Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a red herring and has nothing to do with the issue, which is that the amendment in question and as printed is incorrect.
IMO, the publisher has no business "paraphrasing" the bill of rights, anyway. Just how dumbed-down are educational resources these days?
Not a red herring at all.
The OP claimed that the Second Amendment was intentionally misquoted for political reasons, which may or may not be the case and is certainly a valid topic of discussion.
Others made the claim that only the Second Amendment was misquoted, which is clearly inaccurate.
Whether the Bill of Rights should ever be paraphrased or summarized is also a valid topic of discussion.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
Of course, what the 2nd amendment really means is:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
These people could have rephrased it that way, and actually gotten it right.
Why didn't they?
Since you choose to conveniently omit it, just WHY do you think the founders mentioned a militia in the first place? And just HOW is omitting that simple fact any different than the 'misquote' (you can see the book doesn't claim to be a direct quote) you complain about?
Typical RW hypocrisy, 'do as I say and not as I do'
"Since a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government"
Yup, solid cold fact.
The Second Amendment, like all other amendments in the Bill of Rights, limited the actions of the federal government.
In 1789, state governments were allowed to restrict gun rights within their own borders.
Dig a little further into history and you'll find that the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment was to protect the States from the federal military forces and not to grant unlimited rights to the individual.
Wrong on all counts .... and no one needs to dig any deeper than to realize that the 2nd Amendment, as well as the other 9 amendments known as the "Bill of Rights" were not even adopted until December 15, 1791 ... therefore, what was occurring in 1789 is completely and totally irrelevant. Is this just a demonstration of ignorance .. or deliberate dishonesty?
Additionally, there have always been power crazed criminals in government who would violate the law as they saw fit to do ... such behavior is not isolated to the federal authorities, as plenty of state criminals exist too. Nevertheless, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a right owned by the individual, and not a privilege granted by either the federal or state government. This is the major difference between "rights" and "privileges" .... rights cannot be denied, while privileges can be.
Furthermore, by being signatory to the the US Constitution, each and every state thereby agrees to and is obligated to honor that Constitution as THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. This is tacitly reaffirmed in the 10th Amendment which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". The red portion applies the law equally to the states, and the constitution does indeed delineate powers and responsibilities and limitations to both the federal and state, as is clearly stated in the 10th.
Moreover ... this is yet again reiterated in the 14th Amendment ... which states:
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So, both rights and privileges are protected, prohibiting any state from "abridging" the privileges and immunities of citizens, nor deny a citizen "equal protection of the laws" .... and since the 2nd Amendment is a law protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, no state may violate that law either.
"Paraphrasing or summarizing" should always be done, obviously, in a way that does not change the basic meaning.
That was clearly not done in this case. And the changes the author introduced, are very unlikely to be accidental.
That's the debatable part.
Hardly.
If such things were accidental, we'd have just as many leftists insisting that the 2nd requires everyone to own a gun, as we have leftists insisting that the 2nd only protects the right of people in the military.
But we only get the latter falsehood from them, not the former falsehood. It's no accident.
A History textbook in use at many high schools in Texas, deliberately misquotes the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to try to give the impression that people only have the right to keep and bear arms when they are acting in a militia.
It's just another instance of anti-gun people trying to illegally restrict gun ownership.
It is increasingly clear (if it wasn't before) that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. We must ALWAYS be on the lookout for things like this.
They are all re-worded, but the way they write the 2nd clearly changes the meaning. That's pretty bad
A History textbook in use at many high schools in Texas, deliberately misquotes the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to try to give the impression that people only have the right to keep and bear arms when they are acting in a militia.
Well, look at how many times the bible is misquoted, or selectively misinterpreted as well.
Since you choose to conveniently omit it, just WHY do you think the founders mentioned a militia in the first place? And just HOW is omitting that simple fact any different than the 'misquote' (you can see the book doesn't claim to be a direct quote) you complain about?
Typical RW hypocrisy, 'do as I say and not as I do'
That has already been discussed in several posts on this forum. My post #27 explains it very clearly that the right of "militia" has nothing to do with the right to bear arms. Please read it before you comment further. The two are not connected except that they are in the same amendment.
You're presenting your arguments, and people with other viewpoints are presenting theirs. That's debate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
