Workbook teaches kids 2nd Amendment includes gun control

NonsensicalUserName
"A Well Regulated Militia"

Well Regulated-this could very well be interpreted as basically authorizing the federal government/state governments to have standards that must be met for possession of firearms.

-the term militia varies in what exactly it means, and who exactly has authority over the militia, (such as the state, or the county or etc.)

edit on 22-3-2014 by NonsensicalUserName because: (no reason given)

Yes but its not implementing a militia, its stating the need for one in law, and Giving the right to the gun because of.

Small but major difference.

NonsensicalUserName
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

it looks like a packet that was printed and stapled together for an elementary school social-studies/government+history class.

it's probably for 4th or 5th graders...

Agreed and that's why I specifically said that the language should have been simplified. The problem is in the insertion of statements that are not implicitly contained with the original wording of the 2nd amendment.

Wait, you mean the 2nd Amendment requires registration of firearms? Wow, who knew. The states haven't figured it out, because many don't require any registration whatsoever. Apparently neither has Congress, because as part of the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act, they included a provision that actually prohibited the creation of a national firearms registry for non-NFA weapons. Apparently, the Supreme Court is unaware of this as well, because they've yet to overturn it.

It seems that the only ones smart enough to figure this out are the over-educated geniuses who 'interpreted' the 2nd amendment in this workbook.

Maybe they should just present the damn thing as its actually written?

reply to post by vor78

Maybe they should just present the damn thing as its actually written?

Maybe they could but then they wouldn't be carrying out their brainwashing marching orders from the Field Marshall Eric Holder.

Seig Heil!

reply to post by vor78


nah; doesn't require, but doesn't forbid the government from requiring registration.

The Kicker here is this is Nothing new. Textbooks have been twisting the truth and or facts about our history, government and our Republic for years. I went to school in the 80's. After school I came across a book called Lies my teacher Told Me by James Lowen, This is a MUST READ to get an idea how they pervert the truth and seek to mold our kids into believing lies. Full title is, Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong - en.wikipedia.org...

The book is for sale on Amazon but you can find pdf copies floating around the net for download.

NonsensicalUserName
reply to post by vor78

 

nah; doesn't require, but doesn't forbid the government from requiring registration.

That may be true, but its beside the point. The fact is, the federal government does not require registration. In fact, federal law prohibits it. Many states, including my own, don't require it, either. By stating that 2A requires it, the book is teaching a factually incorrect interpretation.

Again, why not just present the amendment itself instead of pushing someone's interpretation that may very well be wrong?

reply to post by vor78


debatable points... in anycase I think this is the consequence of a highly inefficient education system that basically forces an assembly line-like atmosphere in regards to teaching students, hence they try to make everything padded so questions are not asked, so feelings are not hurt, so the assembly line is not interrupted.

In addition to this we have bad teachers, or mediocre teachers, or a few decent teachers who are not really paid enough or encouraged to do their jobs according to various standards.

Who cares. Real rebels don't pay heed to federal sactioned school books.

reply to post by NonsensicalUserName


And the one that they have made, in Heller, states contrary to what yoy have selectively decided the amendment states.

The key to this decision lies with the jurisdiction it was brought upon; and that is the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia is created Constitutionally via Article I, Section 8. The "District" itself, must adhere to the Constitution as it isn't subjected to any State law or constitution.

In their opinion on the matter, Justice Scalia writes regarding the Second Amendment. He states that "[t]he two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment...[p]etitioners...believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service...[r]espondents argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia."

Justice Scalia correctly dissects the Amendment into the obligatory parts that it was intended (as United States v. Ogden set forth), when he opines that the "[t]he Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause." This "prefatory", "operative" clause breakdown was emulated throughout the States' Constitutions to highlight the actual effect that it was an Individual Right held by the People and protected against encroachment via the United States of America's Constitution and the various States' constitutions.

When we look even just at the Second Amendment (even in your view of what it should mean), the "workbook" completely moves past the basic premise of recognizing a specific Right that is Naturally held by the People (to bear arms) and contends that the Second Amendment instead recognizes regulation.

That is a twisted view upon the Constitution in itself, as the Constitution is not a "granting" document that has bestowed the People with Rights; it is instead, a "limiting" document that has, via the People, limited the scope of authority in which Government has been granted to exercise their authority.

reply to post by 200Plus



Well regulated in the vernacular of the time meant "well drilled/trained" ie; in order to have a well trained militia of the "The People", their rights to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nice try with those here on this thread trying to imply it means government control over "The People" in regards to bearing arms........Major Fail.

There are numerous other thread hear showing the actual words of our Founding Fathers in regards to the 2nd Amendment. I suggest you deny ignorance and look them up yourself.

NonsensicalUserName
reply to post by vor78

 

nah; doesn't require, but doesn't forbid the government from requiring registration.

Via the Federal level, it actually does forbade such regulation. On the State level, we must look upon the individual States' Constitution to determine how the People of those various States have determined how to regulate or register such.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I'm just going off of what the constitution actually says man.

It says well-regulated.. that Implies some standards to prevent lunatics and etc. from hurting themselves or others unnecessarily.
I would not feel safe with a militia of drunks and psychopaths wandering around the countryside

reply to post by NonsensicalUserName


And as I quoted, the breakdown is evident that the amendment is clear that A: States and their militias are protected and B: The People are too; else why have "...the people..." even in the Amendment if it werent to imply them?

It seems you are focusing on just one portion of the Amendment while discounting the later...along with countless documents vie the era showing that such Right should be protected.

Look further in the Second Amrndment beyond thw militia clause and you find the Individual clause.

NonsensicalUserName
"A Well Regulated Militia"

Well Regulated-this could very well be interpreted as basically authorizing the federal government/state governments to have standards that must be met for possession of firearms.

-the term militia varies in what exactly it means, and who exactly has authority over the militia, (such as the state, or the county or etc.)

edit on 22-3-2014 by NonsensicalUserName because: (no reason given)

"Well regulated" in 18th century speak means well trained with that training provided by and it is the responsibility to pay for the training at the federal govt level. The feds are required by the Constitution to provide range time, classes, training in tactics, safety, processes for all citizens as every citizen is a member of the militia to protect the homeland.

Just as the Swiss are REQUIRED to own a gun, so should every US citizen AND be "well regulated" (well trained).

These educators, or administrators that buy off on these kinds of curriculum just need a bit of corporal punishment with one of those big ole holed paddling ass swatters, which would send a clear message about being anti American and attempting to subvert our nation.. Lets face facts, verbal chastising and public outcry's against these sorts of things just isn't going to work, and never has done anything.

NonsensicalUserName
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

I'm just going off of what the constitution actually says man.

It says well-regulated.. that Implies some standards to prevent lunatics and etc. from hurting themselves or others unnecessarily.
I would not feel safe with a militia of drunks and psychopaths wandering around the countryside

Are you saying that psychopaths and drunks could be organized enough in the first place to form a militia and then wander the country like nomads with a lot of guns?
That there is seriously paranoid..

PS: And how would more regulations stop psychos and drunks from doing this anyways? Please tell everyone since we need something real. Not a bunch of BS that only hurts the good folks' rights.. savvy kemosabe?

NonsensicalUserName
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

I'm just going off of what the constitution actually says man.

It says well-regulated.. that Implies some standards to prevent lunatics and etc. from hurting themselves or others unnecessarily.
I would not feel safe with a militia of drunks and psychopaths wandering around the countryside

here's what they meant by well regulated. now read and pay attention to what it says and don't try to spin it. remember that the founders used words as well as they used arms, they knew what words meant, and would often argue over what ones should be used.

the Militia Act was passed because, most of the states Militias were pretty rag tag. and lacked militarily discipline.

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. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. 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, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; 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, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
Militia Act of 1792,

further more to show that they intend to have the militias fight against a regular army and not just show up with their squirrel guns or home defense guns. they intend for citizens to have the same weapons available as the military.
they include 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, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid,

i'm not trying to blow my own horn but i thought would post a link to a thread i posted that shows the thoughts on the matter by the founders. so i wont have to retype and paste it here. and the wiki on the second amendment. read it and see if you can't understand what they meant.
for the life of me i can't understand how anyone knowing that the founders had just fought a war to get rid of tyranny and oppressive government. they knew that if the populous were armed that no government could ever truly rule without constant rebellion to their oppression.
Will, We the People Succumb To The Assault Of Our Second Amendment Right?

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Quotes Second Admendment to the Constitution

the regulation of of militia is what they were talking about and the right to defend ones self against, a oppressive, tyrannical government.just like the one they just fought and won independence from.

one thing i find kinda of funny in the supreme court case involving texas succeeding from the U.S. they ruled secession unconstitutional, but that a revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

Threats or aspirations to secede from the United States or arguments justifying secession have been a feature of the country's politics almost since its birth. Some have argued for secession as a constitutional right and others as from a natural right of revolution. In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.
Secession In The United States

so they thought that doing it peaceably was unconstitutional, but a war was alright right. seems that that lincoln didn't agree with the consent of states and opted for war doesn't it.

they did not see the government as having all control over the states, and left most laws to each and every state to govern themselves. only setting a few that the federal government had.

NonsensicalUserName


that's your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
There are several different interpretations, the one that's important is the interpretation the Supreme Court makes.

Why do you need an interpretation when the words of the people who actually wrote it are right in front of you?

The only people that rely on interpretations are those incapable of understanding the original text.

Basically what you mean is that you disagree with it and want a court to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment in a way that is more to your liking.

NonsensicalUserName

nah; doesn't require, but doesn't forbid the government from requiring registration.

You couldnt possibly be more wrong.

Registration, by definition, is an infringement.

You are out of your league here kid.