Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The right's reading of the amendment is "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Drawing it as a two-right structure doesn't really work here, because unlike the first, the clauses here are linguistically dependent upon one another.
False and you cannot substantiate that blanket claim. The right DOES NOT read the amendment that way as can easily be established right here. It is clear that you want to cut out that half that you mentioned but you have presented NOTHING that shows the rights wants to cut out the protections for state militias.
I await something more than blanket claims of positions that you dont actually ascribe to.
I read the sentence as a whole. The current reading, under the holdings in Heller and McDonald absolutely read it as just saying "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", with no nexus to "militia" service.
(As an aside, even if you define the right as being connected to militia service, there's a strong legal argument that puts you at the same place you are now.)
...says the guy pissed off because he thinks he's smarter than SCOTUS.Maybe as illiterate as "corporations are people, my friend".
But what committee isn't?
SCOTUS is irrelevant anyway. This discussion was never about SCOTUS.
We ain't talking about SCOTUS. We never were. I know that must be inconvenient to red herringmongers but they're irrelevant. SCOTUS is to decide what the law means. I'm not a lawyer and I don't tussle with that. What we're actually talking about HERE is how English works, and on that I'm well qualified, certainly more than SCOTUS, thank you very much.
...says the guy pissed off because he thinks he's smarter than SCOTUS.
We ain't talking about SCOTUS. We never were. I know that must be inconvenient to red herringmongers but they're irrelevant. SCOTUS is to decide what the law means. I'm not a lawyer and I don't tussle with that. What we're actually talking about HERE is how English works, and on that I'm well qualified, certainly more than SCOTUS, thank you very much.
Actually, no we weren’t talking about that either. What we were talking about was the fact that a text used in a high school to prepare students for an AP exam blatantly presents falsehoods about the second amendment in the text. YOU tried to change that into an irrelevant discussion on English. That discussion is meaningless whereas the current law as determined by the SCOTUS is EXTREMELY relevant. You only brought English into this as a way to distract from the fact that the text was blatantly incorrect in an attempt to justify its position on the matter.
What is it about the word "Summary" that you don't understand?
The part where the summery blatantly disregards the actual text to the point of misrepresenting the right entirely. You should have noted that the ‘summery’ explains only a collective right (and misstates it at that) while leaving out the entire personal right.
Perhaps you think it is acceptable for a classroom book to ‘summarize the first as: ‘First Amendment: you have a right to freely practice your religion.’ Of course the rest of us are going find that absolutely unacceptable as that leaves out some VERY important rights and leaves the student utterly ignorant on the amendment itself.
(post 97)..........
Obviously, someone who believes the right to bear arms in only a collective right, not an individual one.who authored the book?
As SCOTUS is the final arbiter on what the text of the second amendment actually means, they are the ones that determine whether or not the text was factually correct no matter what arguments you want to interject about the language. It turns out the text is not.
...says the guy pissed off because he thinks he's smarter than SCOTUS.Maybe as illiterate as "corporations are people, my friend".
But what committee isn't?
SCOTUS is irrelevant anyway. This discussion was never about SCOTUS.
We ain't talking about SCOTUS. We never were. I know that must be inconvenient to red herringmongers but they're irrelevant. SCOTUS is to decide what the law means. I'm not a lawyer and I don't tussle with that. What we're actually talking about HERE is how English works, and on that I'm well qualified, certainly more than SCOTUS, thank you very much.
...says the guy pissed off because he thinks he's smarter than SCOTUS.Maybe as illiterate as "corporations are people, my friend".
But what committee isn't?
SCOTUS is irrelevant anyway. This discussion was never about SCOTUS.
We ain't talking about SCOTUS. We never were. I know that must be inconvenient to red herringmongers but they're irrelevant. SCOTUS is to decide what the law means. I'm not a lawyer and I don't tussle with that. What we're actually talking about HERE is how English works, and on that I'm well qualified, certainly more than SCOTUS, thank you very much.
Your cv regarding English, with addition of why in this case you've claimed expertise regarding SCOTUS.
In modern language, the 2nd amendment says:
"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."
And yet, despite your petulant foot-stamping, the 2nd is an individual right.No, it doesn't. It affirms the 2nd is an individual right.
If that were true, half of the language in the amendment is meaningless and the Congressional debates during the ratification process make no sense.
The day the courts "rule it isn't," which is NOT the way the constitution is amended, you'll see Revolutionary War II, which will once again asure citizens the right to keep and bear arms against a TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT, which is EXACTLY what the second amendment is intended for.And yet, despite your petulant foot-stamping, the 2nd is an individual right.If that were true, half of the language in the amendment is meaningless and the Congressional debates during the ratification process make no sense.
Until the Courts rule it isn't.
Which they have done in the past. (US v. Miller).
Even Heller had to do some logic twisting to make sure you can't get that Howitzer you've had your eye on.
The day the courts "rule it isn't," which is NOT the way the constitution is amended, you'll see Revolutionary War II, which will once again asure citizens the right to keep and bear arms against a TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT.And yet, despite your petulant foot-stamping, the 2nd is an individual right.
Until the Courts rule it isn't.
Which they have done in the past. (US v. Miller).
Even Heller had to do some logic twisting to make sure you can't get that Howitzer you've had your eye on.
Sorry, you just ain't never gonna see America disarmed.
The day the courts "rule it isn't," which is NOT the way the constitution is amended, you'll see Revolutionary War II, which will once again asure citizens the right to keep and bear arms against a TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT.Until the Courts rule it isn't.
Which they have done in the past. (US v. Miller).
Even Heller had to do some logic twisting to make sure you can't get that Howitzer you've had your eye on.
Sorry, you just ain't never gonna see America disarmed.
Oh, I think we will when the vast majority of us get sick of your tantrums.
Most Americans don't own guns and are getting pretty damned sick of watching children and their co-workers get gunned down because you insist that crazy people should have access to them.
Fact is, when Miller was ruled on, they took away the Tommy guns and a bunch of other weapons folks shouldn't have had, and most people were grateful for it.
The NRA even used to support common sense gun laws, until the Gun Manufacturers took it over.
[
Sorry, but no, you won't. And don't lie, the vast majority of Americans DO own a firearm. The only ones throwing tantrums are you little bubble headed, anti constitution, America hating libtard pussies.
We have all the gun laws we need right now, there's no need for any more. You want to live in a disarmed nation... move.
No, you won't... the share of American households with *REGISTERED* guns was 34 percent.[
Sorry, but no, you won't. And don't lie, the vast majority of Americans DO own a firearm. The only ones throwing tantrums are you little bubble headed, anti constitution, America hating libtard pussies.
We have all the gun laws we need right now, there's no need for any more. You want to live in a disarmed nation... move.
No, we'll disarm this one.
For the record.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/u...is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The gun ownership rate has fallen across a broad cross section of households since the early 1970s, according to data from the General Social Survey, a public opinion survey conducted every two years that asks a sample of American adults if they have guns at home, among other questions.
The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data, analyzed by The New York Times.
In 2012, the share of American households with guns was 34 percent, according to survey results released on Thursday. Researchers said the difference compared with 2010, when the rate was 32 percent, was not statistically significant.
And here's the problem, really. The GUn Manufacturer's KNOW it's going out of style, so their marketting plan has changed to sell the minority as many guns as they can.
Hey, Nancy Lanza, you totally need 12 guns. Just don't leave them out where your crazy kid can get at them.... heh, heh, heh.
If the 2nd is on the test as a collective right only, the kids are still being taught wrong.Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment
Guyer High School (and obviously several others) are complicit in attempting to condition students to interpret the 2nd Amendment in a clearly opposite manner in which it was intended. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th are also misinterpreted as several commenters below pointed out.
This textbook, currently being used by Guyer High School, is attempting to redefine the Second Amendment to impressionable young minds. Parents, you must speak up and demand action. Investigate your child's history book ASAP, and post more pictures in the comments below. Call your school and demand that revisionist history books like this are removed from the school district.
Textbook version: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."
Actual 2nd Amendment: "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."
Did you catch the sleight of hand?
A militia is a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. It's a common man army of citizens, NOT soldiers. The citizens are called up in emergencies to protect the free State.
The 2nd Amendment says that a militia is necessary to protect a free State, so in order to be able to have a militia, the citizens have a natural right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot infringe on that right.
The textbook version implies that we're only allowed to keep and bear arms if we're in a State militia, a clear misrepresentation of the 2nd Amendment.
Progressives lie. All the time.
In case all of you outraged illiterates didn't notice, THIS IS NOT A TEXTBOOK. It is a review course (cheat sheet) for an AP exam. The goal is not to teach, but to pass the exam. IT'S CONDENSED PEOPLE. That's what these kinds of books do, just like Cliff's Notes. Sheesh. Get a grip!
BTW, I would agree that it is a pretty bad cheat sheet anyway. A lot of provisions of other amendments are incomplete also.
Well, ain't you just all pissy because you don't get to edit the Constitution.Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment
Guyer High School (and obviously several others) are complicit in attempting to condition students to interpret the 2nd Amendment in a clearly opposite manner in which it was intended. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th are also misinterpreted as several commenters below pointed out.
This textbook, currently being used by Guyer High School, is attempting to redefine the Second Amendment to impressionable young minds. Parents, you must speak up and demand action. Investigate your child's history book ASAP, and post more pictures in the comments below. Call your school and demand that revisionist history books like this are removed from the school district.
Textbook version: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."
Actual 2nd Amendment: "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."
Did you catch the sleight of hand?
A militia is a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. It's a common man army of citizens, NOT soldiers. The citizens are called up in emergencies to protect the free State.
The 2nd Amendment says that a militia is necessary to protect a free State, so in order to be able to have a militia, the citizens have a natural right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot infringe on that right.
The textbook version implies that we're only allowed to keep and bear arms if we're in a State militia, a clear misrepresentation of the 2nd Amendment.
Progressives lie. All the time.
In case all of you outraged illiterates didn't notice, THIS IS NOT A TEXTBOOK. It is a review course (cheat sheet) for an AP exam. The goal is not to teach, but to pass the exam. IT'S CONDENSED PEOPLE. That's what these kinds of books do, just like Cliff's Notes. Sheesh. Get a grip!
BTW, I would agree that it is a pretty bad cheat sheet anyway. A lot of provisions of other amendments are incomplete also.
Ha. Good catch. OP busted all over again.
Even if it were a textbook, as noted before nothing in the world would prevent any student from challenging what's in the book. These knee jerks act like a textbook is some kind of etch-a-sketch on the brain indelible for all time. Not sure that doesn't say even more about authoritarian mind controllism than about their shaky powers of deduction.
[
No, you won't... the share of American households with *REGISTERED* guns was 34 percent.
How many guns are registered in America?
Thats a seemingly obvious question without a straightforward answer. Theres no universal gun registry, and thus not a simple way to pin down the exact number of firearms in the U.S.
There are estimates, however. According to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey the leading source of international public information about firearms the U.S. has the best-armed civilian population in the world, with an estimated 270 million total guns. Thats an average of 89 firearms for every 100 residents, (WHICH AVERAGES OUT TO 89%) far ahead of Yemen, which comes in second with about 55 firearms for every 100 people, or Switzerland, which is third with 46 guns for every 100 people.
url]
Of course you'd claim it was twisted logic. You can't recognize the real kind.And yet, despite your petulant foot-stamping, the 2nd is an individual right.If that were true, half of the language in the amendment is meaningless and the Congressional debates during the ratification process make no sense.
Until the Courts rule it isn't.
Which they have done in the past. (US v. Miller).
Even Heller had to do some logic twisting to make sure you can't get that Howitzer you've had your eye on.
Of course you'd claim it was twisted logic. You can't recognize the real kind.And yet, despite your petulant foot-stamping, the 2nd is an individual right.
Until the Courts rule it isn't.
Which they have done in the past. (US v. Miller).
Even Heller had to do some logic twisting to make sure you can't get that Howitzer you've had your eye on.
Bad Commie. No disarmed populace for you!
A claim you know you cannot support, especially in regard to 2A jurisprudence.
Nothing petulant about it. The right flank of the Court determines what their preferred outcome is, and then works backwards from there to develop a legal rationale.
If the 2nd is on the test as a collective right only, the kids are still being taught wrong.Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment
Guyer High School (and obviously several others) are complicit in attempting to condition students to interpret the 2nd Amendment in a clearly opposite manner in which it was intended. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th are also misinterpreted as several commenters below pointed out.
This textbook, currently being used by Guyer High School, is attempting to redefine the Second Amendment to impressionable young minds. Parents, you must speak up and demand action. Investigate your child's history book ASAP, and post more pictures in the comments below. Call your school and demand that revisionist history books like this are removed from the school district.
Textbook version: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."
Actual 2nd Amendment: "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."
Did you catch the sleight of hand?
A militia is a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. It's a common man army of citizens, NOT soldiers. The citizens are called up in emergencies to protect the free State.
The 2nd Amendment says that a militia is necessary to protect a free State, so in order to be able to have a militia, the citizens have a natural right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot infringe on that right.
The textbook version implies that we're only allowed to keep and bear arms if we're in a State militia, a clear misrepresentation of the 2nd Amendment.
Progressives lie. All the time.
In case all of you outraged illiterates didn't notice, THIS IS NOT A TEXTBOOK. It is a review course (cheat sheet) for an AP exam. The goal is not to teach, but to pass the exam. IT'S CONDENSED PEOPLE. That's what these kinds of books do, just like Cliff's Notes. Sheesh. Get a grip!
BTW, I would agree that it is a pretty bad cheat sheet anyway. A lot of provisions of other amendments are incomplete also.
Some people are okay with that. Agenda before truth.
