michiganfan
Member
I totally agree. This is liberal propaganda.
And if there was no agenda, why would they put that misleading statement in the text ? I don't need a tin foil hat to pick up the purpose why it is there, and its not there by accident .
Actually, it looks to me like an accurate statement.
Agreed. What some apparently don't realize is that "i.e." means "for example." Thus the added phrase "for military purposes" is only an example of the purposes for which the people may keep and bear arms. We've burned a lot of literary gunpowder over the placement of the commas in the original Amendment, so lets scrutinize the literal meaning of the added clause.
If you read the 2nd Amendment literally, it gives ONE reason for being included: "...militia being neccessary to the security of a free state, ..." It really does protect, expressly, the right of the people to bear arms in defense of freedom and security. Those, to my mind, are military -- combative -- purposes.Actually, it looks like an inaccurate statement to me.
The 2nd Amendment was placed there for the reason you stated, not for military reasons. The edited book leads people to believe that guns should be for the military purposes only, not because the People (I.e. civilians) Have the Right to own them for their own reasons.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms [i.e. for military purposes] shall not be infringed.
(I guess. Not my definition, but perhaps others'.)
Agreed. What some apparently don't realize is that "i.e." means "for example." Thus the added phrase "for military purposes" is only an example of the purposes for which the people may keep and bear arms. We've burned a lot of literary gunpowder over the placement of the commas in the original Amendment, so lets scrutinize the literal meaning of the added clause.
Double Naught Spy said:The use of brackets to insert commentary are indicative of stand-alone statements not part of the original text. This would be no different than a hyperlink being used, but you can't use hyperlinks in textbooks (printed). This isn't an uncommon thing do. In fact, the brackets are there to indicate that the purported clarification is NOT part of the original text and so is to not to appear to be a change or edit.
The commentary could have been saved for other text above or below the amendment text. You may not like that the commentary was placed in the text as it as and you may not agree with the commentary, but it is not an edit of the text.
I agree with you and DNS. While subtle, the effect, if not the intent, of altering the Second Amendment's meaning is present.Double Naught Spy is technically correct, but this editing convention is beyond the training and understanding of the typical high school student. Most don't understand how the brackets apply and will presume the bracketed section is part of the original document. I'm sure the editors know this and did it in this way so they could claim the same defense that DNS expressed in the above quoted material.
Perhaps, but stupidity can result in the propagation of further error- intentional or not- the degradation of the text is apparent."You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"
Hanlon's Razor
[i.e. for military purposes]
I don't see it? Maybe my tinfoil hat is busted.
Fine words, but these "natural rights" have been, are, and will continue to be, eroded, trammeled, limited, and denied by those organizations and individuals who do not want you to have these "natural rights."We have the natural right to have guns for whatever reason, whether it be defense, hunting or decorating our walls. This is important... it is no body's business what we own and why, as long as we don't harm others.
Fine words, but these "natural rights" have been, are, and will continue to be, eroded, trammeled, limited, and denied by those organizations and individuals who do not want you to have these "natural rights."
(Preamble specifically for the Bill of Rights --not the original Preamble to the constitutio itself.)
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
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.
...The 14th Edition places an even greater emphasis on the global context of American history through a new feature, "Thinking Globally."...
I/we (well some) understand this. The crux of the matter and what is at issue is, in these tens or hundreds(?) of thousands of textbooks, it is now interpreted and taught as "military". Also, in one of my prior posts, my first-hand experience bears this out.Militia ARE NOT the military. Militia are the PEOPLE.
Here's the textbook:
http://www.cengage.com/search/productOverview.do?N=0&Ntk=P_Isbn13&Ntt=9780495903468
That's all I need to know right there.
The book is Copyrighted 2011 so the Heller and Chicago decisions should have been mentioned.