I guess the Second Amendment is Being Re-Written

[Meister]

Both of you are imbeciles. How about retracting your comments?

Just about every honest, successful American can point to a teacher or several teachers as being a huge part of what made them successful.

Yeah and I have mine that I looked up to. My, how the times have changed.

No. You have changed. You couldn't hold a candle to dozens of teachers who have influenced our kids over the past 20 years. They are bright, hardworking and, most of all, dedicated to their craft. We owe them a great deal.

When I went to school there wasn't a teachers union influencing the teachers as it is today.
So stick your "no you have changed" up your ass.
Yes there are good ones but, there are lousy ones who can't get fired too.
Teachers do influence children, I can't remember any trying to influence me politically as they are doing today.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yeah and I have mine that I looked up to. My, how the times have changed.

No. You have changed. You couldn't hold a candle to dozens of teachers who have influenced our kids over the past 20 years. They are bright, hardworking and, most of all, dedicated to their craft. We owe them a great deal.

When I went to school there wasn't a teachers union influencing the teachers as it is today.
So stick your "no you have changed" up your ass.
Yes there are good ones but, there are lousy ones who can't get fired too.
Teachers do influence children, I can't remember any trying to influence me politically as they are doing today.

You must be very old then, since teachers have been unionized for more than 100 years...

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yeah and I have mine that I looked up to. My, how the times have changed.

No. You have changed. You couldn't hold a candle to dozens of teachers who have influenced our kids over the past 20 years. They are bright, hardworking and, most of all, dedicated to their craft. We owe them a great deal.

When I went to school there wasn't a teachers union influencing the teachers as it is today.
So stick your "no you have changed" up your ass.
Yes there are good ones but, there are lousy ones who can't get fired too.
Teachers do influence children, I can't remember any trying to influence me politically as they are doing today.

Bullshit. Becoming a teacher is harder now than ever......because of the standards set by unions. Teachers today are better educated and better trained to educate than ever before. Teachers can be and are fired. Stop listening to liars.

The teaching profession as a whole leans liberal because they are educated. They are inquisitive. They are capable of researching. They think critically.

The idea that indoctrination is taking place is bullshit. Teachers WELCOME opposing viewpoints coming from students. Teachers love nothing more than an interested student.

 

[Plasmaball]

Yeah and I have mine that I looked up to. My, how the times have changed.

No. You have changed. You couldn't hold a candle to dozens of teachers who have influenced our kids over the past 20 years. They are bright, hardworking and, most of all, dedicated to their craft. We owe them a great deal.

When I went to school there wasn't a teachers union influencing the teachers as it is today.
So stick your "no you have changed" up your ass.
Yes there are good ones but, there are lousy ones who can't get fired too.
Teachers do influence children, I can't remember any trying to influence me politically as they are doing today.

Jazz is 200.....Tell me what was it like growing up in a pre-civilwar era Jazz....

 

[Meister]

No. You have changed. You couldn't hold a candle to dozens of teachers who have influenced our kids over the past 20 years. They are bright, hardworking and, most of all, dedicated to their craft. We owe them a great deal.

When I went to school there wasn't a teachers union influencing the teachers as it is today.
So stick your "no you have changed" up your ass.
Yes there are good ones but, there are lousy ones who can't get fired too.
Teachers do influence children, I can't remember any trying to influence me politically as they are doing today.

Bullshit. Becoming a teacher is harder now than ever......because of the standards set by unions. Teachers today are better educated and better trained to educate than ever before. Teachers can be and are fired. Stop listening to liars.

The teaching profession as a whole leans liberal because they are educated. They are inquisitive. They are capable of researching. They think critically.

The idea that indoctrination is taking place is bullshit. Teachers WELCOME opposing viewpoints coming from students. Teachers love nothing more than an interested student.

You sure have a liberal bias to your bullshit.

 

[Meister]

No. You have changed. You couldn't hold a candle to dozens of teachers who have influenced our kids over the past 20 years. They are bright, hardworking and, most of all, dedicated to their craft. We owe them a great deal.

When I went to school there wasn't a teachers union influencing the teachers as it is today.
So stick your "no you have changed" up your ass.
Yes there are good ones but, there are lousy ones who can't get fired too.
Teachers do influence children, I can't remember any trying to influence me politically as they are doing today.

Jazz is 200.....Tell me what was it like growing up in a pre-civilwar era Jazz....

Seems the libs would rather hijack the thread. SOP

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

you mean women should stay home and out of the workplace?

lol... why? you can't manage to be an effective parent if you work?

and somehow that is "keeping kids from being indoctrinated by fascist drones?"

personally, I don't know what you're talking about. I managed to keep my son from having his morals distorted by rightwingnut loons. quite happily, I might add.

Easy to do with a left nut loon for a mother

except no.... if you weren't a wacko, you'd know that my politics aren't extreme. in fact, 52% of this country voted the way I did in the last two presidential elections. but then again, you don't know anything about my politics other than I think rightwingnuts are ignorant twits.

but then again, rightwingnuts think anyone to the left of atilla the hun is a leftwingnut.

you're welcome.

and for the rightwingnuts... this isn't 1950 and no one wants to go back there except for you wingers.

that's why you're not "conservatives". you're radical rabid reactionaries

True.

The fear and ignorance of the reactionary right has been quite tedious for some time now.

 

[Nosmo King]

There is no requirement to register firearms. Dumb ass.

How else do we regulate our militias?

Regular firearms training and target practice at the range.

That's not a well regulated militia. It's guys with guns who go out for pancakes after the 'thrill' of shooting.

 

[BlindBoo]

How else do we regulate our militias?

Regular firearms training and target practice at the range.

That's not a well regulated militia. It's guys with guns who go out for pancakes after the 'thrill' of shooting.

No. No. No, it's the guys who eat Metamucil with their pancakes after the thrill of shooting.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just tell me the children aren't being indoctrinated in our public schools.
Common Core is the villain in our schools as it ends up.
Just dummy down the children to be raised as mindless liberal minions.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: “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.”

The Common Core teaching materials in this textbook define the Second Amendment like this:

“This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison.”

View attachment 30170
Common Core Textbooks Teaching Lies About The 2nd Amendment | The Federalist Papers

"Common Core" doesn't make textbooks.

Common Core are testing standards, not curriculums or textbooks or anything else like that.

Textbooks that have the words "Common Core" on them are made by private textbook companies who are claiming to meet the Common Core standards, not "official" textbooks that anyone is being forced to use.

Put quite bluntly, Common Core sucks. Doesn't matter where the material comes from.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How else do we regulate our militias?

Regular firearms training and target practice at the range.

That's not a well regulated militia. It's guys with guns who go out for pancakes after the 'thrill' of shooting.

Ahem.

Five key words you liberals seem to routinely miss:

"The right of the people"

Which is an all inclusive phrase, which means that in order to have a militia, every citizen must have a right to bear arms, not just the militia.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Just tell me the children aren't being indoctrinated in our public schools.
Common Core is the villain in our schools as it ends up.
Just dummy down the children to be raised as mindless liberal minions.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: “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.”

The Common Core teaching materials in this textbook define the Second Amendment like this:

“This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison.”

View attachment 30170
Common Core Textbooks Teaching Lies About The 2nd Amendment | The Federalist Papers

"Common Core" doesn't make textbooks.

Common Core are testing standards, not curriculums or textbooks or anything else like that.

Textbooks that have the words "Common Core" on them are made by private textbook companies who are claiming to meet the Common Core standards, not "official" textbooks that anyone is being forced to use.

Put quite bluntly, Common Core sucks. Doesn't matter where the material comes from.

You don't know anything about it. Why are you expressing such a strong opinion?

 

[LoneLaugher]

When I went to school there wasn't a teachers union influencing the teachers as it is today.
So stick your "no you have changed" up your ass.
Yes there are good ones but, there are lousy ones who can't get fired too.
Teachers do influence children, I can't remember any trying to influence me politically as they are doing today.

Bullshit. Becoming a teacher is harder now than ever......because of the standards set by unions. Teachers today are better educated and better trained to educate than ever before. Teachers can be and are fired. Stop listening to liars.

The teaching profession as a whole leans liberal because they are educated. They are inquisitive. They are capable of researching. They think critically.

The idea that indoctrination is taking place is bullshit. Teachers WELCOME opposing viewpoints coming from students. Teachers love nothing more than an interested student.

You sure have a liberal bias to your bullshit.

Having a hard time with it, huh? I get it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

How else do we regulate our militias?

Regular firearms training and target practice at the range.

That's not a well regulated militia. It's guys with guns who go out for pancakes after the 'thrill' of shooting.

The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers - who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter on July 26, 1991:

I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

The text of the Second Amendment is, "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."

The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary.

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[ Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying " militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]

[ Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]

[ Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]

[ Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]

[ Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.

[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase " well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]

[ Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.

[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]

[ Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

[Schulman:] As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" - for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]

[ Copperud:] (1) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

 

[Nosmo King]

Regular firearms training and target practice at the range.

That's not a well regulated militia. It's guys with guns who go out for pancakes after the 'thrill' of shooting.

Ahem.

Five key words you liberals seem to routinely miss:

"The right of the people"

Which is an all inclusive phrase, which means that in order to have a militia, every citizen must have a right to bear arms, not just the militia.

Where's the damn militia? Where's the 'well regulated' part? All I see is men who still love to play Army like little boys or who have deluded themselves into thinking that they will be able to make a stand against either a crazed gunman in a theater or the United States Armed forces. What I do not see is anything that meets the threshold of 'well regulated' or 'militia'.

If you're going all in in defending the 2nd amendment, go all in on the totality of the amendment.

 

[Little-Acorn]

That's not a well regulated militia. It's guys with guns who go out for pancakes after the 'thrill' of shooting.

Ahem.

Five key words you liberals seem to routinely miss:

"The right of the people"

Which is an all inclusive phrase, which means that in order to have a militia, every citizen must have a right to bear arms, not just the militia.

Where's the damn militia? Where's the 'well regulated' part? All I see is men who still love to play Army like little boys or who have deluded themselves into thinking that they will be able to make a stand against either a crazed gunman in a theater or the United States Armed forces. What I do not see is anything that meets the threshold of 'well regulated' or 'militia'.

If you're going all in in defending the 2nd amendment, go all in on the totality of the amendment.

I did. See previous post.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Common Core" doesn't make textbooks.

Common Core are testing standards, not curriculums or textbooks or anything else like that.

Textbooks that have the words "Common Core" on them are made by private textbook companies who are claiming to meet the Common Core standards, not "official" textbooks that anyone is being forced to use.

Put quite bluntly, Common Core sucks. Doesn't matter where the material comes from.

You don't know anything about it. Why are you expressing such a strong opinion?

I know plenty about it. It has children in tears and parents absolutely miffed. It takes time tested practices and turns them into the stuff that physics majors can't even understand. Not to mention it is a government initiative.

Plus, the way I express my opinions is none of your concern, likewise as to what subject my opinions pertain to are also not subject to your purview.

 

[Nosmo King]

Ahem.

Five key words you liberals seem to routinely miss:

"The right of the people"

Which is an all inclusive phrase, which means that in order to have a militia, every citizen must have a right to bear arms, not just the militia.

Where's the damn militia? Where's the 'well regulated' part? All I see is men who still love to play Army like little boys or who have deluded themselves into thinking that they will be able to make a stand against either a crazed gunman in a theater or the United States Armed forces. What I do not see is anything that meets the threshold of 'well regulated' or 'militia'.

If you're going all in in defending the 2nd amendment, go all in on the totality of the amendment.

I did. See previous post.

I repeat: Where's the damn militia?

Arming everyone serves the gun manufacturers well, endangers the general population and runs counter to those of us who wish to live gun free, hence gun violence free. We don't want our children to accidentally shoot themselves. We don't want the liability of having a deadly weapon in our households. Some of you gun nuts have had 'pleasant' experiences with guns, some of us have not. Please allow us who wish to rid our lives and our households of the danger of deadly weapons to do just that. In the meantime, show me a 'well regulated militia' as opposed to hicks with guns having 'fun'.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's not a well regulated militia. It's guys with guns who go out for pancakes after the 'thrill' of shooting.

Ahem.

Five key words you liberals seem to routinely miss:

"The right of the people"

Which is an all inclusive phrase, which means that in order to have a militia, every citizen must have a right to bear arms, not just the militia.

Where's the damn militia? Where's the 'well regulated' part? All I see is men who still love to play Army like little boys or who have deluded themselves into thinking that they will be able to make a stand against either a crazed gunman in a theater or the United States Armed forces. What I do not see is anything that meets the threshold of 'well regulated' or 'militia'.

If you're going all in in defending the 2nd amendment, go all in on the totality of the amendment.

You're angry. And an easy debate opponent.

The rights of the people, key words "the people" to bear arms cannot be regulated. Unless these "men who still love to play Army like little boys" go on a mass shooting spree, their rights to bear arms are not to be infringed.

And your evidence:

The Militia Act of 1792 and Title 10 Section 311 of the United States Code.

Militia organizations in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Little-Acorn]

Where's the damn militia? Where's the 'well regulated' part? All I see is men who still love to play Army like little boys or who have deluded themselves into thinking that they will be able to make a stand against either a crazed gunman in a theater or the United States Armed forces. What I do not see is anything that meets the threshold of 'well regulated' or 'militia'.

If you're going all in in defending the 2nd amendment, go all in on the totality of the amendment.

I did. See previous post.

I repeat: Where's the damn militia?

Read. Reading is key.

Arming everyone serves

Who said anythng about "arming everyone"?

Do you often go off on hysterical rants like that wien you see something you don't like but can't refute?

Help is available.