Sean Getts has a daughter who is a junior at Guyer High School. She noticed the wording of the amendment and alerted him. (Sean Getts)
Fox News
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.
Isn't it a riot that one of the dads looks like this guy and loves to pose for pictures with his beloved assault weapon. Of course he would take umbrage at the mere mention of militia.
Gun-rights fanatics have an unwritten rule - the first four words of the sacred amendment don't matter, never have and never will.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Isn't it a riot that one of the dads looks like this guy and loves to pose for pictures with his beloved assault weapon. Of course he would take umbrage at the mere mention of militia.
Gun-rights fanatics have an unwritten rule - the first four words of the sacred amendment don't matter, never have and never will.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Why can't you stop lying? We've explained how those four words matter. It's just that you don't like the manner in which they do matter.
ReplyDeleteOf course they do matter, in the correct context. The courts have now clearly laid out that context. Are you now going to ignore that fact, or the courts ruling?
ReplyDeleteI don't ignore it, I just consider it wrong. It'll change back one day.
DeleteWe've discussed how much these words matter and you've admitted that while you don't agree with us, it's a comprehensible and logical interpretation...
ReplyDeleteUntil now when it's more useful for you to change your tune and pretend that we don't even hold that position and are, instead, allergic to the word militia.
I doubt very seriously if I ever said your interpretation is "comprehensible and logical." I probably said something like, let me see, "wrong."
DeleteLook in the first thread of comments on this post:
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-national-guard-being-creature-of.html
Mike:
""The right of the people"--if the Founders meant the Second Amendment only to apply to people enrolled in a militia, why not just say so?"
The did say so with the first 4 words.
Tennessean:
Mike,
Did not the people in the militia supply their own arms at the time?
Given this, it would seem that this law protects the people's right to arms because of the importance of their having arms to bring if they were called to militia service. This also seems to be the view of Story who speaks of his concern about how to keep the people properly armed if they are not being called up to drill.
Mike:
You could look at it that way. But, riddle me this, Batman. How do you get from the individual right to own a gun, whether or not that's limited to militia service, to the right to carry concealed?
Forgive me, but I assumed you meant that you didn't agree with my interpretation, but that you were able to follow along with it, and that you were asking me where, in what I said, I thought the issue of carry came in--a question that assumes a logical structure to the line of thought which you followed and found lacking in its protection of carry.
So, no, you didn't use the words "comprehensible and logical," but your question, which was well asked, implied that you found my statement to be so, even if you thought it incorrect.
I did respond to that, but you ignored the response until today when you posted a sarcastic comment about your brain freezing up when I say I'm going to be brief.
And yes, it's a long comment, but it was a brief summary of something that it would take many pages to flesh out. If it is hard to follow, it may be because of the way I tried to trim it down.
As is, I stated a truly brief statement of my understanding in the paragraph that contained the words "in brief." The rest of the comment was expounding on the matter a bit more to avoid misunderstanding, but was still a pared down version of my comments which cut out analysis of various case law and history.
I said "you could look at it that way." Does that sound like I gave you the compliment of being "comprehensible and logical?"
DeleteThis is why I keep calling you a liar. You twist every god damned thing that comes your way.
Saying "you could look at it that way" implied that you comprehended my argument and could see an internal logic to it--enough to follow the argument and ask questions based on it.
DeleteIt's not a huge compliment--it's just a statement that you can grasp what I'm saying and are willing to discuss the merits of the idea rather than lying and claiming that we're unable to communicate in a comprehensible way as Laci usually claims. Apparently you're no longer willing to do so.
As for your accusations, I didn't twist one thing you said. I said that you still viewed my position as wrong, but that you at least admitted that you could understand my line of reasoning. That was true, and you look like a fool for denying it.
Or, it could be sarcastic and ironical.
Delete"You could look at it that way (the unspoken part: if you were a close-minded biased gun rights fanatic).
Or, more simply, "You could look at it that way (the unspoken part: but you'd be wrong).
How fucking dense are you?
DeleteI've been repeatedly saying that you still thought we were wrong, but that you comprehended our argument--an argument you now claim cannot be understood.
"We've discussed how much these words matter and you've admitted that while you don't agree with us, it's a comprehensible and logical interpretation."
Translated: We've discussed this and while you maintained that we were wrong, you understood our line of reasoning.
"So, no, you didn't use the words "comprehensible and logical," but your question, which was well asked, implied that you found my statement to be so, even if you thought it incorrect."
Translated: Your responding question being based on my argument demonstrated that you understood my argument, even though you still thought I was wrong.
"I said that you still viewed my position as wrong, but that you at least admitted that you could understand my line of reasoning."
Translation: _______________ Fuck it, I can't simplify that much further.
You already demonstrated an ability to comprehend what was argued--you did so by asking a relevant question based on the argument.
Now, you pretend that you didn't understand the argument--that it was too complicated to understand (which, given the simplicity of the argument I made doesn't say much for your intellect)--that your question was just sarcasm tossed out into the void which just happened, by random chance, to be something relevant and on topic.
And so you keep being contentious about this rather than admitting that you did understand my argument and either telling me why you think it is wrong, or discussing the answer I gave to your question.
Is this because you would rather preach at me than discuss the matter, or are you just deriving some kind of pleasure from pretending to be unable to follow a simple line of discussion that you disagree with, regardless of how silly such behavior makes you look?
You were mistaken about what you THOUGHT I implied. I'm not dense and I don't have to pretend anything. I do understand your argument but I vehemently disagree with it. That's a far cry from thinking it ""comprehensible and logical."
DeleteMikeb: "No, actually you totally ignore the first four words of the 2A and when WE bring it up you offer prolix and convoluted justifications that no one can follow except yourselves."
DeleteNow, though, you say that you understand the argument, so either you were lying when you wrote that first comment, or your eyes were open, then closed, and have now re-opened.
It's still ridiculous how you keep fighting over the words "comprehensible and logical." You've already admitted you understood the argument--hence it was comprehensible. As for logical, I don't get what is so painful about admitting the internal logic of an opponent's position if the position has internal logic. I lose nothing by admitting that it is logical that ships would fall off the edge of the world if it was flat--this doesn't change the fact that the idea is based on a flawed preconception. If you followed the comment and understood it, there was some sort of logical progression within it.
So thanks for wasting the past several days refusing to discuss the actual issues involved in the Second Amendment and instead arguing and trying to justify your lies that we are allergic to the first four words of the Second Amendment and that we have no comprehensible framework for them. You once had more integrity than the other gun-banners, but now you're adopting their tactics.
Properly interpreted, the part of the Second Amendment which says "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state" announces the reason for the "operative clause": "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
ReplyDeleteOnce that reason has expired, so does the rest of the Second Amendment--this of it as an automatic sunset clause.
While the Militia Act of 1795 required that those enrolled (important word that) in the militia buy their own equipment--it wasn't just muskets.
I should also add that there were people who were exempt from service due to their being important. Also, people could pay a fine and avoid service.
With no immediate foreign threat, and little danger from Native Americans, the Militia in Delaware became a phantom army that appeared to be formidable on paper, with thousands of soldiers and arms, but in fact suffered from neglected training, deteriorated weapons, and lackadaisical leadership. Some were excused entirely from Militia service including elected officials, the clergy, pilots and mariners, customs and postal officers, critical workers such as ferrymen, gunsmiths and ironworkers as well as the politically well-connected. Others could pay substitutes to stand in their stead. This was typically a device used by the wealthy. The poor were simply fined for non-participation but collecting was problematical and half-hearted in execution.
The biggest failure of depending upon the militia was the over-reliance upon civic virtue. Without proper controls and sanctions, without resourcing and leadership, the average citizen did what his forebears did. He shirked his civic duties and responsibilities. Human frailty was left out of the equation when congress drafted the Militia Act of 1792. It is not surprising that many citizens failed to arm and equip themselves at their own expense, nor fail to appear for training when there were more pressing concerns.
By the time Joseph Story wrote his treatise on the Constitution, the Militia was pretty much falling out of favour, which is why the "unorganised" (or sedentary, reserve,inactive) militia was created--one could have the idea that there was a universal militia when no such thing existed.
The idea that one had to be enrolled is mentioned in the Militia Acts, which implemented the Second Amendment (or the Second Amendment was supposed to protect).
Quite frankly, you can try to say that the right to keep and bear arms applies outside the militia context, but there is a lot of documentation that was not the case.
I know I won't persuade you that I am correct since you have your minds made up: even though I have provided my sources.
Then answer my question. You have argued in the past that the courts decide what our rights are. The Supreme Court has ruled twice on this matter. In both cases, it declared an individual right. Why do you continue to resist what you have stated to be your principle?
DeleteLaci - surely your presented all of this to the Courts in the recent rulings right? Seems like our highest court does not agree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Now the question is whose opinion matters more in how the laws of the United States will be interpreted - yours or the SC's?
DeleteThe problem with your sources is the same as yours, opinions. And those opinions are wrong or the courts would have ruled your opinions to be correct. There is no sunset to the Bill of Rights. And the right belonging to the people, that means individuals, still stands and is enforceable as demonstrated in the judges ruling.
DeleteSunset, really Laci? You are going to have to do way better than this. That reasoning would be totally laughed out of the courts, and you know it. No civil rights can be simply be sunset. If so then you could apply that line of reasoning to any of the civil rights enumerated. That would result in socialist rule and you know what that will lead to.
The simple fact is this Laci, you have lost. The courts have ruled against you, spelled out what the second amendment says exactly, what it means and how it applies. I don't know what you think your going to accomplish by rehashing all of this drivel you keep posting other than wishful thinking on your own part.
The last ruling by the Illinois 7th circuit court has just opened the flood gates for the second amendment rulings to be set across the country, or do you understand what precedence means. I would suggest you go back and read that ruling very carefully, the one that I linked the PDF of the court reversing itself and its final decision.
But keep posting all of your wishful wants and dreams. That's all they are.
How does one determine that the reason has expired? Who gets to determine that? You?
DeleteAs far as those books go, they are now being collected and correctly revised. They have called an accident in editing. Yeah, OK. A school book or its authors cannot summarily revise history, law and the Bill of Rights on their own whims. Or any other subject as far as that goes. Its the same a teaching 2+2 = 3 or 5, and averaging it to 4 depending on your point of view.
DeleteIts an attempt to teach their opinions as fact. Its wrong and an affront to history and the people to do so. Teach the facts, let the students form their own opinion, not give them one.
This is yet another example of why home schooling has grown so fast in popularity.
Properly defined Laci? Your quote leaves out a comma and changes the meaning. I will quote Jim, "You cant leave out the commas" And you cant without changing the meaning.
Delete"A well regulated militia,"
There is the first comma. It defines a foreseen need that will require well armed people. That need hasn't been needed for a long time but that is no reason to say the need may not rise in the future. The future is yet to unfold. Who is to say the need will never happen again.
"being necessary to the security of a free state,"
Comma number two. A second reason for the arming of the people that includes the militia but not limited to the militia. The arming of the people alone is seen as means of securing a free state without the militia being needed for every purpose of the states security. An armed society is security in and of itself. Its really hard to invade a country where the majority of the people own their own arms and not expect a major fight.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms,"
Comma number 3. This clearly defines that the right belongs to the people separate from the foreseen needs of the militia. It provides that the people have the right of arms to be able to have or join a militia, security of the state and of themselves and other legal purposes for the individual.
"shall not be infringed."
Should this be explained? Maybe it should be. Not restricted from, taxed, charged a fee for, licensed, permitted or have to ask permission to be able to obtain and keep arms and armaments. The right cannot be infringed upon. But you can, however, loose that right from your felonious actions along with other, if not all, civil rights.
Going by the rules of English writing the comma denotes referring to a phrase. The right to own refers to form a militia. You cannot have one without the other. Separate sentences would mean there is an individual right without forming a militia. Have you studied up on the old west and gun control?
DeleteI have. Gun control in the Old West varied widely from place to place. Many times, concealed carry was banned, while open carry was allowed. Some towns banned the wearing of guns in the city. Thus the proliferation of pocket pistols. The gunfight at the OK Corral was an attempt at gun control, and many see Earp's actions there as unnecessary.
DeleteThat question was for Texass, but I understand you have a fixation and obsession for me.
DeleteThanks for proving me correct (both of you) since both of you have now admitted that gun control helped lesson gun violence and killings in the old west. Thanks again!
Your slightly off on the comma use, correct but depending on the structure. The intent has to be understood.
DeleteIn this case the right belongs to the people. It includes the militia and security but separately and all three to not be infringed upon. 1700s writing structure of the day. Each part of the amendments explanation can be found in the original authors writings of the second amendment. Their writings are the encyclopedia of the Bill of Rights. Once those are understood then it makes perfect sense as to the way the structure was formed. It covers all of the original authors meanings and intents in a short and simple phrase. Your right tho, you can not have one without the other, but wrong in its implementation. You can not have a militia without first having a well armed people. The very reason that the phrase states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is separated with the commas.
The amendment does not say the right to form a militia, it does not say the right to have a secure state, it does say the right of the people. The "shall not be infringed" covers the militia, security and the people.
The people form the militia and it shall not be infringed.
The people provide for a secure state that shall not be infringed.
The people have the right to keep bear arms to have the militia and a secure state.
Old west? You are addressing a very old fart that had long lived father, grand father and great grand father. I had the immense pleasure of knowing them all. I have lived the old west thru their life shared with me. They are the ones that taught me the old ways of life, and yes gun control, respect for the gun, life, liberty and freedom. The risk of all of that also existed back then as well. To respect others and demand the same respect back from those that you showed respect to.
They lived thru prohibition, the famous crash of Wall Street, thru the injustice of bigotry, racism and more. I still have their writings, artifacts and heirlooms that still help me understand history and apply that knowledge to todays life. The Bill of Rights meant more to them than I can put into words, even tho they were denied some of those rights, they fought in every way they could to have them realized and have those rights applied to them as well and won in the end before their deaths.
Part two,
DeleteThru them, their living history, is what makes me study and fully understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the intents of the founders and the dangers of loosing them. The fragility of those rights is often misunderstood and taken for granted. America and its people have not in any way become so advanced that those basic rights have become unimportant. To believe that puts you into the peril of slavery, again. But not the kind of servitude of the past, one far worse.
Jim, gun control of the old west is nothing like that being tried today. This is different, this control of today is a right being infringed upon or out right denied in some places. Back then you could walk into the store and buy your gun, ammo and holster and walk out. I still remember doing the same not too long ago from my favorite hardware store. There were no background checks, no "features" banned and you could walk in a buy a fully auto rifle the same way. There wasn't an announcement of bans or registrations that created a mass run on the stores for guns and ammo. There were very few that didn't own some sort of firearm, they were the tools of the day and as important as any other implement.
The history books of today leave out so much information that all you get is part of the story. A lot of the books today twist or re-write history to the point that the actual history isn't even recognized or represented. There is an agenda behind all of this and its wrong to misrepresent history in this fashion. One learns history to be able to not repeat it. To have the knowledge to recognize things that didn't work, and those that did.
If you want to study real history Jim, find the writings of the 20s, 30s and 40s. Compare those to the books of today and see just how much history has be revised, misrepresented or omitted.
I understand your hate filled response, having been proven wrong. Calm down and try again another day
DeleteHate filled? Where? You don't read anything, just make accusations. Read again and elaborate with me on what you think is hate filled.
DeleteAnd show where I have been "proven wrong" as well. Show proof, not just state it.
DeleteProfessor Jim, your sorely lacking in proving anything. If anything, I have provided all that's needed to show how and why your argument is wrong and the means for you to go find out why.
Cool down Texass. Have a beer. Go kill something with your gun, it will make you feel better.
DeleteTexas,
DeleteJim's comment about your "hate filled" response, after that cool and collected post, is just the standard behavior of an Internet Troll.
I don't know why Mike won't admit when Jim is so obviously trolling, but he didn't admit it with one of the past obvious trolls (E.N. of the many sock puppets). E.N. also utilized sock puppets that were "pro-gun"--Gecko45 and Specop--who similarly harassed the gun control proponents here.
It's best to not take these trolls seriously since taking them as serious proponents of one side or another just makes it easier for them to stir up trouble, polarize the conversation, and stop all reasonable debate.
Mike,
It would help if you would take note of comments like Jim attacking Texas's post above as being "hate filled" and admitted that he's, at least part time, engaging in trolling rather than holding him up as an example of a righteous gun owner. If you want examples of gun ownership you like, go for the Goddards, Giffords, Schultz, and Maddow. There's still plenty of issues for us to discuss regarding their differences with us without polluting the discourse with behavior that is aimed to polarize for the sake of polarization.
Fine Mike, block my comments, but don't expect me to treat these guys nice when they are lying NRA scum.
DeleteJim, the only time I ever considered blocking your comments is when you made a disparaging remark about Star Trek. That's where I draw the line.
DeleteMikeb, when did Jim make a disparaging remark about Star Trek? That gives me another reason to despise him.
DeleteJim, I for one never agreed with nor admitted to your statement, proving that once again, you're a liar.
Texas, I'd be interested to hear your opinion on some western stories that I've written. You can find them at Frontiertales.com.
He said you gun love Star Trek because you live in a fantasy world, or something like that.
DeleteI must have missed that. I love Star Trek because it presents human beings being human even in a world of technology and out among the stars.
DeleteI'd like to draw attention to what Laci does. There are two common anti-gun ways to interpret the second amendment: one is that it is a right that belongs to the people for militia purposes, but said right is obsolete because it has failed to prevent a standing army. This is what Laci is arguing in this post. The other main argument we hear is that it is a collective right that belongs to the states to arm their militia independent of federal government. This version of the right is alive and well in the form of the National Guard. These interpretations are at odds with each other, yet Laci uses them both. He probably leans more towards the latter, but will freely quote people of both opinions and tout them both himself. Clearly this is not a man who objectively applies reason, but rather starts from an anti-gun position and uses whatever rationale he can to fit that agenda while paying no attention to consistency.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget Mike's proposal that it was an individual right intended for preserving slavery--no other purposes; just that.
Delete