Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Roger Bacon on September 16, 2013, 12:23:32 AM
-
Second Amendment. The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia.
http://imgur.com/svgZ0E9
http://www.amazon.com/United-States-History-Preparing-Examination/product-reviews/1567656609/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0
-
Second Amendment. The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia.
http://imgur.com/svgZ0E9
http://www.amazon.com/United-States-History-Preparing-Examination/product-reviews/1567656609/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0
I really respect American Amendments ;) & I am little bit jealous :-\
-
The liberals are really trying...
Whoever wrote and approved this book needs to be publically hanged
-
I really respect American Amendments ;) & I am little bit jealous :-\
I really respect Australian Beaches ;) & I am little bit jealous :-\
-
Didn't Texas make the news a couple of years ago when a bunch of fundies on the Texas Board of Education approved curriculum and books with a conservative republican skew ?
http://www.npr.org/2012/06/20/155440679/revisionaries-tells-story-of-texas-textbook-battle
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html
-
Yeah but.....text books should be pro American, especially at the grammar school level. They should teach kids civic responsibility and love of country. Once you get to college you can dig into the reasons behind certain things. The libs tend to like to shit all over patriotism because they hate the country. Yeah...I believe u bastards hate America...but I digress ;D.......teaching darwinism is fine...teaching that there exists alternative theories without going into details is fine as well. I thing anything deeply rooted in science should trump anything spiritual...if you're in a science class. Kids should be taught the basics....all the other BS that's taught, needs to be dumped. I don't care about little jonny's feelings...little jonny needs to be able to count, spell, read, write and have a basic foundation in athletics. He needs to know there are winners and loosers...losing sucks...hard work helps you win and we don't need anymore lawyers so pay attention in math class.
-
Did the "fundies" approve books that blatantly changed the WORDING of any of the amendments.
-
Yeah but.....text books should be pro American, especially at the grammar school level. They should teach kids civic responsibility and love of country. Once you get to college you can dig into the reasons behind certain things. The libs tend to like to shit all over patriotism because they hate the country. Yeah...I believe u bastards hate America...but I digress ;D.......teaching darwinism is fine...teaching that there exists alternative theories without going into details is fine as well. I thing anything deeply rooted in science should trump anything spiritual...if you're in a science class. Kids should be taught the basics....all the other BS that's taught, needs to be dumped. I don't care about little jonny's feelings...little jonny needs to be able to count, spell, read, write and have a basic foundation in athletics. He needs to know there are winners and loosers...losing sucks...hard work helps you win and we don't need anymore lawyers so pay attention in math class.
Another great post
-
Yeah but.....text books should be pro American, especially at the grammar school level. They should teach kids civic responsibility and love of country. Once you get to college you can dig into the reasons behind certain things. The libs tend to like to shit all over patriotism because they hate the country. Yeah...I believe u bastards hate America...but I digress ;D.......teaching darwinism is fine...teaching that there exists alternative theories without going into details is fine as well. I thing anything deeply rooted in science should trump anything spiritual...if you're in a science class. Kids should be taught the basics....all the other BS that's taught, needs to be dumped. I don't care about little jonny's feelings...little jonny needs to be able to count, spell, read, write and have a basic foundation in athletics. He needs to know there are winners and loosers...losing sucks...hard work helps you win and we don't need anymore lawyers so pay attention in math class.
Great post...
It pisses me off that the progressives/liberals/democrats/radicals/whetever the fuck traitor pieces of shit decry instilling a sense of pride, dignity, and loyalty to ones country as propoganda and indoctrination, but then in the same fucking breath will cheer on books like this, where the author completely re-writes a document to try and revise history to a generation of children that have no idea they're being lied to.
But thats not propaganda or indoctrination... no, its only propaganda to teach children to love their country and embrace their constitution. Having them learn from a textbook that literally re-writes the text of the bill of rights, that not propaganda at all.....
At that age, they should be being taught nothing but the facts, and being instilled with a love of country, and to embrace their constitution and bill of rights.... the ideas in those documents are things that everyone can and should embrace.
Later, as adults, they can go back and learn the sordid, dirty underbelly of our history and decide how it aligns with their moral compass. But re-writing these documents to try and misdirect and shift the political climate of an entire generation of children is fucking morally wrong.
-
Having them learn from a textbook that literally re-writes the text of the bill of rights, that not propaganda at all.....
::) The sentence immediately preceding the first amendment says "here is a summary of the rights guaranteed in each amendment." So, yeah, typically when educational materials summarize things , they "literally re-write" whatever it is that is being summarized. Whether or not you agree with the book's interpretation is one thing, but that's a debate that has been going on for more than two centuries. What isn't up for debate is that this is just another situation where certain factions on the right are looking for an excuse to get their panties all knotted up.
-
I really respect Australian Beaches ;) & I am little bit jealous :-\
-Manly Daily (my local papers) today :
-Cover: A cormorant found at Narrabeen Lagoon died from pellet gun wounds
-page 5:Surfer dies despite 'exceptional' lifesaving efforts
-p 7: Warning over close encounters with dolphin
-p 8:drunk women fined $ 720 for behaving offensively in public (biggest crime this week)
Just boooring :D
-
-Manly Daily (my local papers) today :
-Cover: A cormorant found at Narrabeen Lagoon died from pellet gun wounds
-page 5:Surfer dies despite 'exceptional' lifesaving efforts
-p 7: Warning over close encounters with dolphin
-p 8:drunk women fined $ 720 for behaving offensively in public (biggest crime this week)
Just boooring :D
News Herald (my local paper) today:
-Fire, Police host Community Safety Day
-City passes $46.6M budget
-Two caught in ID fraud, theft, pot
-Road improvements to close Roads
-Planning Commission approves Islamic Center
-Nature Center receives $100K check
-City awarded $15M water plant loan
-mixed-use project denied
Just a little less boooring than yours :D
-
::) The sentence immediately preceding the first amendment says "here is a summary of the rights guaranteed in each amendment." So, yeah, typically when educational materials summarize things , they "literally re-write" whatever it is that is being summarized. Whether or not you agree with the book's interpretation is one thing, but that's a debate that has been going on for more than two centuries. What isn't up for debate is that this is just another situation where certain factions on the right are looking for an excuse to get their panties all knotted up.
I don't pay attention to school text books but I've never seen a text book "summarize" a sentence in which you make the summary longer than the summarized text and alter the meaning of it...
If this had said that marriage is between a man and a woman or some other left hot button I'm sure we would have heard about it.
This is a blatant mischarecterization of the second ammendment, and we shouldn't be summarizing, paraphrasing or otherwise editing our constitutional rights
-
I don't pay attention to school text books
Yeah, this is pretty obvious. I, along with a few other board members, have pointed this out and wonder why you insist on trying to pass yourself off as educated.
but I've never seen a text book "summarize" a sentence in which you make the summary longer than the summarized text and alter the meaning of it...
The second amendment has 27 words in it. The summary in that text book has 14 words. 14 is less than 27. I know you don't pay attention to text books, but that's kindergarten math right thurr.
If this had said that marriage is between a man and a woman or some other left hot button I'm sure we would have heard about it.
This is a blatant mischarecterization of the second ammendment, and we shouldn't be summarizing, paraphrasing or otherwise editing our constitutional rights
Yes. Yes we should. It is fucking imperative. I know a retard like you who lies about getting his phd has no understanding of how studying or learning works, but textbooks are supposed to take concepts, explain them and make them accessible. Regardless of how much a pweshus, little flower like you ends up twisting and politicizing it, the Bill of Rights is not so fragile as to be incapable of withstanding being explained or discussed. What next? Not speaking it aloud? Never looking directly at a printed copy?
-
Second Amendment. The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia.
http://imgur.com/svgZ0E9
http://www.amazon.com/United-States-History-Preparing-Examination/product-reviews/1567656609/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0
lol @ getting bent out of shape because someone changed an amendment...
-
lol @ getting bent out of shape because someone changed an amendment...
Yeah, completely manipulating the meaning of Constitutional Amendments in the minds of our future leaders is no biggie... :D
Total overreaction
-
The second amendment has 27 words in it. The summary in that text book has 14 words. 14 is less than 27. I know you don't pay attention to text books, but that's kindergarten math right thurr.
touche, does summarizing also include misrepresenting the summarized text? why did you not address this point?
Yes. Yes we should. It is fucking imperative. I know a retard like you who lies about getting his phd has no understanding of how studying or learning works, but textbooks are supposed to take concepts, explain them and make them accessible. Regardless of how much a pweshus, little flower like you ends up twisting and politicizing it, the Bill of Rights is not so fragile as to be incapable of withstanding being explained or discussed. What next? Not speaking it aloud? Never looking directly at a printed copy?
LMFAO whatever I did to make you so butt hurt must have been epic!!!
never said I have a phd, I do however have an MBA...along with a great job
Debating and discussing something is great, its one of the things that makes this country great. Please tell me where mischaracterizing the 2nd ammendment falls into discussing it?
-
touche, does summarizing also include misrepresenting the summarized text? why did you not address this point?
I did address the point. Whether or not you agree with the interpretation, it's a debate that has been going on for centuries, literally. I wouldn't even take a second glance if you nitwits just left it at pointing out the book is wrong, but of course you right-wing banshees have to turn it in to a a political atrocity that will cripple the nation. It was a quickie summary in a study guide, it was not an essay weighing the political complexities of the right to bear arms.
LMFAO whatever I did to make you so butt hurt must have been epic!!!
You haven't made anyone butt hurt. What you have done is consistently displayed that you are the dumbest person to ever use the internet. That would not be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that you repeatedly try to portray yourself as some type of academic. 90% of your posts read like something a monkey typed with its butt. The only thing epic about them is their stupidity.
never said I have a phd, I do however have an MBA...along with a great job
Debating and discussing something is great, its one of the things that makes this country great. Please tell me where mischaracterizing the 2nd ammendment falls into discussing it?
You are retarded.
-
You are retarded.
LOL brilliant retort
-
Yeah, completely manipulating the meaning of Constitutional Amendments in the minds of our future leaders is no biggie... :D
Total overreaction
But it was OK to amend the constitution in the first place?
Why is it that changes made more than a hundred years ago ok but changes made today aren't?
-
But it was OK to amend the constitution in the first place?
Why is it that changes made more than a hundred years ago ok but changes made today aren't?
I know my problem with this is that I see it as a way for them to re-write history in the minds of a generation of children. Think about it... if kids grow up not knowing they have been guaranteed the right as citizens to bear arms, they aren't going to fight for it when it's taken from them.
Clearly they can't actually get it through normal legislation... so they'll just erase it from the history books... after all, if it's forgotten about by only a couple generations... it's like it never existed at all.
-
But it was OK to amend the constitution in the first place?
Why is it that changes made more than a hundred years ago ok but changes made today aren't?
the change a hundred years ago went through a predetermined process and was voted by elected officials who had responsibilities to their constituents. It was debated and discussed before the changes were made and when the finally were made, the changes were done so in the correct arena.
-
I know my problem with this is that I see it as a way for them to re-write history in the minds of a generation of children. Think about it... if kids grow up not knowing they have been guaranteed the right as citizens to bear arms, they aren't going to fight for it when it's taken from them.
This is truly idiotic.
-
This is truly idiotic.
Yeah, well, thats like, your opinion, dickhead.
-
Yeah, well, thats like, your opinion, dickhead.
No, it's a fact. It's not an opinion.What you posted was truly idiotic.
-
What's next, complaining that Cliff Notes don't contain the exact text of the entire book
-
No, it's a fact. It's not an opinion.What you posted was truly idiotic.
Pretty sure it's an opinion. And I'm pretty sure that this comment it also an opinion -
You're a complete and total moron for being unable to grasp the difference between fact and opinion, twice as much so since you fucked them up in the very post you were trying to use as proof of my idiocy.
Carry on, dickhead.
-
Pretty sure it's an opinion. And I'm pretty sure that this comment it also an opinion -
You're a complete and total moron for being unable to grasp the difference between fact and opinion, twice as much so since you fucked them up in the very post you were trying to use as proof of my idiocy.
Carry on, dickhead.
I can grasp the difference between fact and opinion. I was emphasizing just how idiotic that post was. It was so idiotic that it transcended simply being idiotic in my opinion. It was universally and undebatably idiotic. You actually posted that you think a questionable summary of the bill of rights in a high school study guide is an attempt to surreptitiously re-write the constitution... by lord knows who? Darth Maul, maybe? As if a)the actual summarized text even approaches suggesting such a thing, b) these children have no access to any other sources of information and c)in an earlier post you didn't address the fact that more complex political ideas are formed at later stages in life as a result of more realistic circumstances. No one is forming political opinions based on 14 words in highschool textbooks That post was stupid, as a matter of fact. It is impressive that its stupidity managed to stand out in such an extreme way considering this thread contains posts from Tony Retardo.
-
What's next, complaining that Cliff Notes don't contain the exact text of the entire book
cliff notes dont change the story of the book it just shortens it, this changes the underlying right of the 2nd ammendment
-
cliff notes dont change the story of the book it just shortens it, this changes the underlying right of the 2nd ammendment
No, it doesn't.
-
I can grasp the difference between fact and opinion. I was emphasizing just how idiotic that post was. It was so idiotic that it transcended simply being idiotic in my opinion. It was universally and undebatably idiotic. You actually posted that you think a questionable summary of the bill of rights in a high school study guide is an attempt to surreptitiously re-write the constitution... by lord knows who? Darth Maul, maybe? As if a)the actual summarized text even approaches suggesting such a thing, b) these children have no access to any other sources of information and c)in an earlier post you didn't address the fact that more complex political ideas are formed at later stages in life as a result of more realistic circumstances. No one is forming political opinions based on 14 words in highschool textbooks That post was stupid, as a matter of fact. It is impressive that its stupidity managed to stand out in such an extreme way considering this thread contains posts from Tony Retardo.
non of this bullshit justifies mischaracterizing the 2nd ammendment...
do you agree the "summary" mischaracterized the 2nd ammendment albert?
-
No, it doesn't.
ahhh ok so right to bear arms and right to bear arms as part of a militia is the same in your mind?
-
ahhh ok so right to bear arms and right to bear arms as part of a militia is the same in your mind?
What is the second amendment, Retardo?
-
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 right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon, this does not say that they are not allowed to keep and bear arms outside of a militia does it?
-
"The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia"
this says your right is only protected so long as your part of a state militia...
-
cliff notes dont change the story of the book it just shortens it, this changes the underlying right of the 2nd ammendment
It doesn't change shit
this book was created to pass an AP History exam and this summary definition most certainly suits that purpose
you just don't like that it summarizes the exact meaning of the second amendment (i.e. well regulated militia)
you'd like to forget the part of "well regulated" and "militia" and just pretend it was written so that a bunch of gun nuts 200 year later can justify their personal arsenal of automatic weapons
-
the well regulated militia part doesnt mean you are not allowed to own them outside of one, if they mean it that way it would have been written that way...::)
sorry that you would rather live in a fantasy world
-
But it was OK to amend the constitution in the first place?
Why is it that changes made more than a hundred years ago ok but changes made today aren't?
Two thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate along with the State legislators can do that, the legal way. A very fair and sound process.
The author of this book, and politicians that approved its usage have no right though.
Are you serious here, or just messing with us?
???
-
"The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia"
this says your right is only protected so long as your part of a state militia...
Only because you are a screeching rightwing banshee and choose to interpret it that way. Based on how it is actually written, the passage from that book reaffirms the fact that well-regulated militias have the right to bear arms, not whether or not one must belong to a militia to have that right- which is what the debate was about for the largest part of America's history.
And part of the reason that there has always been debate over the second amendment in some form or another is because the second amendment is not really phrased clearly. So just because you choose to interpret it one way does not mean that it is the definitive interpretation and that any other interpretation is wrong and un-American.
-
Yeah, well, thats like, your opinion, dickhead.
The Dude!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
I can grasp the difference between fact and opinion. I was emphasizing just how idiotic that post was. It was so idiotic that it transcended simply being idiotic in my opinion. It was universally and undebatably idiotic. You actually posted that you think a questionable summary of the bill of rights in a high school study guide is an attempt to surreptitiously re-write the constitution... by lord knows who? Darth Maul, maybe? As if a)the actual summarized text even approaches suggesting such a thing, b) these children have no access to any other sources of information and c)in an earlier post you didn't address the fact that more complex political ideas are formed at later stages in life as a result of more realistic circumstances. No one is forming political opinions based on 14 words in highschool textbooks That post was stupid, as a matter of fact. It is impressive that its stupidity managed to stand out in such an extreme way considering this thread contains posts from Tony Retardo.
Im going to be blunt and just admit that I haven't dont the research. I was simply going on others input and the reviews that people had done upon a cursory searth that the author is known to push his radical agenda.. and the fact that in a summary of the 2nd amendment he literally leaves out the ENTIRE POINT, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Why would he do such a thing? Why would he intentionally mislead children that don't know any better into thinking that the 2nd amendment is somehow about STATE MILITIAS bearing arms?
I understand that I'm pushing the envelope a bit, but lets be real here - its not uncommon for people to try and rewrite history and teach it to unknowing students to try and push their agenda.... why would this be any different?
As far as the rest of your post, you seem to have missed where I said that it would be less of a big deal to me if they were learning this later in life... but you seem to forget that its these years where many opinions are formed and solidified..... Intionally revising the document in this way, to me, screams of someone who doesn't want children to learn that they are entitled by the US constitution to bear arms.
As a veteran, making it seem like only state recognized militias have the right to bear arms is fucking insulting to me.
You can disagree, and thats fine.... thats why I volunteered to fight for this country, so that everyones opinion carries weight... but, IMHO, you are a complete fuckhead.
-
Only because you are a screeching rightwing banshee and choose to interpret it that way. Based on how it is actually written, the passage from that book reaffirms the fact that well-regulated militias have the right to bear arms, not that one must belong to a militia to have that right- which is what the debate was about for the largest part of America's history.
And part of the reason that there has always been debate over the second amendment in some form or another is because the second amendment is not really phrased clearly. So just because you choose to interpret it one way does not mean that it is the definitive interpretation and that any other interpretation is wrong.
LOL bro you can call me a right wing nut job all you want it just serves to show how far left you actually are.
The "summary" does not say you can own guns outside of a militia, as a matter of fact it goes out of the way to avoid saying that.
the 2nd ammendment isnt unclear at all, the people have the right to form militias to help defend their freedom and the right to own arms shall not be infringed....
pretty fucking clear
-
the second amendment is not really phrased clearly. So just because you choose to interpret it one way does not mean that it is the definitive interpretation and that any other interpretation is wrong.
If there's confusion, you can reference almost every State Constitution.
Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1819, art. I, § 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling changed 1901).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Alaska: 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 individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. Art. I, § 19 (first sentence enacted 1959, second sentence added 1994).
[Individual right explicitly protected; provision enacted in 1994, when the individual right to bear arms was generally understood as aimed at protecting self-defense.]
Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1912).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. Art. II, § 5 (enacted 1868, art. I, § 5).
1836: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. II, § 21.
[Self-defense right protected, Arkansas Game and Fish Com'n v. Murders, 327 Ark. 426 (1997); Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557 (1878).]
California: No provision.
Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Art. I, § 20 (enacted 1987).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
(c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.
(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun. Art. I, § 8 (sections (b)-(d) added in 1990).
1838: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. I, § 21.
1865: Clause omitted.
1868: "The people shall have the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State." Art. I, § 22.
1885: "The right of the people to bear arms in defence of themselves and the lawful authority of the State, shall not be infringed, but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne." Art. I, § 20.
1968: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law." Art. I, § 8.
[Self-defense right protected, Alexander v. State, 450 So.2d 1212 (Fla. App. 1984).]
Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne. Art. I, § 1, ¶ VIII (enacted 1877, art. I, § XXII).
1865: "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." Art. I, § 4.
1868: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but the general assembly shall have power to prescribe by law the manner in which arms may be borne." Art. I, § 14.
[Self-defense right protected, McCoy v. State, 157 Ga. 767 (1924).]
Hawaii: 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. Art. I, § 17 (enacted 1959).
[No decision about whether self-defense right right is protected.]
Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1978).
1889: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense; but the Legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law." Art. I, § 11.
[Self-defense right protected, In re Brickey, 70 P. 609 (Idaho 1902).]
Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1970).
[Self-defense right protected, Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 470 N.E.2d 266, 273 (Ill. 1984).]
Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Art. I, § 32 (enacted 1851, art. I, § 32).
1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20.
[Self-defense right protected, Kellogg v. City of Gary, 562 N.E.2d 685, 694 (Ind. 1990).]
Iowa: No provision.
Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Bill of Rights, § 4 (enacted 1859, art. I, § 4).
[Interpreted as collective right only, City of Salina v. Blaksley, 83 P. 619 (Kan. 1905), adhered to by City of Junction City v. Lee, 532 P.2d 1292 (Kan. 1975). But see City of Junction City v. Mevis, 601 P.2d 1145, 1151 (Kan. 1979) (striking down a gun control law, challenged by an individual citizen, on the grounds that it was “unconstitutionally overbroad,” and thus implicitly concluding that the right to bear arms did indeed belong to individual citizens).]
Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ...
Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. § 1 (enacted 1891).
1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.
1799: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. X, § 23.
1850: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms." Art. XIII, § 25.
Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1974).
1879: "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 abridged. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed." Art. 3.
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Chaisson, 457 So.2d 1257, 1259 (La. App. 1984).]
Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. Art. I, § 16 (enacted 1987, after a collective-rights interpretation of the original provision).
1819: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned." Art. I, § 16.
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Brown, 571 A.2d 816 (Me. 1990).]
-
Im going to be blunt and just admit that I haven't dont the research. I was simply going on others input and the reviews that people had done upon a cursory searth that the author is known to push his radical agenda.. and the fact that in a summary of the 2nd amendment he literally leaves out the ENTIRE POINT, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Why would he do such a thing? Why would he intentionally mislead children that don't know any better into thinking that the 2nd amendment is somehow about STATE MILITIAS bearing arms?
I understand that I'm pushing the envelope a bit, but lets be real here - its not uncommon for people to try and rewrite history and teach it to unknowing students to try and push their agenda.... why would this be any different?
As far as the rest of your post, you seem to have missed where I said that it would be less of a big deal to me if they were learning this later in life... but you seem to forget that its these years where many opinions are formed and solidified..... Intionally revising the document in this way, to me, screams of someone who doesn't want children to learn that they are entitled by the US constitution to bear arms.
As a veteran, making it seem like only state recognized militias have the right to bear arms is fucking insulting to me.
You can disagree, and thats fine.... thats why I volunteered to fight for this country, so that everyones opinion carries weight... but, IMHO, you are a complete fuckhead.
you have to understand shock, albert and straw dont believe this mischaracterization to be misleading....::)
-
LOL wheres californias bacon?
"the people have the right to water squirters as long as they are not in the shape or in anyway resemble a firearm"
-
Maryland: No provision.
Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).
[Interpreted as collective right only, Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. 1976).]
Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1963).
1835: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 13.
1850: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state." Art. XVIII, § 7.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Minnesota: No provision.
Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Art. III, § 12 (enacted 1890, art. 3, § 12).
1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23.
1832: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and of the State." Art. I, § 23.
1868: "All persons shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their defence." Art. I, § 15.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).
1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.
1865: Same as above, but with "the lawful authority of the State" instead of "the State." Art. I, § 8.
1875: "That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons." Art. II, § 17.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. Art. II, § 12 (enacted 1889).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1988).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Nevada: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. Art. I, § 11(1) (enacted 1982).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. Pt. 1, art. 2-a (enacted 1982).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
New Jersey: No provision.
New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. Art. II, § 6 (first sentence enacted in 1971, second sentence added 1986).
1912: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." Art. II, § 6.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
New York: No provision.
North Carolina: 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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice. Art. 1, § 30 (enacted 1971).
1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Bill of Rights, § XVII.
1868: "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; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Art. I, § 24.
1875: Same as 1868, but added "Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice."
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Kerner. 107 S.E. 222, 225 (N.C. 1921).]
North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1984).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Ohio: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 4 (enacted 1851).
1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.
[Self-defense right protected, Arnold v. Cleveland, 616 N.E.2d 163, 169 (Ohio 1993).]
Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1907).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Oregon: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.] Art. I, § 27 (enacted 1857, art. I, § 28).
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Hirsch, 114 P.3d 1104, 1110 (Ore. 2005).]
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
[Self-defense right protected, Sayres v. Commonwealth, 88 Pa. 291 (1879).]
Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1842).
[Self-defense right protected, Mosby v. Devine, 851 A.2d 1031, 1043 (R.I. 2004).]
South Carolina: 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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. Art. 1, § 20 (enacted 1895).
1868: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. As, in times of peace . . . ." Art. I, § 28.
[Right treated as an individual right, apparently aimed at least partly at self-defense, State v. Johnson, 16 S.C. 187 (1881);
South Dakota: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. Art. VI, § 24 (enacted 1889).
[Self-defense right protected, Conaty v. Solem, 422 N.W.2d 102, 104 (S.D. 1988).]
Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1870).
1796: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. XI, § 26.
1834: "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. I, § 26.
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Foutch, 34 S.W. 1, 1 (Tenn. 1896).]
Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).
1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power." Declaration of Rights, cl. 14.
1845: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defence of himself or the State." Art. I, § 13.
1868: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." Art. I, § 13.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Utah: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1984).
1896: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law."
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Rosenthal, 55 A. 610 (Vt. 1903).]
Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Art. I, § 13 (enacted 1776 without explicit right to keep and bear arms; "therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" added in 1971).
[No decision about whether self-defense right right is protected. Compare 1993 Va. Op. Atty. Gen. 13 (construing the right as collective) with 2006 WL 304006 (Va. Op. Atty. Gen.) (construing the right as individual).]
Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
West Virginia: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. Art. III, § 22 (enacted 1986).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Wisconsin: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Art. I, § 25 (enacted 1998).
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Fisher, 714 N.W.2d 495 (Wisc. 2006).]
Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).
[Self-defense right protected, State v. McAdams, 714 P.2d 1236, 1238 (Wyo. 1986).]
-
you have to understand shock, albert and straw dont believe this mischaracterization to be misleading....::)
Because it isn't. Unless you're some rightwing drama queen whose panties are twisted up too tightly. Even Shockwave admits he's reaching.
-
Because it isn't. Unless you're some rightwing drama queen whose panties are twisted up too tightly. Even Shockwave admits he's reaching.
LOL thats what you took away from shock's post?
no wonder you come up with the ignorant conclusion you have ::)
-
LOL thats what you took away from shock's post?
no wonder you come up with the ignorant conclusion you have ::)
No, the fact that I realize that interpretations of the the second amendment have always varied and that 14 words in a textbook don't equal political propaganda just because I'm not willing to actually pay attention what they say is why my conclusion was rational and well-reasoned. Because you are willing and eager to flip out at the slightest opportunity to politicize something is why your conclusions in this thread- and pretty much every other- are ignorant and ridiculous.
-
LOL bro you can call me a right wing nut job all you want it just serves to show how far left you actually are.
The "summary" does not say you can own guns outside of a militia, as a matter of fact it goes out of the way to avoid saying that.
I didn't call you a right-wing nut job. I called you a right-wing crybaby.I didn't claim the summary said the people have the right to be armed. I said the summary says militias have the right to organize and be armed. I knew it was a not-so-subtle distinction that you would not grasp even though I attempted to make it really, really clear.
the 2nd ammendment isnt unclear at all, the people have the right to form militias to help defend their freedom and the right to own arms shall not be infringed....
pretty fucking clear
You're not very informed about the history of the second amendment, but I'm not really surprised. :-\
-
I know my problem with this is that I see it as a way for them to re-write history in the minds of a generation of children. Think about it... if kids grow up not knowing they have been guaranteed the right as citizens to bear arms, they aren't going to fight for it when it's taken from them.
Clearly they can't actually get it through normal legislation... so they'll just erase it from the history books... after all, if it's forgotten about by only a couple generations... it's like it never existed at all.
I agree with that.
Anyone that intentionally fabricates facts in childrens books - well - isn't the name for that "Communist"???
-
Im going to be blunt and just admit that I haven't dont the research. I was simply going on others input and the reviews that people had done upon a cursory searth that the author is known to push his radical agenda.. and the fact that in a summary of the 2nd amendment he literally leaves out the ENTIRE POINT, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Why would he do such a thing? Why would he intentionally mislead children that don't know any better into thinking that the 2nd amendment is somehow about STATE MILITIAS bearing arms?
I understand that I'm pushing the envelope a bit, but lets be real here - its not uncommon for people to try and rewrite history and teach it to unknowing students to try and push their agenda.... why would this be any different?
As far as the rest of your post, you seem to have missed where I said that it would be less of a big deal to me if they were learning this later in life... but you seem to forget that its these years where many opinions are formed and solidified..... Intionally revising the document in this way, to me, screams of someone who doesn't want children to learn that they are entitled by the US constitution to bear arms.
As a veteran, making it seem like only state recognized militias have the right to bear arms is fucking insulting to me.
You can disagree, and thats fine.... thats why I volunteered to fight for this country, so that everyones opinion carries weight... but, IMHO, you are a complete fuckhead.
Good points. Pretty bad distortion. You should check out the book Lies My Teacher Told Me. Pretty disturbing how we distort history sometimes.
Also, looks like the book is being revised.
Second Amendment definition in Texas school work book triggers uproar
By Edmund DeMarche
Published September 18, 2013
FoxNews.com
Parents at a high school near Dallas say the authors of a book on U.S. history misfired when they defined the Second Amendment -- and now one of the book's co-authors says the book is being revised.
The work book used at Guyer High School in the city of Denton, "The United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination," includes the "summary" definition of the Second Amendment to include the right to "keep and bear arms in a state militia."
The edited definition is seen by gun-rights advocates as an affront to the Second Amendment, which states in full: "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."
Parents at the school criticized the book for distorting the definition of the Second Amendment in favor of those opposed to gun rights.
John J. Newman, the book's co-author, told FoxNews.com that the text of the book was written before the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller , which protects individuals' rights to possess firearms. He said the book's only intent was to summarize the Second Amendment and admitted that the current definition is incorrect. But he said a revised and corrected edition is set to be sold in May 2014.
"There was no devious intention in the definition," Newman said.
The book is a supplement to the actual text book, "American Pageant." The school says the text book gives the exact Bill of Rights.
"The teachers and the staff are aware of this "summary statement" and are teaching the amendments from the classroom textbook," a statement from the Denton School District said. "Please be assured that Denton ISD history teachers are disseminating the correct information on the Second Amendment."
Sean Getts, who has a daughter who is a junior at Guyer High School, told FoxNews.com she noticed the wording of the amendment and alerted him.
"I don't know if it was intentional or not, but clearly these authors interpreted the amendment in favor of gun control," he said. "I'm mainly concerned how this ends up in our school system."
Getts had posted the book's definition on Facebook and it went viral.
"I don't think the definition was put in the book in good faith," said Stephen Halbrook, a Second Amendment expert and author of "The Founders' Second Amendment."
"It's actually a total perversion of what the Second Amendment stands for."
He told FoxNews.com that the equivalent of this book's definition would be defining the First Amendment as: you have the right to free speech, as long as you speak in a state-sanctioned group.
Halbrook, who argued Second Amendment cases in front of the Supreme Court, said the book's authors could have edited the definition to: "A militia is necessary for a free state, and people have right to keep and bear arms."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/18/texas-high-school-work-book-stirs-controversy-over-edited-definition-second/#ixzz2fH3uDlTQ
-
Good points. Pretty bad distortion. You should check out the book Lies My Teacher Told Me. Pretty disturbing how we distort history sometimes.
Also, looks like the book is being revised.
Second Amendment definition in Texas school work book triggers uproar
By Edmund DeMarche
Published September 18, 2013
FoxNews.com
Parents at a high school near Dallas say the authors of a book on U.S. history misfired when they defined the Second Amendment -- and now one of the book's co-authors says the book is being revised.
The work book used at Guyer High School in the city of Denton, "The United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination," includes the "summary" definition of the Second Amendment to include the right to "keep and bear arms in a state militia."
The edited definition is seen by gun-rights advocates as an affront to the Second Amendment, which states in full: "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."
Parents at the school criticized the book for distorting the definition of the Second Amendment in favor of those opposed to gun rights.
John J. Newman, the book's co-author, told FoxNews.com that the text of the book was written before the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller , which protects individuals' rights to possess firearms. He said the book's only intent was to summarize the Second Amendment and admitted that the current definition is incorrect. But he said a revised and corrected edition is set to be sold in May 2014.
"There was no devious intention in the definition," Newman said.
The book is a supplement to the actual text book, "American Pageant." The school says the text book gives the exact Bill of Rights.
"The teachers and the staff are aware of this "summary statement" and are teaching the amendments from the classroom textbook," a statement from the Denton School District said. "Please be assured that Denton ISD history teachers are disseminating the correct information on the Second Amendment."
Sean Getts, who has a daughter who is a junior at Guyer High School, told FoxNews.com she noticed the wording of the amendment and alerted him.
"I don't know if it was intentional or not, but clearly these authors interpreted the amendment in favor of gun control," he said. "I'm mainly concerned how this ends up in our school system."
Getts had posted the book's definition on Facebook and it went viral.
"I don't think the definition was put in the book in good faith," said Stephen Halbrook, a Second Amendment expert and author of "The Founders' Second Amendment."
"It's actually a total perversion of what the Second Amendment stands for."
He told FoxNews.com that the equivalent of this book's definition would be defining the First Amendment as: you have the right to free speech, as long as you speak in a state-sanctioned group.
Halbrook, who argued Second Amendment cases in front of the Supreme Court, said the book's authors could have edited the definition to: "A militia is necessary for a free state, and people have right to keep and bear arms."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/18/texas-high-school-work-book-stirs-controversy-over-edited-definition-second/#ixzz2fH3uDlTQ
Cool, thanks for posting this!
-
Cool, thanks for posting this!
No problem.
-
John J. Newman, the book's co-author, told FoxNews.com that the text of the book was written before the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller , which protects individuals' rights to possess firearms. He said the book's only intent was to summarize the Second Amendment and admitted that the current definition is incorrect. But he said a revised and corrected edition is set to be sold in May 2014.
"There was no devious intention in the definition," Newman said.
Sounds to me like there was devious intent, this is a sloppy CYA excuse and if you read his quote in a mirror, it says he's going to wipe his ass with the constitution at the next New World Disorder meeting at George Soros' house.
-
Sounds to me like there was devious intent, this is a sloppy CYA excuse and if you read his quote in a mirror, it says he's going to wipe his ass with the constitution at the next New World Disorder meeting at George Soros' house.
I think it's a little simpler than that. Someone with an agenda distorted the meaning of the Second Amendment, got called on it, and now it's being corrected.
To say the Second Amendment is the right to "keep and bear arms in a state militia" is absurd.
-
I think it's a little simpler than that. Someone with an agenda distorted the meaning of the Second Amendment, got called on it, and now it's being corrected.
To say the Second Amendment is the right to "keep and bear arms in a state militia" is absurd.
I was being sarcastic. I hope you are being, too, but I'm not too optimistic. What do you think the "agenda" was?
-
I was being sarcastic. I hope you are being, too, but I'm not too optimistic. What do you think the "agenda" was?
Yes, I know you were using hyperbole.
Probably someone who is anti-NRA, anti-gun rights, etc. trying to water down the meaning of the Second Amendment.
-
Yes, I know you were using hyperbole.
Probably someone who is anti-NRA, anti-gun rights, etc. trying to water down the meaning of the Second Amendment.
Unlikely. Just a mistake. Text books are actually filled with them.
-
Unlikely. Just a mistake. Text books are actually filled with them.
Could have been a mistake, but I doubt it. Yes, textbooks have many mistakes.
-
Could have been a mistake, but I doubt it. Yes, textbooks have many mistakes.
I'm not surprised. I know how you love to add your own little twist to events. ;)
-
I'm not surprised. I know how you love to add your own little twist to events. ;)
Yes, I add my opinion all the time. :) Just like it's your opinion that it was an innocent mistake. Neither one of us knows whether it was intentional or not.
-
Yes, I add my opinion all the time. :) Just like it's your opinion that it was an innocent mistake. Neither one of us knows whether it was intentional or not.
Having an opinion is one thing, but orchestrating entire fantasy sequences to prop up a political ideaology is another. But to each their own! :D