy laws on membership unless a registerd gun was used in a crime would satify BOTH parts of the 2nd amendment but alas the majority on here will complety ignore the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and focus ONLY on the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." IE I want a gun without the repsonsibility.

edit on 16-9-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

It isn't a free gun. I have paid for all of mine.

I keep them oiled. I shoot them, at a minimum, monthly.

I think "mandatory" anything is a bad idea. It is just more telling free people what hoops they have to jump through to "earn" their freedom.

I don't ignore the "well regulated militia" part. But before we get to that, we need to abolish our standing army. If we are to be constitutional, then lets actually do it and not cherry pick.

daskakik
reply to post by xuenchen

 

The second amendment has 27 words. The entry in this book has 14.

So condensed and simplified, even if not in the way many would have prefered.

Keep on advocating the laziness of the student. Keep on dumbing them down.

A student can't comprehend 27 words but somehow can manage to memorize 14?

I fear for the US and the rest of us. Ideocracy is coming to be a prophecy rather than a comedy.

benrl


Your arguing something that the American courts ruled on long ago.

And your courts ruled PRISM was constitutional

Fact is NO your govermnet can not take your guns away that would be unconstitutional. Thats in writteing. BUT if they want to bring in mandatory training then yes that would be constitutional as that would come under the first part.

And if you gun owners were smart you would support training for Non military/vet gun owners as it would help show you as responsible, upholding of all the consititution and give you something to throw at those who want to take you guns away for real!

crazyewok

benrl


They had just fought a war with an oppressive regime that tried to bar the ownership of firearms from every free man in the colony.

Some of the early battles that started it where over the attempts to confiscate arms in mass.

With that in mind, its fairly clear why the 2nd is there and what it meant.

Actually its based on British common law at the time.

Of course not denying the mass confication at the start but thats a given right or wrong in a volitile situation And it wasnt every Free man nor all weapons but thats just splitting hairs really.

Fact is my point stands why was the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" written if not for those who own firearms to train in a local yet organised way! Or did they just stick that bit in as a typo or for people to ignore!

Not piling on here, ewok. Just answering your post.

I don't think the founders wanted to demand that we train in any specific way. What the "well regulated militia" part refers to is that for a free people to remain free, they will need to maintain some semblence of capability to do this. They could have just as easily said "a militia"...but what kind of leadership is that?

But the well regulated militia...there is no edict in that. It is an observation. Essentially, "Since having the ability to ward off tyranny is important if you are to ward off tyranny" would fit just as well.

If it were a call to create a well regulated militia, then the wording would be more like, "All men of age will be required to serve", or something along those lines.

crazyewok

benrl


" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed "

There condensed, done, original intent still intact.

Was that so hard, oh wait, I don't want to deny people their Constitutional rights, I must have an agenda.

As stated above, typical conservative American claiming to hold the constitution dear yet completly ignoreing the first part of the amendment!

If you valued your constitution you would follow BOTH parts!

Your in the UK. Why do you care? Many of your previous post have made it clear where you stand on firearms.

But I am curious, just how do you interpret "both" parts?

TDawgRex
Keep on advocating the laziness of the student. Keep on dumbing them down.

Like people who can't tell the difference between a text book and a study guide and get all ruffled over nothing?

crazyewok

benrl


Your arguing something that the American courts ruled on long ago.

And your courts ruled PRISM was constitutional

Fact is NO your govermnet can not take your guns away that would be unconstitutional. Thats in writteing. BUT if they want to bring in mandatory training then yes that would be constitutional as that would come under the first part.

And if you gun owners were smart you would support training for Non military/vet gun owners as it would help show you as responsible, upholding of all the consititution and give you something to throw at those who want to take you guns away for real!

"The rights of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It is as plain as day. No other qualifications are made. It does not say, "so long as....". No limitations are placed. Flat out, our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It completely lacks the weasel words that would allow for loopholes.

If gun owners were smart, they would balk at government required or sponsored training. Those scumbags have nothing of value to share with me, and I don't care to show them any kind of loyalty.

reply to post by daskakik


If the question the guideis designed to help the student study for is to ba answered with this incorrect phrasing oin the study guide then shouldnt we be concerned with tests accepting wrong answers as correct?

This is like a math primer teaching 2+2=5 just for the coming test.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Concern yourself with whatever you want but don't be surprised of others are not.