Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

[PrometheusBound]

We may be looking at it backwards. The right to bear arms was here ever since the Mayflower, so the 2D Amendment merely establishes the right to turn the already armed populace into a militia.

Incorrect.
It prevents the state from infringing on a pre-existing right of the people.

Why would that be necessary? I think you authoritarians just want to sucker gun owners into supporting all the anti-democratic elements of the Constipation by making them believe that it gives them their natural rights. A piece of paper written in the ignorant 18th Century doesn't protect your gun rights, only privately owned weapons protect your gun rights.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Looking at it from the perspective of real-life consequences, the authors of the study guide are in-your-face gungrabbers. Anyone who has that writing job would know how this short form of the 2A would infuriate gun owners, but they don't care. Therefore, they must want the younger generation to believe that guns are for the National Guard only.

Never be tricked into believing in innocent mistakes. Read not only "between the lines" but also behind the lines. Scouting there finds insensitivity to gun owners, who the writers tacitly think are trigger-happy low-class morons.

 

[Pogo]

For someone who thinks he's terribly smart...you're pretty damn stupid.

Nevertheless, the fact remains...the FF correctly viewed the right to bear arms as an individual right, and wrote the COTUS to reflect that right.

They did, huh?
See post 101.



OOOOH, ipse dixit. Curses, Peewee's incisive logic has found my Achilles heel. Thus gainsaid, I fall.



It isn't? So we can't have a militia? Thanks for clearing that up.

But keep stamping your feet, you petulant child. Maybe you should escalate to holding your breath until you turn blue.

What's it feel like, knowing you're on the exact opposite side of 240 years of history, and demanding that it's all wrong and only you are right?

Ummm... I wasn't addressing 240 years of history, Peewee. I was addressing your post. Which, once again, you can't defend beyond gainsaying. That's not supposed to be a compliment.

What's it feel like?
Like debating Pee Wee Herman. "I know you are but what am I". Like a food fight with a four year old. What's it supposed to feel like?

 

[daveman]

They did, huh?
See post 101.



OOOOH, ipse dixit. Curses, Peewee's incisive logic has found my Achilles heel. Thus gainsaid, I fall.



It isn't? So we can't have a militia? Thanks for clearing that up.

What's it feel like, knowing you're on the exact opposite side of 240 years of history, and demanding that it's all wrong and only you are right?

Ummm... I wasn't addressing 240 years of history, Peewee. I was addressing your post. Which, once again, you can't defend beyond gainsaying. That's not supposed to be a compliment.

What's it feel like?
Like debating Pee Wee Herman. "I know you are but what am I". Like a food fight with a four year old. What's it supposed to feel like?

Sheer projection.

Look, you've made it quite clear you believe COTUS says the RTKBA is a collective right only.

History and SCOTUS say you're wrong.

Get over it.

 

[Pogo]

So the little dictator is going to hold his breath until he turns blue until the thread goes in the direction he wants.

LOL, says the person who has 60+ posts demanding others answer his "questions" and refusing to consider what they have offered as rebuttal to his useless musings.

Unfortunately you don't get to dictate what other people discuss. Sucks to be you.

I've enjoyed debating gun rights on-line since 1993; I'm quite familiar with anti-gunners ignoring fundamental principles of the Constitution and maintaining positions at odds with the operation of the Constitution.

The quality of anti's arguments has devolved since then because all you have is emotion. As we see with your attitude, presenting you with the true nature of the right to arms (not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd so the words, construction and punctuation of the 2nd has no bearing on the right) is met with petulant whining about the inapplicability of those concepts to your textual / grammatical argument . . . Well, yeah, that's the point.

So feel free to link these posts of mine where I "demanded" anyone answer my questions, where I styled myself with any accolades, or where I opined on the nature of the right to bear arms, nature boy. What? You can't? That's because you made it up. And making shit up makes you a liar.

I believe it was actually you who posted, and I quote,

the philosophical concepts and legal facts that I speak of are the only things worth inspecting and discussing.

-- a quote you conveniently "lost" in your post, since it would have undermined the lie. And you wanna talk "petulance"??

Any notion that the right is conditioned or qualified by the declaratory clause is illegitimate. It is as absurd as arguing that gravity is conditioned by the wording, construction and punctuation of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

Bravo. So you actually DO understand what the grammatical question was, and all that horseshit injecting other ideas was indeed a smokescreen.

Now we're getting somewhere. Feel free to actually address that question as to why that clause is illegitimate -- and the question I posed before, if it has no function, then why is it sitting there. I mean beyond simply declaring "it just is because I say so". Demonstrate grammatically. If you dare to abandon the bullshit strawmen.

 

[Pogo]

What's it feel like, knowing you're on the exact opposite side of 240 years of history, and demanding that it's all wrong and only you are right?

Ummm... I wasn't addressing 240 years of history, Peewee. I was addressing your post. Which, once again, you can't defend beyond gainsaying. That's not supposed to be a compliment.

What's it feel like?
Like debating Pee Wee Herman. "I know you are but what am I". Like a food fight with a four year old. What's it supposed to feel like?

Sheer projection.

Look, you've made it quite clear you believe COTUS says the RTKBA is a collective right only.

History and SCOTUS say you're wrong.

Get over it.

What I haven't done is "made clear". That's because I don't speak Blind.

What I do is pose questions to ponder. I didn't take a position on it; I'm asking why is it necessarily this way, when it could in fact be that way. I don't accept "because it is" as a legitimate answer.

 

[Pogo]

Looking at it from the perspective of real-life consequences, the authors of the study guide are in-your-face gungrabbers. Anyone who has that writing job would know how this short form of the 2A would infuriate gun owners, but they don't care. Therefore, they must want the younger generation to believe that guns are for the National Guard only.

Never be tricked into believing in innocent mistakes. Read not only "between the lines" but also behind the lines. Scouting there finds insensitivity to gun owners, who the writers tacitly think are trigger-happy low-class morons.

And again we return to the original question--
Why would this passage "infuriate gun owners"? Articulate.

Because some blog says so but never explains it?

And where exactly does it mention "trigger-happy low class morons"?

Did somebody mention "projection" already?

 

[RKMBrown]

Ummm... I wasn't addressing 240 years of history, Peewee. I was addressing your post. Which, once again, you can't defend beyond gainsaying. That's not supposed to be a compliment.

What's it feel like?
Like debating Pee Wee Herman. "I know you are but what am I". Like a food fight with a four year old. What's it supposed to feel like?

Sheer projection.

Look, you've made it quite clear you believe COTUS says the RTKBA is a collective right only.

History and SCOTUS say you're wrong.

Get over it.

What I haven't done is "made clear". That's because I don't speak Blind.

What I do is pose questions to ponder. I didn't take a position on it; I'm asking why is it necessarily this way, when it could in fact be that way. I don't accept "because it is" as a legitimate answer.

Liar. The questions you asked were all answered to certainty. You choose to ignore them or call them lies and keep asking the same questions, already answered, again and again and again... continually certifying only you are the arbiter of truth therefore no answer is correct that does not come from you.

Translation, you are a troll that is FOS.

 

[daveman]

Ummm... I wasn't addressing 240 years of history, Peewee. I was addressing your post. Which, once again, you can't defend beyond gainsaying. That's not supposed to be a compliment.

What's it feel like?
Like debating Pee Wee Herman. "I know you are but what am I". Like a food fight with a four year old. What's it supposed to feel like?

Sheer projection.

Look, you've made it quite clear you believe COTUS says the RTKBA is a collective right only.

History and SCOTUS say you're wrong.

Get over it.

What I haven't done is "made clear". That's because I don't speak Blind.

What I do is pose questions to ponder. I didn't take a position on it; I'm asking why is it necessarily this way, when it could in fact be that way. I don't accept "because it is" as a legitimate answer.

Oh, sheesh. And you've had your questions answered. Then you threw a little hissy fit because the answer wasn't the one you wanted.

I repeat:

Get over it.

 

[PrometheusBound]

So the little dictator is going to hold his breath until he turns blue until the thread goes in the direction he wants.

LOL, says the person who has 60+ posts demanding others answer his "questions" and refusing to consider what they have offered as rebuttal to his useless musings.



I've enjoyed debating gun rights on-line since 1993; I'm quite familiar with anti-gunners ignoring fundamental principles of the Constitution and maintaining positions at odds with the operation of the Constitution.

The quality of anti's arguments has devolved since then because all you have is emotion. As we see with your attitude, presenting you with the true nature of the right to arms (not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd so the words, construction and punctuation of the 2nd has no bearing on the right) is met with petulant whining about the inapplicability of those concepts to your textual / grammatical argument . . . Well, yeah, that's the point.

So feel free to link these posts of mine where I "demanded" anyone answer my questions, where I styled myself with any accolades, or where I opined on the nature of the right to bear arms, nature boy. What? You can't? That's because you made it up. And making shit up makes you a liar.

I believe it was actually you who posted, and I quote,

the philosophical concepts and legal facts that I speak of are the only things worth inspecting and discussing.

-- a quote you conveniently "lost" in your post, since it would have undermined the lie. And you wanna talk "petulance"??

Any notion that the right is conditioned or qualified by the declaratory clause is illegitimate. It is as absurd as arguing that gravity is conditioned by the wording, construction and punctuation of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

Bravo. So you actually DO understand what the grammatical question was, and all that horseshit injecting other ideas was indeed a smokescreen.

Now we're getting somewhere. Feel free to actually address that question as to why that clause is illegitimate -- and the question I posed before, if it has no function, then why is it sitting there. I mean beyond simply declaring "it just is because I say so". Demonstrate grammatically. If you dare to abandon the bullshit strawmen.

In your humble opinion, what does "well-regulated" mean?

 

[jon_berzerk]

like a clock functions well in working order

has nodda thing to do with gun control

 

[PrometheusBound]

Looking at it from the perspective of real-life consequences, the authors of the study guide are in-your-face gungrabbers. Anyone who has that writing job would know how this short form of the 2A would infuriate gun owners, but they don't care. Therefore, they must want the younger generation to believe that guns are for the National Guard only.

Never be tricked into believing in innocent mistakes. Read not only "between the lines" but also behind the lines. Scouting there finds insensitivity to gun owners, who the writers tacitly think are trigger-happy low-class morons.

And again we return to the original question--
Why would this passage "infuriate gun owners"? Articulate.



And where exactly does it mention "trigger-happy low class morons"?

Did somebody mention "projection" already?

It is a fact that it infuriates; the question of whether it should infuriate is using your own halo of moral superiority as a shield against considering views from people you think are inferior.

It is a fact that gun-grabbers think gun owners are drooling, toothless inbreds. You can try to hide your snobbery by enunciating impersonal, unbiased phrases, but nothing in print should be taken at face value. Your defensive term, "projection," can't shield you from thinking people looking behind the scenes you present, which somehow have immunity from analysis.

 

[PrometheusBound]

like a clock functions well in working order

has nodda thing to do with gun control

Then why is it in the Constitution? It must mean that we can't have a functional military unless people have experience with weapons before being called to duty.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's really simple guys. The Second Amendment recognizes that the citizenry has the right to arm itself and assumes that the citizenry IS the militia. And, when the government calls the militia into service, there does need to be organization and regulation of that mllitia in order to have an efficient and effective fighting force to put down whatever enemy is to be confronted.

However the sentence is structured or whatever punctuation is included, that is the clear intent of the Second Amendment. The documents the Founders left behind were quite explicit about that.

I don't know why some have to make things so much more difficult than they have to be.

 

[regent]

It's really simple guys. The Second Amendment recognizes that the citizenry has the right to arm itself and assumes that the citizenry IS the militia. And, when the government calls the militia into service, there does need to be organization and regulation of that mllitia in order to have an efficient and effective fighting force to put down whatever enemy is to be confronted.

However the sentence is structured or whatever punctuation is included, that is the clear intent of the Second Amendment. The documents the Founders left behind were quite explicit about that.

I don't know why some have to make things so much more difficult than they have to be.

Yes, that interpretation and use made sense in 1791. We'll see what the Court continues to say.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's really simple guys. The Second Amendment recognizes that the citizenry has the right to arm itself and assumes that the citizenry IS the militia. And, when the government calls the militia into service, there does need to be organization and regulation of that mllitia in order to have an efficient and effective fighting force to put down whatever enemy is to be confronted.

However the sentence is structured or whatever punctuation is included, that is the clear intent of the Second Amendment. The documents the Founders left behind were quite explicit about that.

I don't know why some have to make things so much more difficult than they have to be.

Yes, that interpretation and use made sense in 1791. We'll see what the Court continues to say.

The Court did not write the Constitution or participate in the debates and reasoning that went into the Constitution. And whenever the Court decides to put its own spin or interpretation on it, without regard for original intent, the Court is wrong and acting unconstitutionally. If we the people don't recognize that and demand that our elected representatives rein in rogue courts, we leave ourselves open to an ever more authoritarian government to use the courts to further tread on our unalienable rights and further its own self interest.

The Constitution does not give the courts the authority to write law. The Court was intended to rule on the intent of existing law when there is a dispute about that, and also to identify conflict between two different existing laws.

 

[Spoonman]

It's really simple guys. The Second Amendment recognizes that the citizenry has the right to arm itself and assumes that the citizenry IS the militia. And, when the government calls the militia into service, there does need to be organization and regulation of that mllitia in order to have an efficient and effective fighting force to put down whatever enemy is to be confronted.

However the sentence is structured or whatever punctuation is included, that is the clear intent of the Second Amendment. The documents the Founders left behind were quite explicit about that.

I don't know why some have to make things so much more difficult than they have to be.

Yes, that interpretation and use made sense in 1791. We'll see what the Court continues to say.

i'd rather look to see what james madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment had to say about it. who better to give an accurate interpretation of it then him? and he said the citizen militia was to be separtate from the regular army. that they were to be regulated by leaders of their own choosing, and not the regular army or government. and he further went on to describe how a civilian militia would protect the people from a government that would try to infringe on their freedoms.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's really simple guys. The Second Amendment recognizes that the citizenry has the right to arm itself and assumes that the citizenry IS the militia. And, when the government calls the militia into service, there does need to be organization and regulation of that mllitia in order to have an efficient and effective fighting force to put down whatever enemy is to be confronted.

However the sentence is structured or whatever punctuation is included, that is the clear intent of the Second Amendment. The documents the Founders left behind were quite explicit about that.

I don't know why some have to make things so much more difficult than they have to be.

Yes, that interpretation and use made sense in 1791. We'll see what the Court continues to say.

i'd rather look to see what james madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment had to say about it. who better to give an accurate interpretation of it then him? and he said the citizen militia was to be separtate from the regular army. that they were to be regulated by leaders of their own choosing, and not the regular army or government. and he further went on to describe how a civilian militia would protect the people from a government that would try to infringe on their freedoms.

Yep. Madison knew that the militia did need leaders as it would not function efficiently or effectively with each individual doing his own thng. But he did not intend that the federal government furnish those leaders. Again, some Madison quotes on the subject:

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46)

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." (The Federalist, No. 46)

 

[Spoonman]

Yes, that interpretation and use made sense in 1791. We'll see what the Court continues to say.

i'd rather look to see what james madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment had to say about it. who better to give an accurate interpretation of it then him? and he said the citizen militia was to be separtate from the regular army. that they were to be regulated by leaders of their own choosing, and not the regular army or government. and he further went on to describe how a civilian militia would protect the people from a government that would try to infringe on their freedoms.

Yep. Madison knew that the militia did need leaders as it would not function efficiently or effectively with each individual doing his own thng. But he did not intend that the federal government furnish those leaders. Again, some Madison quotes on the subject:

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46)

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." (The Federalist, No. 46)

the bill of rights was no guarantee that it would pass. Even back in their day their was a mis information machine that was used to discredit and idea or sway public opinion. so madison and others wrote articles called the federalist papers where they clearly explained what their idea of the bill of rights was all about. Madison was very clear, all of these rights were about protecting the citizens from oppressive government. he was also very clear that this militia he spoke of was capable of suppressing the regular army should the government turn them against the people. He gave sepcific examples of how it would work

 

[Foxfyre]

i'd rather look to see what james madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment had to say about it. who better to give an accurate interpretation of it then him? and he said the citizen militia was to be separtate from the regular army. that they were to be regulated by leaders of their own choosing, and not the regular army or government. and he further went on to describe how a civilian militia would protect the people from a government that would try to infringe on their freedoms.

Yep. Madison knew that the militia did need leaders as it would not function efficiently or effectively with each individual doing his own thng. But he did not intend that the federal government furnish those leaders. Again, some Madison quotes on the subject:

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46)

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." (The Federalist, No. 46)

the bill of rights was no guarantee that it would pass. Even back in their day their was a mis information machine that was used to discredit and idea or sway public opinion. so madison and others wrote articles called the federalist papers where they clearly explained what their idea of the bill of rights was all about. Madison was very clear, all of these rights were about protecting the citizens from oppressive government. he was also very clear that this militia he spoke of was capable of suppressing the regular army should the government turn them against the people. He gave sepcific examples of how it would work

Of course the anti-Second Amendment people say that such a concept is no longer relevent since the federal government now controls nuclear weapons, massively armed fighter jets, armored tanks, and rapid fire powerful gunnery that the average citizen is not allowed to own. Their reasoning is that since the people would be essentially helpless against the military if the government should turn on the people, that component of the Second Amendment no longer applies and can't be used as a justification for an armed citizenry.

However I rather think our defense is to educate the citizenry in the basics of freedom, original intent of the Constitution that recognizes and protects our rights, and refuse to allow the historical revisionists to corrupt those basic convictions and principles.

Then those who choose to become a part of the military will know when they are being ordered to commit treason against the people who have always been the ones intended to be in power in this nation. And they will be the people's army rather than be ordered by some tyrannt or tyrannts who would take all our liberties away.