Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

[J.E.D]

Hi, you have received -1803 reputation points from The T.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
I WILL do something...PUSSY

Regards,
The T

Note: This is an automated message.

 

[daveman]

SCOTUS made a 5-4 decision. You go to a committee of 9, and half of them dont' agree with you, then you probably aren't on firm ground.

Especially when the OTHER half had to do handstands to explain why your GOD GIVEN RIGHT to a gun doesn't include Howitzers.

Why do you keep lying about that? Anyone with the proper licence and the money for the fees and hardware can own a Howitzer...and the ammo, too.

Of course, you can't stop lying about anything.

Proper Licences?

You mean a "Well-Regulated" ownership of a Howitzer?

You mean everyone doesn't have a right to terrorize the neighborhood with a Howitzer, that you have LAWS saying who can have them, where they can use them, when they can use tham and so on.

Wow. Awesome.

Let's do the same thing with other guns.

Problem solved.

I think you should have to have a licence to speak your opinion.

Of course, anyone advocating Communism is obviously too stupid to meet the minimum standards.

Sorry, Joe. You have to shut up now.

 

[daveman]

What do YOU expect ? DAVE to openly threaten you? Really?

YOU are the PUSSY...*BOY*

Uh oh, looks like you fell off the wagon.

I expect him to get off of his lazy ass and start his revolution.

But I know he won't because he's an ubber-pussy. Just like you.

Go have another drink, old man

Oh, you mean like your Workers' Revolution? When are you going to start that?

And why do you keep ignoring this question? Perhaps because...you're a pussy?

Yes, that seems likely.

 

[Sallow]

Note the "colon" in the preamble. The sentences following the colon and preceding the actual amendments are informational. The way to read the bill of rights first two amendments is therefore as follows (emphasis added to show the portions of the list in the paragraph that are not operative):



You see, your error is in reading each sentence separately like they are unique pieces of art. But they are not. They are portions of a single long winded statement or paragraph if you will that cites a list of "declarations and restrictions."

Malarkey.

The original intention of the Constitution was to provide that a professional army (Ground forces) under Federal Control would not be used.

The idea was that a "part time" army..or minutemen, be at the ready should the United States need them in cases of insurrection and land invasions.

It was a cheap method of providing such forces and a check against "big" government.

Something that is impossible without an armed populous hence the beginning of that amendment – since the people needed to be ready to come to arms they needed to have the right to arm themselves protected and codified in the BOR.

So simple yet you seem unable to make the logical conclusion to your own statements.

You just agreed with me.

Yet..

 

[J.E.D]

What do YOU expect ? DAVE to openly threaten you? Really?

YOU are the PUSSY...*BOY*

Uh oh, looks like you fell off the wagon.

I expect him to get off of his lazy ass and start his revolution.

But I know he won't because he's an ubber-pussy. Just like you.

Go have another drink, old man

Oh, you mean like your Workers' Revolution? When are you going to start that?

And why do you keep ignoring this question? Perhaps because...you're a pussy?

Yes, that seems likely.

Nice try, Caveman; but I have made no threats of revolution when I don't get my way. That would be the sore-loser movement aka the new conservative movement aka the USMB Wingnut Brigade.

 

[FA_Q2]

Malarkey.

The original intention of the Constitution was to provide that a professional army (Ground forces) under Federal Control would not be used.

The idea was that a "part time" army..or minutemen, be at the ready should the United States need them in cases of insurrection and land invasions.

It was a cheap method of providing such forces and a check against "big" government.

Something that is impossible without an armed populous hence the beginning of that amendment – since the people needed to be ready to come to arms they needed to have the right to arm themselves protected and codified in the BOR.

So simple yet you seem unable to make the logical conclusion to your own statements.

You just agreed with me.

Yet..

I doubt that you even understand the right though.

If you agree that the second is a personal right to bear arms, then yes I would agree with you but it seems that you simply do not. You advocate for laws that explicitly infringe on that right elsewhere on this forum so I don’t believe that you even understand the implications of what you stated.

 

[RKMBrown]

Something that is impossible without an armed populous hence the beginning of that amendment – since the people needed to be ready to come to arms they needed to have the right to arm themselves protected and codified in the BOR.

So simple yet you seem unable to make the logical conclusion to your own statements.

You just agreed with me.

Yet..

I doubt that you even understand the right though.

If you agree that the second is a personal right to bear arms, then yes I would agree with you but it seems that you simply do not. You advocate for laws that explicitly infringe on that right elsewhere on this forum so I don’t believe that you even understand the implications of what you stated.

The bill of rights is not actually a bill of "rights" in anything other than name. The bill of rights is a list of "restrictions" on the federal government. The right to keep and bear arms, thus is inherent. The 2nd amendment "bans" the federal government from restricting our right to keep and bear arms. If the 2second amendment was the right to keep and bear arms it would state that fact. Sure the end is the same, but if you don't understand who is being limited in the bill of rights you can't read the bill of rights with a correct understanding of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

The federal rules and regs re sales, transport, and ownership of firearms, most especially those listed as NFA's or other than ordinary self defense, recreational, and hunting weapons, are listed here and are pretty restrictive.

Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - National Firearms Act (NFA) - Firearms | ATF

However, it appears that if proper notice of transfer is completed, a private citizen can even own a howitzer as long as the ATF is notified and gives approval each time it is transported and so long as it is transported within a single state.

 

[The T]

What do YOU expect ? DAVE to openly threaten you? Really?

YOU are the PUSSY...*BOY*

Uh oh, looks like you fell off the wagon.

I expect him to get off of his lazy ass and start his revolution.

But I know he won't because he's an ubber-pussy. Just like you.

Go have another drink, old man

Oh, you mean like your Workers' Revolution? When are you going to start that?

And why do you keep ignoring this question? Perhaps because...you're a pussy?

Yes, that seems likely.

J.E.D. is a know nothing partisan RUBE...TRIES to be imposing but IS a PUSSY at heart...aren't ya J.E.D.?

As a matter of course, Dave? He is Obfuscatiing. He has no where else to go but down. Good for him. I hope he enjoys his trip to the depths. I'm happy with his travels.

 

[The T]

Hi, you have received -1803 reputation points from The T.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
I WILL do something...PUSSY

Regards,
The T

Note: This is an automated message.

Anytime...Anywhere son. What the matter? Can't stand that I negged ya?

BRING IT SON.

 

[J.E.D]

Hi, you have received -1803 reputation points from The T.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
I WILL do something...PUSSY

Regards,
The T

Note: This is an automated message.

Anytime...Anywhere son. What the matter? Can't stand that I negged ya?

BRING IT SON.

Jesus, you are a fucking joke

I couldn't care less about your neg. The comment was hilarious, though.

Let me know when you're sober enough to stand on your own two feet for more than a minute, then maybe we can talk, internet tough guy.

 

[J.E.D]

Uh oh, looks like you fell off the wagon.

I expect him to get off of his lazy ass and start his revolution.

But I know he won't because he's an ubber-pussy. Just like you.

Go have another drink, old man

Oh, you mean like your Workers' Revolution? When are you going to start that?

And why do you keep ignoring this question? Perhaps because...you're a pussy?

Yes, that seems likely.

J.E.D. is a know nothing partisan RUBE...TRIES to be imposing but IS a PUSSY at heart...aren't ya J.E.D.?

As a matter of course, Dave? He is Obfuscatiing. He has no where else to go but down. Good for him. I hope he enjoys his trip to the depths. I'm happy with his travels.

Have you gotten up off of your couch and stumbled out of your trailer yet? When are you going to lead your brothers into war? After your next bottle?

 

[Pogo]

If it was concisely written, we'd have nothing to jaw about here and it would be unequivocal.

Take that comma for instance. What was up with that? . . .

"SCOTUS are expert in English"? Don't think that's in the job description, no. But I'll bite-- what do THEY say about that comma?

They are experts on the fundamental principles and the operation of the Constitution and your understanding of English do not override, can not extinguish that unalterable meaning and function.

Since the Court first spoke of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment some 140 years ago, they have never wavered from the fact that the right is not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd so it is deemed a "pre-existing right' and thus is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence:

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [that of self-defense from the KKK by ex-slaves citizens in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”​

So, the real question you need to answer is why are you so preoccupied pondering things that the right does not depend on, to try to discern what the right is?

Seems kinda absurd and useless to me . . . but I'm not looking for excuses to dismiss constitutional principles.

::::wwhhoooosssh::::

The function of a comma is not a Constitutional question. It's a language question. One you completely failed to address.
Perhaps you were too busy plugging in assumptions and then wondering why they don't work.

 

[Pogo]

I already did, see the "preamble" to the bill of rights.

And yes that is the point to prefatory clauses, they are not needed. They merely aid the reader. It's like saying "as you might expect." It's completely without meaning because it's not a part of the operative portion of the sentence. You keep asking for purpose, where there is none. This is why many people will remove prefatory clauses. This is also why many people argue to use only active voice, and never passive voice. They want you to get to the point and freak out when you take your time to get to it.

We're not at all far apart-- I agree with virtually all of that. It is indeed without meaning, if it's prefatory rather than operative. So I ask again, why would they stick a prefatory clause in here, when they (correctly) didn't do it anywhere else?

Logical answer: because it's operative rather than prefatory. Because that way it is like the others.

Still atrociously written, no matter which way intended. If it was concisely written, we'd have nothing to jaw about here and it would be unequivocal.

Take that comma for instance. What was up with that?

Wait, I think Dave's got that one. Over to you, Dave?

Yeah, yeah, we get it. You're an expert in English.

SCOTUS, however, are expert in English AND the Constitution.

Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you!

Bzzzzt.

"SCOTUS are expert in English"? Don't think that's in the job description, no. But I'll bite-- what do THEY say about that comma?

Somewhere Gertrude Stein laughs maniacally...I could tell you what she said...

*sigh*

No, kid. For probably not the last time, you DON'T get to dictate what the Constitution means. You can get your panties in a wad all you want; we're not under any obligation to alter the government and laws just to validate your unmerited sense of superiority.

You're an English major. Yippee. When you've also got a law degree and a few decades of experience practicing Constitutional law, then you can speak authoritatively.

Until then, you're just whining about how unfair it all is.

*wheeze*

You're the whiner I'm afraid. I haven't ventured into the area of law here. I know you wish I would, since you have some kind of snappy comeback at the ready, which I'm sure is uh, fascinating and shit, but as I said 176 times, that's not my interest here.

Poor Dave. Doesn't get the questions he wants, so he brings in his imaginary friend...

 

[PrometheusBound]

Note the "colon" in the preamble. The sentences following the colon and preceding the actual amendments are informational. The way to read the bill of rights first two amendments is therefore as follows (emphasis added to show the portions of the list in the paragraph that are not operative):



You see, your error is in reading each sentence separately like they are unique pieces of art. But they are not. They are portions of a single long winded statement or paragraph if you will that cites a list of "declarations and restrictions."

Malarkey.

The original intention of the Constitution was to provide that a professional army (Ground forces) under Federal Control would not be used.

The idea was that a "part time" army..or minutemen, be at the ready should the United States need them in cases of insurrection and land invasions.

It was a cheap method of providing such forces and a check against "big" government.

Something that is impossible without an armed populous hence the beginning of that amendment – since the people needed to be ready to come to arms they needed to have the right to arm themselves protected and codified in the BOR.

So simple yet you seem unable to make the logical conclusion to your own statements.

We may be looking at it backwards. The right to bear arms was here ever since the Mayflower, so the 2D Amendment merely establishes the right to turn the already armed populace into a militia. A militia comprises all armed civilians; we can't have a "well-regulated" militia if only special citizens are armed.

When an early Secretary of State warned Spain about its refusal to open up the port of New Orleans, he said that we had "200,000 militia" settled near the Mississippi. Obviously, that can't mean an organized military unit, so it must mean the entire population, who, back when men were men, were all armed and made their wives and children learn how to shoot too.

Second, this is not just a foreign-policy Amendment to resist invasion. "The security of a free state" is a domestic policy: every citizen is a policeman.

 

[Foxfyre]

In each of the Supreme Court decisions it could have been helpful if they had stated that the Constitution does not confer rights but rather recognizes rights that pre-existed the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment recognizes the pre-existing right to self-defense from all manner of predators, to obtain food, to defend themselves from all enemies including their own government when it steps too far outside the Constitution. It also incorporated the concept of an already armed citizenry to make possible a state militia for such times as the citizens would be called into service to put down enemies within and without the country.

 

[PrometheusBound]

It's really frustrating that Netties can't think for themselves and only respond to things they have been told the answers to by the anointed intellectual nannies.

There is a second comma that doesn't belong: "...keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is so obvious to anyone with a true education that the fact that no one mentions it once again proves the absolute failure of our educational system from pre-K to PhD. And this is not "18th Century punctuation" either, except for the capital A. So the sloppy writing indicates haste and lack of editing. The founding fodder were trying to pull a fast one on the people, so they through a lot of phrases together here as slogans and not a sentence.

 

[The T]

Anytime...Anywhere son. What the matter? Can't stand that I negged ya?

BRING IT SON.

Jesus, you are a fucking joke

I couldn't care less about your neg. The comment was hilarious, though.

Let me know when you're sober enough to stand on your own two feet for more than a minute, then maybe we can talk, internet tough guy.

YOU read my message, PAL...

*STANDS*

 

[The T]

Oh, you mean like your Workers' Revolution? When are you going to start that?

And why do you keep ignoring this question? Perhaps because...you're a pussy?

Yes, that seems likely.

J.E.D. is a know nothing partisan RUBE...TRIES to be imposing but IS a PUSSY at heart...aren't ya J.E.D.?

As a matter of course, Dave? He is Obfuscatiing. He has no where else to go but down. Good for him. I hope he enjoys his trip to the depths. I'm happy with his travels.

Have you gotten up off of your couch and stumbled out of your trailer yet? When are you going to lead your brothers into war? After your next bottle?

I'll LEAD to to ANY battle that is RIGHT and JUST...something YOU will NEVER understand. ANYTIME...ANYWHERE sport.

YOU laid down the gauntlet. TIME for YOU to MAN UP and ANSWER me...*BOY*

 

[regent]

I don't believe the Supreme Court is finished with the Second Amendment as yet, but when they do go after the next interpretation I'm sure these posts will be helpful.