High School History Book Rewrites the 2nd Amendment

[pintler]

They also got the 3rd amendment wrong. It wasn't for "quartering troops during peacetime". the third amendment was a prohibition on the quartering of troops at all.

Since we're having a thread about inaccurate summarizing of amendments , the text of the third amendment reads:

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

So if congress a)declares war and then b)passes a law saying you have to quarter three soldiers, that sounds constitutional to me.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Yeah, cause thus far the feds have done such a stellar job with the trillions of dollars and endless opportunities we, the people, have given them.

They took the greatest nation on earth and are flushing it down the toilet. I can't go into specifics since this is (ostensibly) a politics neutral web site.

Set limits? What kind of limits? The limits with which you agree?

Sooooo....by extension, you accord them the "right" to set limits. Since you accorded them that right, then you agree to abide by whatever limits they set. Whatever limits.

Are you sure about that, hoss?

It seems I remember Germany "setting some limits" for its citizens once upon a time. You ok with that?
?

?

I suppose it was inevitable that someone would invoke Godwin's Law on this matter. But though I can speak German (to an extent), this isn't Germany.

I like how people almost always like to speak of "The Government" as if it's some sort of separate entity or creature all its own. It's not. It's an agency of the people. And, in this country (United States), its policies are made by people who are elected (or appointed, in the case of the Supreme Court Justices) by people.

And though political parties have their own platforms and agendas, like it or not, "The Government" is the people, collectively speaking.

Perhaps a better word for my statement would have been "power" instead of "right", as beatledog7 pointed out. Looking back, I tend to agree with him. But those powers ultimately come from the people.

Does the govenment have the power to set limits for the good of society? Yes, it does. That is the nature of government, and yes it's a double-edged sword. Societies must have rules, regulations, and laws in order for groups of people to function together for both the common good and individual good. This is true of ALL societies, from the smallest family unit, to communes, to towns, to states, to nations, to tribes...wherever there exists groups of people together as a unit, there are rules and laws.

Yes...governments have the power to set limitations AND to enforce them. They'd be useless otherwise; and, quite frankly, people with weak governments will ALWAYS be walked on by those whose governments are not weak.


Which leaves us with the neverending question of where to draw the line in the sand on how much the government is allowed to do.

And that line is rarely sharply defined in absolute terms. In a nation of 310-plus million people, you'll NEVER get a unanimous agreement on ANYTHING. We can see that here on this site on a wide range of gun related topics alone. and I'd have to say that, by and large, this is a pretty pro-gun site.

And YES...WE accord "The Government" the power to set those limits. And WE, as a nation, abide by those limits. You and I may disagree with any number of those limits. We may or may not, as individuals, actually abide by them. And if we don't, and we're caught and prosecuted, then we take our lumps for taking our chances.

And if we, as individuals, do not agree with those limits, we work to change them in accordance with our views on what and how those changes should be. And those who disagree with us will also be doing the same.

 

[jmr40]

Schools don't write textbooks, they buy them from people who do write them. No book is perfect. If you look through any of them you will sometimes find errors. Or in this case a difference of opinion.

Here is the 2nd amendment in full. While the 2nd amendment is a great document, our founding father certainly left an opening for debate with their wording.

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.

 

[splattergun]

Dumbed down so the AP kids don't have to think?
Pull them from that school pronto!

 

[22-rimfire]

What would you like them to do? They admitted it is wrong and they are fixing it. What would be good enough?

Rip the page out. False information is worse than no information at all.

 

[BLB68]

I looked this book up on Amazon. It's essentially an exam prep book for the Advanced Placement Exam for US History, that the description says can also be used as a textbook in an AP History class. The AP program lets high school students take classes at a college level (most of which are harder than actually taking the freshman class in college) and then take an exam to receive college credit for the class.

Viewing the book as a study guide, I don't think that the text shown was intended to be a summary of the Bill of Rights so much as a guideline on how to answer standardized questions on each one.

While I disagree with the militia interpretation being the prevailing interpretation even pre-Heller, if that's what the exam expects for an answer, then that's what needs to be in the exam prep book. The real crime by the publisher is in encouraging its use as a text book. There is no way in hell my AP History teacher in HS would have used an exam guide as a text. What this is really a symptom of, and is more scary, is teaching the test instead of teaching the subject.

Edit: I went to high school in Denton in my junior year (84-85), and it was a good school academically. They're really slipping if they're using this thing as a history text book.

 

[hso]

My daughter is in AP Gov and her textbook plays no such games with the Bill of Rights. The chapter on it is dispassionate and balanced and is current enough to present the advances in RKBA.

 

[beatledog7]

Does the government [sic] have the power to set limits for the good of society? Yes, it does. That is the nature of government, and yes it's a double-edged sword.

In this country, governments have only the powers granted them by the people, and at the federal level the people did that initially (through the states) by ratifying the Constitution. That is not just a concept--it's the basis of all American law, and no law is allowed to countermand it. We have allowed legislatures, courts, and executives to usurp countermanding power, but that doesn't mean it's legitimate.

Societies must have rules, regulations, and laws in order for groups of people to function together for both the common good and individual good. This is true of ALL societies, from the smallest family unit, to communes, to towns, to states, to nations, to tribes...wherever there exists groups of people together as a unit, there are rules and laws.

We have tens of thousands of rules, regulations, and laws, and far too many of those are violations of the Constitution. Yet our rulers insist we need more. The Founders made it clear, and the states agreed, what we must do when we see the need to make laws about something--perhaps something in the Chief's list--that's not in the enumerated powers: we must amend the document. That's the way it is to be done--the only way. We've amended it 27 times, so it is doable. Yeah, it's hard and it takes a while. That was purposeful also, so we won't knee-jerk into silly laws.

Obviously, we have failed the Founders' vision.

 

[Cee Zee]

I like how people almost always like to speak of "The Government" as if it's some sort of separate entity or creature all its own. It's not. It's an agency of the people.

It's supposed to be that but it has failed to live up to that ideal unfortunately. The government has been unduly influenced by the monied interests since the time Washington was president. John Adams greatly criticized the influence of money in the Washington administration. Jackson refused to renew the charter of the national banks because he knew that borrowed money draws interest and that interest goes into the pockets of those that already have money (they had to have money to loan to the government) which essentially turned into payments from taxpayers directly to the rich. Sure there are bonds that regular people can buy but it's a matter of perspective. A few dollars paid on a savings bond in no way equates with the interest payments the government makes in total to the people with big money. Now the Chinese are receiving a lot of that money too.

It's not just that either. It takes big money to get elected and people with the money to help some get elected have clearly gotten government decisions swayed in their direction as retribution for their help in getting people elected. For example let's talk about how Obama put a huge amount of money into things like the solar power industry only to have that industry fail. Yet they somehow manage to still donate money to the Democrat Party after they essentially "lost" all the money the government gave them. Just because their stock tanked it doesn't mean they don't have any cash on hand. It isn't just one party that plays this way either. It's a universal problem in fact. It's a big part of why the Republicans have been content to play second fiddle to the Democrats for most of my life. Since FDR won the presidency 4 times and used money the government takes in to buy votes the Republicans have been willing to avoid any real fights with the other party. They just want to be sure they don't lose their seat at the table because they still bring in lots of money through all sorts of corruption.

I don't say this as speculation. I've worked closely with people in governments before. I know for a fact how they operate. I've seen it with my own eyes.

I still believe in the American way myself. We just need to fight for the system you described. It's the best hope for mankind IMO. As others have said, it's the worst form of government except for all the others. No one really knows where that quote came from but it certainly seems accurate to me.

We have tens of thousands of rules, regulations, and laws, and far too many of those are violations of the Constitution.

Well said.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

In this country, governments have only the powers granted them by the people, and at the federal level the people did that initially (through the states) by ratifying the Constitution. That is not just a concept--it's the basis of all American law, and no law is allowed to countermand it. We have allowed legislatures, courts, and executives to usurp countermanding power, but that doesn't mean it's legitimate.



We have tens of thousands of rules, regulations, and laws, and far too many of those are violations of the Constitution. Yet our rulers insist we need more. The Founders made it clear, and the states agreed, what we must do when we see the need to makes laws about something--perhaps something in the Chief's list--that's not in the enumerated powers: we must amend the document. That's the way it is to be done--the only way. We've amended it 27 times, so it is doable. Yeah, it's hard and it takes a while. That was purposeful also, so we won't knee-jerk into silly laws.

Obviously, we have failed the Founders' vision.

If I may postulate here, I think that amending the Constitution isn't something that we need to get into the habit of. Yes, it's required sometimes. But as a source document, it's not something that we need to turn to with amendments in mind every time people disagree on things.

In fact, continually amending the U.S. Constitution will necessarily have the effect of making it ever more complicated because that's the nature of such things. The U.S. Constitution isn't supposed to be all-encompassing. It's essentially supposed to establish a set of rules by which the government operates by. Broadly speaking, it gives the Legislative Branch the power to write laws; the Executive Brance the power to carry out those laws, run the military, and enter into treaties; and the Judicial Brance the power to adjudicate all legal matters under the Constitution.

And yes, I'm "summarizing" this...but the U.S. Constitution is too big to post in its entirety here. let' not quibble too much over this and assume that we've all actually read the document ourselves.

The Constitution isn't a static legal document. It's not only allowed to be changed (by amendments), it's also allowed to be interpreted as the times change. It's a "living document". A prime example of interpretations with the changing times would be the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Speech as the world of communications has evolved over the last century and a half. These interpretations allow us to define meaning and intent without having to re-write the source document.

The fact that it is a living document and can be interpreted for applicability as the times change is the reason why we haven't had to toss the Constitution out every time something changed, like the French had to do 16 times.

We car argue indefinately on "tens of thousands of rules, regulations, and laws" which may or may not be violations of the U.S. Constitution. But not here. Here we need to focus on what's pertinenant to THR, which admittedly runs well into the thousands itself. Which means we need to further refine it in order to have an intelligent conversation, otherwise we could both spout examples supporting our own viewpoints all day long.

Here the subject is American History, specifically as it deals with what's being taught in the schools with respect to the Bill of Rights and the RKBA in particular. From there, we branched off into the powers of the government over the citizens, and I admit that I'm partly responsible for dragging this further off topic with my sarcastic comment in post # 41.

The point I was attempting (perhaps badly) was that the person I was commenting to was painting a detailed picture with a might broad brush. The government DOES have the power AND the authority to many of the things that so many people disagree with. And simply disagreeing with these things does not, in and of itself, make them "unconstitutional".

And doing something that isn't explicitely allowed or forbidden in the U.S. Constitution also does not necessarily mean it's "unconstitutional", either.


As for the Second Amendment, which is what we're really about here, I'm of the opinion that it's fairly plainly written, yet still leaves room for interpretation. But it also quite clearly says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Whether "The Government" thinks that it's necessary or not in today's day and age does not matter...they aren't allowed to infringe on that right.

What we're doing today is the same thing we've been doing for almost two and a half centuries on everything about the Constitution...discussing the applicability and limitations inherent in what the government is and is not allowed to do.

 

[Murphy4570]

The fact that it is a living document and can be interpreted for applicability as the times change is the reason why we haven't had to toss the Constitution out every time something changed, like the French had to do 16 times.

I disagree that it is anything of the sort. Revisionist progressive historians love to espouse such a viewpoint, but it is incorrect. The constitution of our nation is not to be trifled with for light and transient causes. This is why it was made so darn hard to modify it in the first place. These revisionists love to use the term "living document", to make it seem like the constitution can be changed on a whim to suit the fancy of the mob. This is not so. Nor is it to be altered to compensate for changing "social" norms. Society may well change. The law does not. There are of course obvious exceptions to the rule, with the largest example requiring a bloody and protracted war from 1861-1865 to evoke change. Such an alteration was certainly not trifling.

 

[MEHavey]

"...a living document..."

Only in so far as it can be changed... and not by simply declaring that words no longer mean what they say.

The Founders wrote it in plain English, and I can read plain English. The far Left cannot stand that simple fact... so they mangle what was once a simple and absolute prohibition such as Congress shall make no Law.... into an excuse to "...do the right thing according to the latest fad,... original intent or not."

That same Constitution however, has very specific provisions for its own change -- after careful consideration and agreement upon that change by
3/4 of all the states. Since that seems to be too hard for some folks (including certain members of SCOTUS) to understand, they simply ignore it to argue over what the definition of the word '"is" is, and what it "ought" to be.

But once cut loose from your structural moorings like that, we are adrift in the rule of Man, not Law.... a most dangerous game.

 

[zorro45]

Just like bourbon, the Bill of Rights should be taken straight without any dilution, additives or other meddling. When I was a kid being brainwashed in school our history classes actually used the original documents instead of a textbook. At the time I thought it was ridiculous, however now I see the point to it. Of course one of my teachers was an ex-marine who actually threw a troublemaker at least 8 feet across the room once to try to put some sense into him (didn't work) so we all paid attention to this instructor more than others.

 

[Sam1911]

If the Constitution wasn't a "living" document in some sense it would have had to been tossed out every time some conundrum of policy came up (as USNChief points out).

The Constitution established the means by which these conundrums would be sorted out, though a tripartite form of government wherein the legislature, executive, and judiciary would all have certain abilities to act and interpret.

I don't like many of the changes which have happened over the years, but calling them all unConstitutional doesn't really help us (except as a form of propaganda -- not that there's anything wrong with that) because until the Supreme Court of the nation rules something to actually violate the Constitution, such a claim has no effective basis. Accept it or not, those folks appointed to judge such things are the group that the Constitution itself dictated would settle such claims. Not you. Not me. Not even Wayne LaPierre.

(Now we can get into how judicial review was really hammered out in the decades following ratification, but suffice it to say it is what it is.)

As far as "taken straight without any dilution, additives or other meddling" -- that's a great line, but it doesn't actually mean anything. Not a single person who's been alive in the last 200 years ever lived under the strict wording of the US Constitution. We have no possible way of even visualizing what our country would be today if we did. Being taught only what the Constitution says would not benefit someone trying to understand US government and society from, well pretty much from the end of 1787 on.

 

[jad0110]

That test at the bottom of the prior page was something! I'd bet I would do better than average, but I still wouldn't score more than 40%!

While I am a bit pissed about inarguable meddling and twisting (however major or minor it may be) of the subject matter to fit a personal agenda in public schools, I think the majority of parents in this country are far too stupid to be trusted with the solely with the complete education of their own child... As a matter of fact, most people who have children are so stupid they probably shouldn't have reproduced in the first place.

Here's this kicker though, if in fact most people with children are too stupid to teach them, how did they (the parents) get that stupid to begin with? They went to government schools. Catch 22, eh?

Actually, my wife describes herself as "stupid" (again, her word, not mine), and she was rather worried about homeschooling at first. But the lessons are so guided and well laid out (with the better curriculums anyway) that yes, even a moron can do it . As long as said moron can read. To my wife's surprise, she is learning as she goes too. Later, as coursework becomes more advanced, it also becomes more self guided so the parent/teacher becomes more of a quality assurance evaluator of sorts than anything else.

And as I said, I don't have to ship my son off to a frickin victim disarmament zone either, which is alone worth the sacrifice in my wife's potential income.

Where has everyone been? I have been in education for 29 years. This is not new and has been progressively getting worse. This actually is pretty mild compared to other stuff that is going on. The pres does not want you to have a choice in where to send your kids, he hates the voucher system. Wise up everyone, schools are nothing but a propaganda mill.

I recall history text books that presented history with the following method: Terrible injustice/problem A exists that is fixed by government action / regulation B. Injustice C is fixed by government action D, and so on and so forth. Injustice E is still causing havoc because evil/greedy/racist/sexist opponents block government action F. In modern history (say, roughly 1900 onwards), the government solution that "fixes" everything is frequently championed/pushed by the same major political party that shall remain unnamed, and the wording of the text often recited the same slogans and catch phrases used by said political party in advancing their ideology / agenda.

I recall other texts that described the cradle-to-grave society (ie, the USSR) as being like a utopia because all of the peoples' needs are met by their political leaders, while in the US people are "left to fend for themselves" in a harsh world.

Its all incredibly self serving. The State run school system teaching children that the State is their friend and they are only trying to help :banghead: .

 

[Cee Zee]

it's also allowed to be interpreted as the times change. It's a "living document"

That just leads to the constitution meaning absolutely nothing. We are fast approaching that situation already. We have extreme restrictions on free speech for example. We can't buy an ad in a newspaper stating our views in the time period leading up to an election. That's what the "living document" theory has given us. The entire purpose of freedom of speech was to give us the right to express ourselves on political issues. Now it is severely curtailed.

No sir. I will fight to the death to end that "living document" baloney. We have a constitution and the means to amend it. We do NOT have a system where judges can write law. That took that ability illegally. They exist solely to settle disputes period. They have become the final word in everything in this nation and I know that was never the intention of the founding fathers and I know it is not written into that document. That was the greatest mistake this nation ever made. Amend the constitution or obey it. It is the law and not a "living" thing. If it's living I want it to grow into something that punishes anyone who tries to curtail our rights. I want everyone who disagrees with me exported. I want to be king. Get the picture?

 

[Sam1911]

Ok, well you obviously have a strong view, so do your best to make the country what you think it should be. (Like many thousands of people on both sides of every issue are trying to do.)

I'm sure we're at least partially on the same side of some issues so I applaud your efforts.

As I said, though, no one alive now, or alive 100 years ago, or alive 100 years before that, has ever lived strictly under the US Constitution as literally written, so I guess be careful what you wish for. Try as I have, I can't quite envision what this Nation would look like today if we did. I'm not sure it would be a good thing, not sure it would even be here, but I applaud your enthusiasm for it.

 

[Cee Zee]

I don't mind living under a different constitution Sam. I just think it should be done the prescribed way - by amendment. And I think the constitution was followed right up to the Marbury Vs. Madison trial. People seem to forget that we had a strong common law tradition that we got from the English long before the constitution was put into effect. People in this country always pretty much agreed to work within that framework from the start. It was just assumed that certain things were true and that they had been settled long before between governments and the governed. A lot of what many think are "living document" changes in the constitution actually come from common law. If we fail to know Blackstone in this country we fail to understand the courts that have governed us for so long. Blackstone had just published his seminal work on common law (Commentaries on the Laws of England) in the period leading up to the Revolution and the subsequent writing of the constitution. The courts in particular followed the traditions of common law extensively mainly because there was no American legal tradition yet to follow. Blackstone is still cited very often by the Supreme Court. Blackstone was a Tory of course as were about a third of Americans at the time of the Revolution. It's no surprised that the work he produced influenced our founding fathers not only in their written works but in the judiciary opinions. John Adams was a strong supporter of Blackstone for example. The Federalist Papers, the Declaration Of Independence and even the Constitution itself all owe a lot to Blackstone.

So when I see courts following those traditions I don't freak out and scream my head off or anything. But our courts have gone far beyond that making rulings are very clearly contrary to not only the Constitution but to common law also. For example severely curtailing our freedom of speech is not part of the common law tradition. It's the exact opposite. Everyone in this country expected those campaign finance laws to be declared unconstitutional but surprise - they weren't. Neither was Obamacare. Our illustrious chief justice actually re-wrote the law to suit his idea of what would be constitutional. What a crock.

So unless someone can give me a reference either in common law or the constitution I am very unlikely to accept that a specific decision is valid. No way Roberts can write law for us. That's just way too far over the line and is a perfect example of what happens when we decide the constitution is just a guideline instead of a stone tablet that can't be trampled on. Yes we had issues with the actual constitution but not with the Bill of Rights. That has been very much a part of our law since the beginning and until recently no one dared tinker with it. Now that's all changed and lookout for the fallout. Because once you toss the entire constitution out, which is what has happened, the inevitable conclusion will be war because large groups of people will want to take advantage of other groups of people and the constitution won't be there to solve the differences. When you see the second amendment effectively eliminated, which is pretty much the case in California right now with the effective ban of all types of ammunition, then you can thank the "living document' argument. They will warp it to read into it whatever they want and what can we do to stop them. "...the blood of patriots and tyrants." It's almost guaranteed without a written document to protect our rights effectively. It's the compact we agreed to live by. Some have chosen to ignore it. Others will demand they stick to it. It's a recipe for civil war almost certainly. That's why I hate the idea of that "living document" crap. The founding fathers made no such provision. They did allow the common law exceptions including Marbury Vs. Madison BTW. But they never would have agreed to surrender their free speech. We have already did that. What else will they shove down our throats?

Again since the constitution is nothing but a rag, I want to be king. Don't think it can't happen. Look at Putin. Heck look at Obama. Do you really want him deciding who gets medical treatment and who doesn't? It will be just like the Chevy dealerships that got closed even though they were making money and the others that stayed open because they were on the D side of the aisle. A living document can never work. I think we could be on the brink of a civil war in a few years when Obamacare really kicks in. The die is cast and the "living document" was the catalyst.

 

[CopperFouling]

Nor is it to be altered to compensate for changing "social" norms. Society may well change. The law does not.

The problem with this view is that they refuse to recognize the complexities inherent in language. Consider Amendment VIII, for example, with its reference to "cruel and unusual punishment." Such punishment is dependent on the context in which it occurs. For example, drawing and quartering was once commonplace, but it would very likely be viewed as "cruel and unusual" today. The same with capital punishment for stealing sheep. The function of determining whether or not some punishment is "cruel and unusual" is left to the judgment of the judicial system. If there were some absolute meaning, why not simply state that? (Is that even possible, short of listing every possible punishment? And what about ones that are invented later?)

In a 1789 letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson himself acknowledged that one set of laws may be adequate for one generation and inadequate for others: "On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. ...Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years" (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html). Evidently, Jefferson at that point was ambivalent about the Founders' ability to proscribe laws for the future, which seems to suggest that Jefferson, at least, was not an absolutist.

(Many of his critics, by the way, argued that the purchase of the Louisiana Territory under his administration was unconstitutional, since adding territory by treaty is not specifically a power assigned to the federal government by the Constitution. And Jefferson himself used that same line of argument...when it suited his purposes.)

Now consider the construction of Amendment II: "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." The independent clause of the sentence "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is clear, especially when considering the political context of "people" (i.e. the masses).

But the first part of that is grammatically puzzling. "A well regulated Militia" seems to function as an appositive, but it would be in apposition to "right," which is certainly not a militia. And what does "well regulated" mean? Obviously, someone has to create and enforce the regulations. Who? Amendment II is unclear about that.

And the second part is also somewhat unclear. Does the "security of a free State" refer to preserving individual freedoms? Or does it refer to freedom of a literal "State" defending itself against outside threats? Or both? Or neither?

I'm not trying to be partisan here. I have grave concerns myself about infringements upon our rights, including our right to privacy (a word, which, by the way, is not mentioned at all in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any of the subsequent amendments) among others. However, I think that arguing "It means what it says" is an oversimplification of a complex (and not always perfectly clear) document.

P.S. Just for clarity on this post, since it deals with law, I want to be clear that I am not a judge. My screen name is an allusion (and it happened to be the first one that came to mind when I created the account).

 

[SunnySlopes]

I like how people almost always like to speak of "The Government" as if it's some sort of separate entity or creature all its own.

Now you're being deliberately obtuse. Govt has become a creature all its own.
They spend money like drunken whores with no repercussions whatsoever. The current Poser-In-Chief has spent hundreds of millions of dollars for vacations for himself and his brats at a time when most Americans can't even make rent.

And my comparison to German Jews is completely valid. They obeyed increasingly oppressive and totalitarian laws because they assumed govt had power to set limits.

Like I said earlier, I can't speak on the subject forthrightly because of the rules of the forum. But I believe in small government. Those idiots in DC can't even manage their own lives and they have no business trying to run mine.

 

[beatledog7]

Living document? To be interpreted?

Can anyone show me the word "interpret" in the Constitution? Can you point to the spot where one of the three branches is given that power?

It was not meant to be all-encompassing in the sense of describing how we should deal with every little thing that comes up; that much is true. It didn't need to be. Covering every possibility was not the Constitution's purpose because being involved in everything was not the purpose of the federal government.

Its purpose was to clearly define and thereby place strict limits on federal government power, and it did that very neatly and succinctly. Later, the demand that federal power be limited was reiterated in Amendment Ten:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This simple and direct statement (and others such as the well-abused Commerce and General Welfare clauses) has since been twisted and stretched to accommodate the political whims of Congress, presidents, and the courts. The Constitution's very simple words have been corrupted, and this has allowed the federal government to become an all-powerful, all-intrusive monster. It has been allowed to do what we declared in 1776 that the King of England had done:

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

We went to war over such things in the past--now we sit idly by and condone them because we like being coddled by federal programs and because of the so-called "interpretive" power of nine robed figures?

I am NOT advocating violence; I am simply employing hyperbole to make the point.

 

[jad0110]

But the first part of that is grammatically puzzling. "A well regulated Militia" seems to function as an appositive, but it would be in apposition to "right," which is certainly not a militia. And what does "well regulated" mean? Obviously, someone has to create and enforce the regulations. Who? Amendment II is unclear about that.

Discussions I have seen on this topic indicate that at the time, the word "regulated" could just as easily have been replaced with "equipped", (to put in good order, as one of the definitions of "regulate" states). It didn't mean to pass a myriad of "common sense gun laws" as frequently interpreted today.

 

[CopperFouling]

Discussions I have seen on this topic indicate that at the time, the word "regulated" could just as easily have been replaced with "equipped", (to put in good order, as one of the definitions of "regulate" states).

That is precisely my point. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (the authoritative source for older meanings of words), regulate could indeed mean "To make regular or even in form." This definition appeared around 1652. But it could also mean "To control, govern, or direct, esp. by means of regulations or restrictions." That definition appeared around 1425. According to the OED, both meanings are extant at the time that the Constitution was written. Since we can't favor both meanings at once, or at least it would be exceedingly difficult to do so, we are forced to make a judgement (i.e. "interpretation") about which one is the "right" one. Our judgement is likely to influence the way that we think about Amendment II.

Hence, the writer of the study guide in the OP's post appears to have committed such an act of judgment, even if his judgment, in the views of many THR members, was entirely wrong.

It didn't mean to pass a myriad of "common sense gun laws" as frequently interpreted today

That is a tenable position to me, considering the clarity of the main part of Amendment II. The part that is more murky is the first half of the sentence.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Any question why parents are home schooling? Schools don't teach. They indoctrinate. Worked for Adolph, Stalin, Mao, etc.

 

[giggitygiggity]

That is ridiculous. Fortunately, at my high school, all the history and social studies teachers were cool guys and conservative Republicans and they weren't afraid to voice their opinions and bash the female liberal English teachers.