School and the 2a

I received this via an email.

It is from the Eagle Forum Education Reporter

I know nothing about this forum or it's prior content other than this was sent to me.

Reinterpretation of Second Amendment Shocks Parent
Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum

Alert parent Tamala Hillhouse of Birmingham, AL was going over American government class homework with her 8th-grade daughter when she read something that caused her to do a double take. The McGraw Hill study guide accompanying the U.S. Government: Democracy in Action textbook tells students that "The Second Amendment ensures citizens and the nation the right to security." The guide goes on to explain that "Some people interpret the amendment to mean that they have a right to own firearms."

http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2010/oct10/2nd-amendment.html

Schools also teach kids "creative spelling" when they're younger (e.g. phonics only, no exceptions, so "heir" would be "air" and "plateau" would "plato", etc) and figure "We'll correct them later if they're wrong."

There was a math problem I saw on failbook, "If Jane takes 10 minutes to saw a board into 2 pieces, how long will it take her to saw an equal size board into 3 pieces?" The student put down 20 minutes, but the teacher corrected him and said 15. She was thinking 5 minutes a piece, not 10 minutes a cut.

This problem isn't specific to gun rights, but to our education system in general.

That's true.

Don't districts get to choose their text books amongst all the nationally available material? History in particular is a fluid subject today, and I imagine that, if a school district preferred a particular slant to their curriculum, there is a text book to match it.

That's true.

Don't districts get to choose their text books amongst all the nationally available material? History in particular is a fluid subject today, and I imagine that, if a school district preferred a particular slant to their curriculum, there is a text book to match it.
And if there isn't one, you have it written for you like the Texas Board of Education.

History is written by the victors of the board elections. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?_r=1)

Maybe the teacher meant well by saying, "some people think" ? I just think it is mindless drivel fed to the unknowing.

I've read the quoted section and the linked article a couple of times. I don't see a problem.

"The Second Amendment ensures citizens and the nation the right to security."
This may be a little oversimplified but close enough for a 14 year old.

The guide goes on to explain that "Some people interpret the amendment to mean that they have a right to own firearms."
This is true. Some of the folks who share this interpretation hang out here on The High Road. Some who hold another interpretation frequent the Brady Center.

The guide goes on to explain that "Some people interpret the amendment to mean that they have a right to own firearms." Don't forget that 'Some people' includes 5 members of the Supreme Court of the United States, but does not include the whole Supreme Court.

It is very unfortunate that the most proper interpretations of the Constitution of the United States are not universal.

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

not sure how that can be interpreted any way other than people have the right to bear arms.

It doesn't mention that if a better way of securing a free State is found that bearing arms is no longer relevant.

If anything saying that the amendment ensures the nation security is even less correct.

The amendment specifically mentions a free state. Security doesn't necessarily mean securing it from outside threats...it mean securing the freedom of the State. The freedom of the State is more at risk from its own government than it is from outside threats.

Deleted - Moving along

Just out of curiosity, do we know the copyright date of the textbook in question? It could have been written before the Heller and MacDonald decision and would be truthful in stating the commonly held different viewpoints concerning interpretation of the second amendment that existed prior to those cases. Books are the slowest form of media to be updated, almost to the point of being obsolete before publishing. Just due to the time involved in writing. Now if written AFTER the SCOTUS decisions, then it is flat out inaccurate.

I think that we need the whole paragraph to really know what the texbook meant.

There are some people out there that do not believe that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to own firearms.

Maybe the textbook read something like this:

"Some people interpret the amendment to mean that they have a right to own firearms." Others do not believe this, but there have been many court decisions on this matter and it was concluded that people have a right to own firearms.

With the information provided we really do not know how the material was presented.

Those who win write the history....Something that has stuck in my brain since I was a kid so I realize I am spring loaded to watch for revisionist history.

Over the years I have seen several news expos on text books written and purchased for use in schools. Some scholarly individual with a stack of references would be on television saying, "this is wrong" as he points out he offending passage in some text book.

Probably some of the wording in older written books were not politically correct and needed changing. Just like many feel the wording in the 2a is not politically correct today.

Don't districts get to choose their text books amongst all the nationally available material? History in particular is a fluid subject today, and I imagine that, if a school district preferred a particular slant to their curriculum, there is a text book to match it.


Depends on what state you're in. Here in TX the State Board of Education picks the books for all schools.

"The Second Amendment ensures citizens and the nation the right to security."
This may be a little oversimplified but close enough for a 14 year old.
No, it is plain and simply wrong. It should be quoted verbatim. The "progressives" are constantly try to do away with the 2nd amendment by changing what people believe it means. They have taken over education so they can brainwash our children. We must take the education system back. It will take years.

deleted, move on

"The Second Amendment ensures citizens and the nation the right to security."

Walkalong, how is that wrong?

This is also part of the reason I work with my kids on what they are taught in school. 2a is one thing. My girls have been set straight on that and they know the text. Revisionist history is pretty much the only thing they teach in school at any level.

"The Second Amendment ensures citizens and the nation the right to security."
Is wrong. IF you are going to teach a 14 yr old about the Bill of Rights, then you can give them the EXACT text of the Amendment. My 2nd grader can understand it, I am sure that a 14 yr old can. The second amendment was so important it made the Bill of Rights, it has been beaten and challenged repeatedly and upheld by the SCOTUS to mean that we have a RIGHT to own firearms.

When you teach government you teach it a specific way. When the SCOTUS rules 2a is a RIGHT to bear arms it is not "some people think" it is the 2A "gives us the right to bear arms" it is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Teaching otherwise is misleading and incorrect and is part of the reason kids today know jack about history.

A good example, why should a senior in high school think the civil war was about "slavery"? It was about states rights vs federal rights. To be 100% clear, slavery was a sick and despicable practice, even doubly so in a nation priding itself on freedom, liberty and all men being equal. However, while slavery was a big issue, the notion that pushed it but to focus on it as the sole cause, ignores the states vs federal argument which is STILL going on today. It misses a KEY issue in this nation. Once again, I was able to explain this to my second grader and she understands it.

Parents, I would encourage you to walk through the Bill of Rights with your kids, make sure they are taught the real history of the US and our government, and not some watered down, abbreviated part of it based on the opinion of some school textbook writer whose company is driven not by true education but in cramming in the right number of words to keep the price of the textbook at an acceptable level while providing that the politicians in as many states as possible accept the curriculum in the book.

My daughter's private and public schools explained it pretty accurately when they were studying this area. We discussed it to make sure that what they were teaching was clear and correct and since she had a solid foundation already there wasn't any problem. I know that some folks live in areas where the schools don't teach "history" with much accuracy, but they do a pretty good job of it around here.

When the SCOTUS rules 2a is a RIGHT to bear arms it is not "some people think" it is the 2A "gives us the right to bear arms" it is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.

Are we to apply the same doctrine of infallibility to ALL Supreme Court decisions? I know in my town if a teacher applied that standard to Roe v. Wade and tought it as fact, she would be ridden out of town without benefit of a rail.

The fact is, many thoughtful and intelligent people DO interpret the Second Amendment differntly than we do. Ignoring that when teaching our kids is wrong.

This is also part of the reason I work with my kids on what they are taught in school. 2a is one thing. My girls have been set straight on that and they know the text. Revisionist history is pretty much the only thing they teach in school at any level.

"The Second Amendment ensures citizens and the nation the right to security."
Is wrong. IF you are going to teach a 14 yr old about the Bill of Rights, then you can give them the EXACT text of the Amendment. My 2nd grader can understand it, I am sure that a 14 yr old can. The second amendment was so important it made the Bill of Rights, it has been beaten and challenged repeatedly and upheld by the SCOTUS to mean that we have a RIGHT to own firearms.

When you teach government you teach it a specific way. When the SCOTUS rules 2a is a RIGHT to bear arms it is not "some people think" it is the 2A "gives us the right to bear arms" it is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Teaching otherwise is misleading and incorrect and is part of the reason kids today know jack about history.

A good example, why should a senior in high school think the civil war was about "slavery"? It was about states rights vs federal rights. To be 100% clear, slavery was a sick and despicable practice, even doubly so in a nation priding itself on freedom, liberty and all men being equal. However, while slavery was a big issue, the notion that pushed it but to focus on it as the sole cause, ignores the states vs federal argument which is STILL going on today. It misses a KEY issue in this nation. Once again, I was able to explain this to my second grader and she understands it.
A highschool US history class should be able to cover the full text of the Amendments from 1st to 26th, with specific attention to the BoR and 11th-15th, 18th, 19th, and 21st due to their role in the growth of the country. A course which claims that the 2nd doesn't enumerate the right to bear arms is ignoring the text. AP US History classes might discuss the case law of the expression of that right, but that specific claim is disingenuous when the students have the full text before them.

Parents, I would encourage you to walk through the Bill of Rights with your kids, make sure they are taught the real history of the US and our government, and not some watered down, abbreviated part of it based on the opinion of some school textbook writer whose company is driven not by true education but in cramming in the right number of words to keep the price of the textbook at an acceptable level while providing that the politicians in as many states as possible accept the curriculum in the book.

Depends on what state you're in. Here in TX the State Board of Education picks the books for all schools.
The choice of textbooks intended to cover US history by politicians is a recipe for disaster. The amount of content which a teacher needs to cover should extend past the textbook.

Even if some people disagree with what the second amendment says (which I find hard to believe, considering that it blatantly says it), I believe the number would be far higher believing what is written. Thus it should be written "The second amendment says (and quote it), which some people believe does not grant the right to own a firearm." That would put the people who understand 2a in the majority, rather than the minority, in the claim.

Whether or not you agree with 2a is an entirely different story than understanding it. I'm sure after the Thirteenth Amendment came out, a lot of people were angry that they could no longer own slaves, but I'm pretty sure you'd have to be stupid to say "Some people believe slavery was outlawed by the thirteenth amendment."

....which some people believe does not grant the right to own a firearm." --It doesn't. It protects a pre-existing right.

When the SCOTUS rules 2a is a RIGHT to bear arms it is not "some people think" it is the 2A "gives us the right to bear arms" it is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.
Are we to apply the same doctrine of infallibility to ALL Supreme Court decisions? I know in my town if a teacher applied that standard to Roe v. Wade and tought it as fact, she would be ridden out of town without benefit of a rail.

The fact is, many thoughtful and intelligent people DO interpret the Second Amendment differntly than we do. Ignoring that when teaching our kids is wrong

Given the results of Heller, it might be appropriate to say the current interpretation of the second amendment is that it protects the right to own firearms on an individual basis.
Ignoring the differing interpretations is problematic; I only wound up graduating from college with a B.A. in English and it is my understanding of the 2A is based on my comprehension of the language. It is an individual right. "...the right of the people ... " The underlined phrase removes doubt -- IMHO. It is also my opinion those who "interpret" it differently do so based on a political agenda not harmonious to freedom or the rights our founders intended to protect. We can acknowledge these people exist and what their argument is, but we must also explain that it is incorrect.
There is right, and there is wrong.
Not everything reduces to a mere opinion.

I agree with what evryone is saying, but we don't really know if the textbook quoted the 2nd Amendment verbatim or not. The article just quoted 2 phrases in the textbook, not the whole chapter.

Just out of curiosity, do we know the copyright date of the textbook in question?

The book from the article was copyrighted in 02-03. An online version is in the link below.

I agree with what evryone is saying, but we don't really know if the textbook quoted the 2nd Amendment verbatim or not. The article just quoted 2 phrases in the textbook, not the whole chapter.

Here's the link to the online version if you want to read it and see. I didn't read all the way through it.

http://www.glencoe.com/sec/socialstudies/govciv/usgov2002/index.php

This should bring a little more light to the subject.

The fact is, many thoughtful and intelligent people DO interpret the Second Amendment differntly than we do.

Why does that matter? The SCOTUS has ruled. They're the highest court in the land. It's still the law no matter what anybody thinks about it. Their interpretation of it might be different, but it doesn't change it's status. To teach children otherwise is to teach that the law only matters IF we interpret the law to be worth following.

I do not necessarily agree or disagree with roe vs. wade, but it's still been ruled on and whatever I think about it now doesn't matter as far as teaching children is concerned. If the parents want it omitted, that's fine, go through the school board and they can have it omitted, but it doesn't change the standing of the ruling.

Walkalong, how is that wrong?
If you have to ask, I do not know what to tell you, other than the two do not mean the same thing, period, and that is exactly what the left wants to do, change the meaning. (Although they would rather do away with it entirely)

Homeschool your children (or grandchildren). The resources are more plentiful than you think. Government Schools are a social wolfpack and a cultural cesspool bordering on child-abuse.

Les

The book was almost certainly written before the McDonald was published. (Think about it, the McDonald opinion is four months old, and two of those months are within the traditional school year.) The two sentences given are fairly accurate, especially when you consider that they were written before the McDonald opinion. There are some very different opinions on what the second amendment means and schools would be wrong to not teach both sides of the issue, especially in high school. (I wish I could go back to when the second amendment was being drafted and tell the people to leave out the first part, then there would be no question. But that is another argument\thread.)

LibShooter is right, a lot of us probably feel very strongly that the 9th and 14th amendments do not create a right to privacy that gives women the right to an abortion, but SCOTUS' opinion is that they do and it is therefore law of the land. Those of us that do not agree, would probably object very strongly to the school saying that the constitution guarantees the right to an abortion. I had an incredibly liberal high school government teacher, but he always gave both sides of the argument, any teacher should.

Parents are an important part of a child's education. The onus is on you as a parent to explain your own feelings on contentious topics, but please instruct your children to be respectful with the teachers about their differing opinions. It's not polite for them to tell the teacher "Mommy\Daddy says you're wrong!" especially on a matter of opinion.

Kinda funny how everybody around here hates the courts until the have an opinion that you agree with, in which case the justices are next to gods. This cuts both ways.

Found the book, and read the cahapter that refers to the 2nd Amendment. It quotes the 2nd Amendment verbatim, and goes on to give this explanation. Seems pretty accurate to the events of the time, 2002-2003

"This amendment seems to support th right for citizens to own firearms, but it does not prevent Congress from regulating the interstate sale of weapons, nor has the Supreme Court applied the Second Amendment to the states. Many State Constitutions guarantee the right to kee and bear arms."
-from United States Government: Democracy in Action, 2003 Edition

Kinda funny how everybody around here hates the courts until the have an opinion that you agree with, in which case the justices are next to gods. This cuts both ways.
Correction, five of the justices are next to gods.:scrutiny:

-from United States Government: Democracy in Action, 2003 Edition

The article was written in 2010. The publishing dates on the books are 02,03, and 06. 06 wasn't used in Alabama according to Glencoe's site, however, the child in question was going to a private school so they could have chosen the 06 edition.

The article was also written about the study guide used and not the actual textbook, although the author is the same (Remy).

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/textbooks/adoptprocess/sept_glencoe2.pdf

In this report Texas is reviewing the books in 2002 and calls into questions the publishers use of "militias" in the Constitution vs "militia." (Page 10) They said that it was to imply the consensus that the second amendment was a "collective right" because they belonged to the states. That's not verbatim, there's the link, check it out for yourself. The publisher's answer is there as well.

It looks like in either case they changed the texts, at least for Texas. I was unable to find a copy of the actual study guide to look at.

It's not polite for them to tell the teacher "Mommy\Daddy says you're wrong!" especially on a matter of opinion.

Mine won't have to. I will. The law teaches us what is legal and illegal. Parents teach us what is right and wrong. I pay close to attention to his classes. They can stick to the facts, I'm sure there's enough in a history book to fill up a class.

This is all based on a textbook and/or study guide to that textbook, it doesn't actually speak for what the teacher was actually teaching. It could all be a mute point.

kinda funny how everybody around here hates the courts until the have an opinion that you agree with, in which case the justices are next to gods. This cuts both ways.correction, five of the justices are next to gods.:scrutiny:
Checkmate, QED, etc. :D

"Walkalong, how is that wrong?"

If you have to ask, I do not know what to tell you, other than the two do not mean the same thing, period...

Could you try?

The quote in question is:
"The Second Amendment ensures citizens and the nation the right to security."

The Constitution says"
"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."


They sound a lot alike to me. Please try to educate me.

They sound a lot alike to me.
Sounding alot alike does not mean that they are same.

This:"The Second Amendment ensures citizens and the nation the right to security."
Makes it appear as the goverment's responsibility to provide security i.e. police/military. When in fact it has been found in court the police do not have the responsibilty to protect you.

This:"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."
Ensures all people have the individual right to protect themselves from all threats including tyranical goverment, it also guarantees that the right shall never be infringed or taken away.

So how are those two quotes the same?

That would be like saying the 4th amendment keeps other individuals excluding the goverment from searching and seizing your property but the goverment may do as it wants. When in fact the 4th amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Remember the Constitution restricts what the goverment can do not what the people can do.

"The Second Amendment ensures citizens and the nation the right to security."

Makes it appear as the goverment's responsibility to provide security i.e. police/military.

Really? You must see a lot more in those dozen words than I do. There'e no mention of government responsibility or police or military. In context, the statement equates the people's keeping and bearing of firearms with citizens' and the nation's security. That sounds like a winning argument for the RKBA, to me.

The quote in question is:
"The Second Amendment ensures citizens and the nation the right to security."

The Constitution says"
"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."


They sound a lot alike to me. Please try to educate me.

Only through inference or "interpretation" could they be the same. Trouble is, that means they could be different. A "right to security" could be "interpreted" to mean that you have the right to a government provided security guard 24/7. It doesn't, of course, and when you read the 2A and understand what the founders' intent was, that much is understood.

There'e no mention of government responsibility or police or military. In context, the statement equates the people's keeping and bearing of firearms with citizens' and the nation's security. Funny there is no mention of keeping and bearing arms in there either but you come to that assumption.

Now this:"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."
Outright says keep and bear arms.

IMO, the interpretation that "The Second Amendment ensures citizens and the nation the right to security" singles out security as the right. That's not the case, the right involved is specifically to keep and bear arms (for any reason). Security is but an imperative stating why it's important that the government MUST NOT infringe on this right. The significant difference is the implication that an alternative to arms can be substituted to provide for our right for security. (Security can be provided by total control of society by the state, as though we were caged in a zoo.) It's a subtle difference but significant, and one that has been used to attack gun rights.

Kinda funny how everybody around here hates the courts until the have an opinion that you agree with, in which case the justices are next to gods. This cuts both ways.

By "around here" I didn't mean the high road, I meant my area and the courts in general, not the supreme court in particular.

IMO, the interpretation that "The Second Amendment ensures citizens and the nation the right to security" singles out security as the right. That's not the case, the right involved is specifically to keep and bear arms (for any reason).

Those of us in the internet gun lobby love the second half of the Second Amendment. The first half we find a little inconvenient... but there it is:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

The authors of the Constitution didn't say, "Fresh venison, being necessary to the health of a well fed state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." So the Second Amendment is not about hunting. It's not about target shooting or hanging really pretty shotguns on the wall of your den, either. The Second Amendment is about, and only about the security of a free state. All those other uses for guns are a happy side effect of the right to keep and bear them.

So yes, the "Second Amendment ensures citizens and the nation the right to security." In the context of its use, the sentence was obviously about the right to keep and bear arms. Even an 8th grader, or an internet Constitutional Scholar should be able to figure out that much. :)

Even an 8th grader, or an internet Constitutional Scholar should be able to figure out that much. But they don't. So why take it out of context and put in an interpretation that is open to more interpretation? How but we just teach what the second amendment actually says verbatim and let those who chose, come to what it means to them.

Also why don't you quote the whole second amendment? Anti's love to just use the first part and drop the last part; extreme pros use the last part and drop the first part. WHY DON'T WE JUST USE AND READ THE SCOND AMENDMENT AS IT IS?!

So why take it out of context and put in an interpretation that is open to more interpretation? How but we just teach what the second amendment actually says verbatim and let those who chose, come to what it means to them. Also why don't you quote the whole second amendment?

These textbook authors did include the text of the amendment and then offered their explanation in 21st century language. That's what writers and educators do.

Anti's love to just use the first part and drop the last part; extreme pros use the last part and drop the first part. WHY DON'T WE JUST USE AND READ THE SCOND AMENDMENT AS IT IS?!

That's my point.

Then I guess we agree on somethings. I just don't need someone's interpretation just give me the amendments as they are written.

My high school history teacher did a pretty good job. He liked to talk a lot about civil rights, and I think he actually was one of the first people to explain the fifth amendment to me. As far as the second amendment goes, I remember him saying some pretty 2a stuff, that would probably not get most of the people hear up in arms (no pun intended). Probably the most anti statement that he made was that "The second amendment means that you can have gun. Keep in mind, theres a difference between owning a gun, and keeping an AK-47 locked and loaded in your closet." Not exactly my favorite interpretation of the RTBA, but its better than the elementary school "talking about guns will get you detention" philosophy.

Teachers are bound to let some of their beliefs slip in to their lessons. I know I do, and I only teach archery and swimming lessons!

Those of us in the internet gun lobby love the second half of the Second Amendment. The first half we find a little inconvenient... but there it is:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

The authors of the Constitution didn't say, "Fresh venison, being necessary to the health of a well fed state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." So the Second Amendment is not about hunting. It's not about target shooting or hanging really pretty shotguns on the wall of your den, either. The Second Amendment is about, and only about the security of a free state. All those other uses for guns are a happy side effect of the right to keep and bear them.

So yes, the "Second Amendment ensures citizens and the nation the right to security." In the context of its use, the sentence was obviously about the right to keep and bear arms. Even an 8th grader, or an internet Constitutional Scholar should be able to figure out that much. :)
I won't argue but to point out that the phrase "The Second Amendment ensures citizens and the nation the right to security" is incorrect. I'm sorry but there is no such thing as a right to security. Security is what we make it. It hasn't been granted by our creator since Eve bit the apple. Security is a necessity which requires that our right to bear arms be maintained (law).

You're correct that it's elementary, although the distinction is probably above the comprehension of the average 8th grader. The reason to nitpick is that implying otherwise provides an avenue by which the Constitution may be circumvented. This has been attempted, which is why the Supreme Court was called upon to rule on it.

Those of us in the internet gun lobby love the second half of the Second Amendment. The first half we find a little inconvenient... but there it is:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

The authors of the Constitution didn't say, "Fresh venison, being necessary to the health of a well fed state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." So the Second Amendment is not about hunting. It's not about target shooting or hanging really pretty shotguns on the wall of your den, either. The Second Amendment is about, and only about the security of a free state. All those other uses for guns are a happy side effect of the right to keep and bear them.

So yes, the "Second Amendment ensures citizens and the nation the right to security." In the context of its use, the sentence was obviously about the right to keep and bear arms. Even an 8th grader, or an internet Constitutional Scholar should be able to figure out that much.
The first clause, the "exemplar clause," makes a simple statement claiming their belief that security was a function fulfilled by the "well-regulated" militia. The "right" still belongs to "the people." "Being necessary to" is not the same thing as claiming a right.
At this point, I know I am dicing the semantics thinner than a proton's whisker, but, still, the difference remains.....

I'm sorry but there is no such thing as a right to security. Security is what we make it. It hasn't been granted by our creator since Eve bit the apple. Security is a necessity which requires that our right to bear arms be maintained (law).

I think the founders intended "security" to be a birthright of every American. It says in the Preamble:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

You can argue those reasons for establishing the Constitution aren't really "rights." Maybe they're just hopes. But I believe if the framers took the trouble to put them at the beginning of the document that laid the foundation for our nation, they meant for them to be real rights for every one of us.

The Second Amendment was their way to "...insure domestic tranquility, [and] provide for the common defense..."

exactly, Tommygunn. the idea that individuals have a "right to security" implies that your security is a service provided to you by another party, your govt. and, the govt has a mandate to control your security for you.

Those of us in the internet gun lobby love the second half of the Second Amendment. The first half we find a little inconvenient... but there it is:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

The authors of the Constitution didn't say, "Fresh venison, being necessary to the health of a well fed state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." So the Second Amendment is not about hunting. It's not about target shooting or hanging really pretty shotguns on the wall of your den, either. The Second Amendment is about, and only about the security of a free state. All those other uses for guns are a happy side effect of the right to keep and bear them.

So yes, the "Second Amendment ensures citizens and the nation the right to security." In the context of its use, the sentence was obviously about the right to keep and bear arms. Even an 8th grader, or an internet Constitutional Scholar should be able to figure out that much. :)
The full analysis of the second ammendment is at the link provided below.

By reading it you'll come to understand what the wording of the ammendment means in its correct literary context. The bolded part of your reply above is flat out wrong.

To quote the article in purple:
[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

...The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

I never intended to imply the right to keep and bear arms was contingent on anything. The second clause is clear that the right "shall not be infringed." For any reason. If the US were the last nation on Earth and we somehow had eliminated every possible security threat both foreign and domestic, the Second Amendment would still guarantee the right to keep and bear arms.

However, that doesn't alter the fact that "security of a free state" is the reason the right to keep and bear is protected. If not, why did the founders put it right there in the Constitution?

The word "people" in the bill of rights is interpreted to mean "all of the citizens of the United States" by Liberal extremist's in all instances EXCEPT the second ammendment ...in the second ammendment the word people mean the Armed Forces/ Public Services.

These same extremeists have worked for centurys to corrupt and in most cases erase the legacys of our founders. Its crazy how much of the constitution does not exist these days, in fact only one amendment does , the 14th. All of the other ammendments either do not exist (the 10th) or are regulated through the 14th ammendment (pretty much all of them) or have been undone by bills such as the patriot act (1st, 3rd, and 4th)

There can be No doubt as to the intent of the founders when they added The Right to Bear Arms on the list as Number 2, it is not about hunting, or plinking at the range, it is there so that the goverment knows that The People have a violent means of removeing them from office in the event that reasoning with them does not work. George Washington said it, Jefferson, Franklin...a slew of others stated this.

That is why the goverment wants to take our Right to Bear Arms away....they know what its there for, and they know that they are not doing thier jobs well at all.


I am glad that my Vote counted this election year, I have hopes for many of the new congressmen and senators elected. Hopefully we can get some of those rights back.

However, that doesn't alter the fact that "security of a free state" is the reason the right to keep and bear is protected. If not, why did the founders put it right there in the Constitution?

I suggest you re-read my link in post #50 if you haven't already. It's all broken down and explained quite nicely.

You do know they're just arguing with you because of your name now, right?!

To re-quote Copperud's purple prose... I absolutely agree with his main point:

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

However, I found nothing in Copperud's comments to refute the fact that the Second Amendment is ABOUT security. It's the reason the founders wanted to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. They say it clearly in ink and parchment right there in the first clause of the amendment. (I do disagree with Copperud's conclusion that the first half of the Second Amendment is a participle phrase. It's clearly a subordinate clause. "Militia" is the subject, "Being" is the verb. "Necessary" is a predicate adjective. But that's all beside the point.)

That's not to say the right to keep and bear arms is in any way dependent on the task of providing security. The right exists in times of war and peace and everything in between.

Here's an analogy. I was replacing the front axles on my Honda. To remove those big nuts in the middle of the hubs, I needed a 36mm socket and big breaker bar. That job was the REASON I bought those tools. Now that the axles are replaced, the socket and bar still exist. They're still sitting in my toolbox ready for their original purpose... OR ANY OTHER.

Likewise, the founders wrote the protection of the right to keep and bear arms into the Constitution BECAUSE they wanted a well equipped and practiced militia ready to respond to threats to the security of a free state. We have to admit that reason is less pressing today than it was in 1789. But that doesn't matter. The right to keep and bear arms still absolutely exists. RKBA is sitting in the toolbox ready for other tasks (home protection, self defense, killing Bambi's mom).

You do know they're just arguing with you because of your name now, right?!

Yep. That's half the fun. :)

One can say it's about security, but one needs to identify "it". In this case the it is not our right to keep and bear arms, it is the inability for the government to restrict this right. The right exists naturally, and the purpose can be any reason a person may have. So one cannot say that since we arguably no longer have militias, the right is obsolete. That's pretty much what you've been saying LibShooter. This just may go to explain why folks are arguing the point.

More to the point of this thread, I checked the definition of "infringe":

Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on ~ Webster

Then the definition of "encroach":

to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another ~ Webster

So infringe does not just mean a ban, but a limitation. Thus "arms" could include automatic and other advanced weapons. I suppose it would be a matter of social agreement where to draw the line, or just practicality. It sure would be neat to own an F16 though. :D

(BTW, our founding fathers were liberals.)

The Second Amendment is about, and only about the security of a free state.

actually, here is a much better way of wording it:

The Second Amendment is about, and only about, the security of a state of freedom.



Also, what awgrizzly said. And, to compound on that, think about this: When the nation was founded, who owned the 'navy'? Private companies. I have no clue on actual statistics, but I would think that the large majority of naval firepower was owned by shipping/trading companies on their privately-owned cargo vessels.

Where do letters of marque come from? The government authorizing private vessels to essentially wage war on the government's behalf. Back in those days, the government barely even owned weapons. Maybe some cannon, but most personal arms were personally owned.

So, why would the second amendment be designed around a citizenry which owned more, bigger, and better arms than the government itself, but now only applies to small calibers and semi-autos?


(BTW, our founding fathers were liberals.)

Back then. Today, they'd be considered reactionaries. liberal, conservative, etc descriptions are relative to the status quo.

...actually, here is a much better way of wording it:

The Second Amendment is about, and only about, the security of a state of freedom.

Maybe so... but that's not how The Constitution words it.

the 2A clearly states we have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed, and only enumerates a pre existing right and doesnt grant us anything

Thats the only way the 2A should be taught

To anyone who ever had to learn English grammar, the wording of the Second Amendment is crystal-clear. To anyone who has ever researched what went on behind the scenes in the incorporation of the Second Amendment, there can be no doubt as to its intent.

The Second Amendment does not confer a right based on the need for a militia, well-organized or not. The Framers of the Constitution clearly believed right to keep and bear arms existed before the founding of the United States and they enjoined the government from ever infringing on that right. They believed the people were the backbone of the nation's defense and that was an adequate reason for affirming that pre-existing right. It was never the only reason, because the right existed before the need for a militia was identified.

Stuff like what the OP posted is why I discuss history and the Constitution at home with my kids. My youngest daughter came home from school one day and announced that guns are bad, only bad people have them, and I needed to get rid of mine. She said her teacher had told the class that. I hope they fired that teacher and she moved to someplace with good gun control so it's safe. Maybe Mexico. After I told her a bit about the 2nd Amendment and took her target shooting with me and let her blow up a few soda cans filled with water with a 10/22 she decided her teacher was wrong. I can't hardly go target shooting without taking her along anymore. She's a pretty good rifle shot too.