Recommend a good book to me....

[ksnecktieman]

Not much chance of thaat mike, I am 57, and I have five grandkids,, I hope That they are allowed to own guns when they grow up.

 

[Eleven Mike]

Don't be down, neck. It's never too late to learn.

 

[FTF]

Man, I didn't think so many people would list soooo many different books!

I ordered

Constitution in Exile... like 12 bucks used on Amazon, even for hardcover! I really like watching the judge every morning on Fox while I'm getting ready for work. I see him as a very upfront and honest person who actually cares about the law. Despite the fact he's on Fox, I really don't think he has an agenda... besides interpreting the law as it was written. But who knows, maybe after I read his book I'll think otherwise.

I'm also thinking about getting O'Reilly's Culture Warrior, but I'm a one book at a time person. He was just on Cavuto talking about the secular progressives and I agree with a lot of what he says. At work I have had a christmas tree up at my desk all year long, and I'm taking it down after Thanksgiving as a protest against the liberal agenda to eliminate Christmas and everything else our country was founded on. I'm not sure it's a good way to protest, but people always ask me while it's up and I at least get to share my views a bit. I'm not even religious, I just think that it worked so well this long... why change everything? It's just Christmas! You can't call it Winter Celebration or any of that crap.

BUT, thank you all for your suggestions! This was a helpful thread indeed!

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

When you get to the eleventh grade, you might understand better.

When you graduate the 9th grade, go back and re-read Art 6 para 2.

 

[hugh damright]

I think any tenth grader should be able to read the 27 words of the second amendment, and understand that ANY restriction is "repugnant to the constitution".

Do you see anything that is vague, or confusing about this line?

(1)Are Tenth Graders taught principles of constitutionalism such that that are aware that a Constitution frames a government and a BOR defines limits/principles of THAT government? Since the USBOR was intended to limit only the federal government, and the Second Amendment has never been "incorporated" under the 14th "Amendment", it doesn't seem to follow that ANY restriction on the RKBA is "repugnant to the Constitution".

(2)Can Tenth Graders define the terms "natural right", "civil right", "political right, "free State", and "limited federal government" ... and put the Second Amendment in the context of free States and limited federal government?

(3) Would a Tenth Grader know about the original State BOR's and their RKBA Amendments, and about the States' requests for the Second Amendment ... and would they know what the King did which caused the Colonies to originally make such declarations?

(4)Are Tenth Graders aware that police powers were reserved to the States and that gun control powers have always been viewed as coming under these reserved powers?

 

[ksnecktieman]

Hi,: You damright, I expected you to join us. We both understand that we are on opposite sides of the "right to keep and bear arms issue". I can accept that, I have many friends that like the way you think.

I DO understand that over the last two hundred years there has been a lot of changes in this world. the quill pen has been replaced with radio, and tv, and the internet,,,, and the muzzle loading musket has been replaced with the M16, and the squad automatic weapon. I understand that the founding fathers could not comprehend instant communication with thousands of people, and I understand that they could not comprehend fully automatic weapons.

You??? Were our children taught the english language? Then either allow them to read the original text, and try to understand it, or admit that you want something different than what they did when they wrote it.

HI Art,,, is that your GRANDMA??? She has blue eyes that are pretty to us old guys,,,, I will try to keep my hands off of my keyboard, from now on:S

HI GRANDMA

 

[Eleven Mike]

When you graduate the 9th grade, go back and re-read Art 6 para 2.

The joke's getting old, I think. And aren't all corpses dead?

The statement that kicked off this little flame-fest:

I think any tenth grader should be able to read the 27 words of the second amendment, and understand that ANY restriction is "regugnant to the constitution".

Which implies that simply reading the amendment by itself should impart perfect knowledge of its application.

I disagreed, which made Rev. Corpse very angry, yet he responded with:

go back and re-read Art 6 para 2

So which is it? Is the second amendment self-sufficient, or must it be understood according to its constitutional context?

 

[Kowboy]

Geek Love

Great book.

Kowboy

 

[grampster]

Anything by Robert Ruark, especially The Old Man and the Boy stories.

Our own Matt Bracken has a two book (so far) series that will make you think.

Our own David Kantrowitz (Devonai) has a book called Reckless Faith (sci fi) and a soon to be published sequel Tarantula Nebula (I've got an autographed copy of the galley. )

 

[Ben Shepherd]

Also-

Farenheight 451- Bradbury

1984- George Orwell

A Brave New World- Aldous Huxley(first name spelled incorrectly I think)

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

So which is it? Is the second amendment self-sufficient, or must it be understood according to its constitutional context?

It "should" be self-sufficient. It often isn't. Mostly by those with a vested interest in making sure their beloved gun laws STAY on the books.

Art 6 Para 2 reads...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Incorperation is entirely unnecessary. States ARE bound by the "general" prohibitions in the BoR unless otherwise noted as in the First. Further, anyone arguing otherwise has never read the Debates of the First Congress regarding the passage of the BoR, limits on government power in general, and the exact wording as it regards the doubts of the various State conventions ratifying it.

When they stated that "the Right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed", they stated it as "We the People". Not "We the people say the FedGov can't do this". Not "We the people say the FedGov can't do this except through the commerce clause".

"We the People" clearly stated that the Right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Period. End of story. I know what the current legal "fiction" is. It is repugnant to individual Rights, the Constitution, and everything this Republic was supposed to stand for.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

Are Tenth Graders taught principles of constitutionalism such that that are aware that a Constitution frames a government and a BOR defines limits/principles of THAT government? Since the USBOR was intended to limit only the federal government, and the Second Amendment has never been "incorporated" under the 14th "Amendment", it doesn't seem to follow that ANY restriction on the RKBA is "repugnant to the Constitution".

Incorperation is not necessary. Do Bills being passed into law require "incorperation"? No. Once properly voted upon and signed by the Executive they pass directly into law. Same for Amendments. Once the Congress and the State legislatures vote upon them, they take immediate effect. That is a principle of Constitutionalism you SHOULD have been taught as a 10th grader and that todays modern, SCREWED UP legal system needs to relearn.

Nor does the USBOR only limit the FedGov except where explicitly noted in the First Amendment. Everything else applies via Art 6 para 2 and the 10th. The 14th was only necessary to apply this to ALL US citizens as freedmen slaves were being denied the equal Rights of a US citizen.

Enough with the thread hijack.

New reading assignment though:

Elliot's Debates of the First Congress

 

[Eleven Mike]

So, RDC, you continue to show that the Second Amendment ought to be read in the context of what the framers and their contemporaries had to say about it (Original Intent). So, now tenth-graders need to read not just the whole Constitution in order to understand Amendment 2, they need to read debates on that amendment? You seem to argue against yourself, but I agree with one of your positions.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

So, now tenth-graders need to read not just the whole Constitution in order to understand Amendment 2, they need to read debates on that amendment?

Not at all. As I stated, if you read it as written, it makes perfect sense. If you start inventing sh*t against the plain meaning, THEN you require context. :banghead:

 

[Thin Black Line]

GREAT BOOK!!!

I borrowed a first printing years back and almost failed to return it....

 

[Eleven Mike]

 

[hugh damright]

Nor does the USBOR only limit the FedGov except where explicitly noted in the First Amendment. Everything else applies via Art 6 para 2 and the 10th.

Such a construction is completely false. The USBOR was intended to limit only the US, the US Constitution doesn't limit the States unless is says "no State shall", and the supreme law of the land is the Tenth Amendment which says that powers not delegated to the US are reserved to each State.

 

[dragongoddess]

Well I would like to suggest Quantum Field Theory by A. Zee


As to the topic the 2nd amendment should be understood in relation to our Declaration of Independence.

 

[hugh damright]

I think any good book on the USBOR should cover the original intent and contrast our 14th "Amendment" view of things. I already mentioned one book which is called Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding. Another one is:

The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction by Akhil Reed Amar.

I have yet to read this one ... I think Amar accepts that the USBOR originally meant one thing and now it means something else, as if it is a living document, and that causes me to lose respect for the Author ... but I am under the impression that his book does help make clear two different views of the USBOR: an original view, and a post-civil war view.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

Such a construction is completely false. The USBOR was intended to limit only the US, the US Constitution doesn't limit the States unless is says "no State shall", and the supreme law of the land is the Tenth Amendment which says that powers not delegated to the US are reserved to each State.

Wrong. "Law of any State to the contrary notwithstanding" is every bit as clear as "shall not be infringed" is. Those debating this in the First Congress ratification arguments were quite clear on their intent.

The BoR was to be a list of minimum Rights protected from ANY infringement as stated. These Rights were considered fundamental to individual liberty and freedom. Since the States were ceding power to the Federal authority under teh dissolution of the Confederacy, they wanted to ensure that these Rights would never be able to be trampled on.

Decades later, the Race/freed slaves issue and Reconstruction saw a massive amount of twisting done to Constitutional first principles to keep "darky" from being considered an "equal" under the law. Such things have been compounded further due to Prohibition, it's repeal, the Drug War, and now the outright push for Socialism.

Yeah, it really does go back that far and things really have gotten that FUBAR. Don't promulgate the Myth. A Right is a Right. No matter where defined.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Some good news

My first grader recently came home from school with some coloring
book pictures regarding the Bill of Rights. Very general stuff about speech,
religion, etc. No pictures of EBRs.....

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

I recently read two books that were AMAZING

One was by a THR participant, Michael Z. Williamson: FREEHOLD

The other was by John Ringo and Linda Evans: The Road to Damascus

I found Mr. Williamson's book to be EXCELLENT. I adored it. I am asking for a hardcover for my birthday. I want him to sign it. I want it enshrined in every school. I am gonna start donating paperback copies to every library. It is brilliant.

Damascus started slow, but gained speed, and by the end, it was very very well done, and bloody scary. No other way to describe the socialist dystopia described therein.

Taken together, they are perfect companions novels.

 

[Taipei Personality]

One was by a THR participant, Michael Z. Williamson: FREEHOLD

If you liked Freehold you'll love The Weapon, by the same author.

 

[xd9fan]

I think you would have to include "The Second Amendment Primer", by Les Adams, Paladium Press pub..
It's researches the history of the right to keep and bear arms from ancient times, Greece, early England, to now.
It is short and sweet and to the point.

ohh yeah...... I have this.....great book!!!!

 

[DFW1911]

I have a great read for you: Interpersonal Conflict by Wilmot and Hocker. Grab any addition you can.

Though the psychology in it is pretty complex, it's an easy read. Don't try to memorize it, just pick up a concept or two. Then re-read again...and again.

It's just my opinion, but a sharp mind is probably the greatest weapon of all.

Take care,
DFW1911