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.
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.
Will you gun fondlers ever just get over it? It looks like some of the other ones are paraphrased or wrong as well but JESUS CHRIST WHAT ABOUT THE GUNS???????????????
As usual, when the liberal fanatics are confronted with facts they can't refute but hate anyway, they respond by telling flat lies.
As usual, when Little Acorn is confronted, he commences the ad-hominen attack.
Quote:
Is there any point in asking this person to point out where in the 2nd amendment it says this? Or reminding him what the Supremes pointed out in the Heller and McDonald cases?
District of Columbia v Heller, 2008. Supreme Court decision confirmed the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, but reserved to the government the right to regulate arms. Decision specifically stated that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited.
McDonald v Chicago, 2010. Supreme Court decision ruled that the right to keep and bear arms was incorporated by the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment and thus applies to the states.
Please do note: these were cases decided over 200 years after the Bill of Rights were adopted.
In Columbia v Heller, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia drew from both the earlier English Bill of Rights and from state constitutions that were ratified after the 2nd Amendment was adopted. Scalia pointedly discounted the Congressional record of deliberations in the majority opinion that he authored, calling the 2nd Amendment's drafting history 'of dubious worth'. Basically, and to the delight of gun rights proponents, Justice Scalia discredited and discarded the original intent of the drafters of the amendment.
In McDonald v Chicago, Associate Justice Samuel Alito simply applied the legal concept of incorporation to the 2nd Amendment. But incorporation relies upon the 14th Amendment, which wasn't adopted until 1868. Prior to 1868, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the various State governments.
To add to the above point, in Barron v Baltimore, 1833, the Supreme Court ruled specifically that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government and not to the various state governments. There's more, but I wonder if you have even read to this point.
But if you are still reading, understand this - just because the original intent of the authors of 2nd Amendment didn't explicitly recognize the individual right to keep an bear arms doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist. Specifically, I do believe that the individual does have the right to keep and bear arms for both defense of the state and for self-defense, but I also believe that such a right is subject to reasonable regulation.
Quote:
Naw, pearls to swine......
Interesting platitude in this situation (even though you misquoted), swine usually like acorns.
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast
ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them
under their feet, and turn again and rend you." - Mathew 7:6, King James Version
The original second amendment was about term limits in Congress, but they struck it out and bumped the right to bear arms from 3rd to 2nd.
(shaking head in weary disbelief)
Do you EVER get anything right?
------------------------
Before the Bill of Rights was ratified, it had twelve amendments, not ten.
The first two were not ratified when the rest were. They read:
(1.) After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
(2.) No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
The first one above, specified how many Representatives there would be after the first census. The second one above, said that COngressional salaries couldn't be changed by law, until an election for the House of Reps had gone by. (That second one was eventually ratified in 1992, and is now known as the 27th amendment.)
Neither had anything to do with term limits.
Since those two were not ratified along with the rest, the amendment marked #3 at the time became our First Amendment, the one marked #4 became our Second Amendment, etc.
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.
You can't really blame the liberal fanatics for using every devious machination they can, to get around various Constitutional requirements. This misleading quotation of the 2nd amendment is only one of many examples.
If we were to follow the Constitution as it is actually written, the liberals' entire agenda would be illegal, and there would be no reason for them to exist at all. Then they would have to get real jobs, and be responsible for their own welfare.
Will you gun fondlers ever just get over it? It looks like some of the other ones are paraphrased or wrong as well but JESUS CHRIST WHAT ABOUT THE GUNS???????????????
The issue for me isn't even guns - it's teaching wrong history. Teachers should present the CORRECTLY WORDED ammendment, and then feel free to debate the topic in the class if they wish. You can't justify gun rights with revisionist history. Try posting this in the history forum see what reaction you get.
You can't really blame the liberal fanatics for using every devious machination they can, to get around various Constitutional requirements. This misleading quotation of the 2nd amendment is only one of many examples.
If we were to follow the Constitution as it is actually written, the liberals' entire agenda would be illegal, and there would be no reason for them to exist at all. Then they would have to get real jobs, and be responsible for their own welfare.
That would be terrible, wouldn't it.
Its not a quotation.
Under the US constitution, the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what is or isn't legal.
The issue for me isn't even guns - it's teaching wrong history. Teachers should present the CORRECTLY WORDED ammendment, and then feel free to debate the topic in the class if they wish. You can't justify gun rights with revisionist history. Try posting this in the history forum see what reaction you get.
So Historians never paraphrase written texts?
Since they are preparing to take the AP exam on US history, I bet they have already engaged in discussion on the meaning of each of the amendments.
Since they are preparing to take the AP exam on US history, I bet they have already engaged in discussion on the meaning of each of the amendments.
No doubt.
And, following the text, of course teachers have informed their students that the 2nd protects the right to KBA only for people actively engaged in militia activities.
Hey, it says so, right in the book! So it must be true.
There's more, but I wonder if you have even read to this point.
Guess not.
The 2nd Amendment was originally drafted to give the states a counter-weight to federal military power, nothing more. In 1789, regulation of arms was left to the individual states.
Yes, people do have the right to keep and bear arms for self defense and for defense of the state, but it's not an unlimited right and it wasn't the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.
If you still disagree, then I refer you to those gun-grabbing progressive liberals Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito.
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.
