Posted on 03/10/2008 1:23:17 PM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
I was sorting out some papers over the weekend ... and came upon one of my favorites. It's a page out of an "Activity Book" published by Harcourt Brace, now called Harcourt Education.
This page is entitled "Rights & Wrongs" and comes from the Harcourt social studies textbook "United States in Modern Times." The heading for this page says:
"In the late eighteenth century many people complained that the Constitution did not list rights of the people. So the authors of the Constitution decided to write a Bill of Rights. These first ten amendments to the Constitution state simply and clearly citizens' rights that the government cannot take away."
This particular page (page 14) of the "Activity Book" then lists the Bill of Rights with short explanations of each one. I thought you might like to see what this book says about the 2nd Amendment:
"The Second Amendment * says that states may enlist citizens for a trained militia [army] and provide and train them with weapons."
Are you believing that? This, my friends, is the way the government schools work to indoctrinate rather than educate.
In the heading Harcourt says that the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the people ... then they go on to say that the 2nd Amendment actually protects the rights of government.
Are you sending your children to the government to be educated?
Homeschool
IBRPSUTT.
Nope. /homeschool
“The Second Amendment * says that states may enlist citizens for a trained militia [army] and provide and train them with weapons.”
Are you believing that? This, my friends, is the way the government schools work to indoctrinate rather than educate.
Ack.... I’m getting visions of the peasants taking up their pitch forks, and hoes, and shovels and storming the castle to behead the Queen....burn the books and oh... I just can’t watch any more....
IBRPSUTT. ROTFLMAO
LOL
OK, I got the first four, what are the last four.
And we need to quit feeding that troll.
How ya doing? :>)
Harcourt was bought by Pearson, a British company run by a Socialist American woman, for what it’s worth.
Nope. I want my kids to be educated without the anti-American liberal bias.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, parent sends their child to the government to be educated. They send them there to be indoctrinated.
My kids were homeschooled.
Imagine, a pimp, acting as a politician? How unique, especially in one of the most politically corrupt city governments in America. Now, let’s watch the Mayor squirm out of this, and he will.
Sorry, I don't read or understand Lower Slobovian slang.
That is shocking stuff, even for a liberal textbook.
The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on the second amendment. Currently, 10 out of 12 lower federal courts have ruled a "collective" Militia right. Right or wrong, that's how they have ruled in over 100 cases brought before them.
So, what would YOU have this grade school textbook say?
How about telling the truth -- and this IS NOT it: "The Second Amendment * says that states may enlist citizens for a trained militia [army] and provide and train them with weapons.”
Nor is this:
The second amendment protects the ability of the states to form their own Militia from federal infringement. The states MAY arm the people (or the people may arm themselves).
Horcourt, nuff said
So, what would YOU have this grade school textbook say?
How about the 2nd amendment gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms. Pretty simple.
Here is the link: The Arms of the People Should be Taken Away
Unlike some on this forum, I can read and understand the English language. I know exactly wht you asked. And I snswered you -- but obviously YOU didn't understand 00 so I'll say it again: "How about telling the truth....?
Like: 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.
Now how do you get this out of that?
The second amendment protects the ability of the states to form their own Militia from federal infringement. The states MAY arm the people (or the people may arm themselves.
In fact, I can't even see how you got that out of the lie tht was in the Harcourt paper. Let's try again. So, what would YOU have this grade school textbook say?
We have suggestion #1 up here on the blackboard.
#1) "The 2nd amendment gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms." as offered by Ajnin
Comments please and more suggestions. Let's show Harcourt Brace how to write a history book! Are you with me? Send in your suggestions for the Grade 3-6 definition of the second amendment. Hurry. Get famous.
These are kids. Grades 3-6. Nothing wrong with what you posted, but they can learn that later on.
I need a one-liner to replace the stinking, liberal, communist agitprop being spewed by Harcourt Brace all over impressionable minds.
Give me one that ages 9-12 would understand.
Come on. Be counted. What would you have this grade school textbook say? This is the third time I asked. It can't be THAT hard. Go for it. Don't be left out!
I'll gather them up in one post and put your name right next to it! I have one. Be #2!
“The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on the second amendment. Currently, 10 out of 12 lower federal courts have ruled a ‘collective’ Militia right. Right or wrong, that’s how they have ruled in over 100 cases brought before them.”
That’s not quite true. For instance, in the Miller case of 1939 the Supremes did NOT say the 2nd Amendment was a collective right (the Left has been spreading this fiction for decades). In fact, in “Miller” the ruling specifically mentioned that the people were part of the militia and they were expected to supply their own firearms, of the type that was commonly used by the military of the day. The court ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not such a weapon. The 5th Circuit’s recent ruling in the “Emerson” case specifically held that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. The “Presser” case of 1886 also did not rule that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right, but simply held that the states had a right to regulate martial bodies engaged in drills and parades, etc. It did not hold that citizens did not have an individual right to bear arms.
That’s just a sampling.
Actually not. They ruled that the lower court should not have taken "judicial notice" that a "short barreled shotgun" *was* such a weapon. They returned the matter to the lower court for "further proceedings" in line with that ruling. Thus the lower court *could* have sought evidence or expert testimony as to wether such shotguns had, or could be, used for militia or military purposes. In the event, Miller was dead by then, and the even dumber former co-defendent, Layton, pleaded guilty in return for probatioin, which he sucessefully served out. No "further proceedings" were held as to the militia/military nature of a short barreled shotgun.
And the that is the total test of the national firearms act at the Supreme Court level. The constitutionality of taxing and restricting *machine guns* has not been tested or ruled upon at that level, let alone the outright ban on new machine guns that has been in place since 1986.
I agree. Neither did they say it was an individual right. They were silent on that issue.
They did seem to imply, however, that only Militia-type weapons were protected. One has to ask, "For civilians?"
Want to add your imput as to how Harcourt Brace should have defined the second amendment for the kids?
How about, The Constitution Provides ".. the right of the people, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Heck you could even leave in the "well regulated militia" absolute phrase if you wanted. It stands on it's own. Third graders might need to have "infringed" defined for them, but I'd leave that to the teacher edition as a suggestion.
Too complicated for you?
For the people. That's what it says. Besides, the Court did define militia as civilians. Look it up.
Oh hell no!
I always thought that first part was just superfluous mumbo-jumbo anyways. It certainly makes the second amendment cleaner by .... simply omitting it! The Founders were always doing that -- leaving in extra words and phrases for no reason.
Of course, you do agree it would be totally wrong to clean up the second amendment by leaving out the last part, leaving us with, "A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state". Ho! Can't do that! That's not what they meant.
OK. CLASS! We now have two definitions.
#1) "The 2nd amendment gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms" as offered by Ajnin and,
#2) "The right of the people, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" by El Gato.
Well, obviously, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t “give” rights, so number one is right out. :)
For the people in a Militia. That's what it means.
I mean, really. The second amendment protects the most destructive of weapons for every person, but doesn't protect the little Mickey Mouse weapons? Why not? Why didn't the Miller court simply say, "all weapons"?
"Besides, the Court did define militia as civilians."
That's true. It did. Even Alexander Hamilton said the whole nation was the militia.
Of course, the second amendment does read, "a well regulated Militia" not "a militia" and Hamilton did say, "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution."
So maybe the second amendment is referring to some subset of citizens?
Hey, fine. No one says you have to. Just sit there and criticize. You're damn good at that.
Well, that's true. But I'm having a real hard time getting definitions without being critical, so we'll table that for now.
Got a definition? I'll put you in there at #3?
Stinks up the thread?
Chill Bobbie, I said you could leave it in if you wanted.
Just leave out the "interpretation". Third graders are smart and literal minded, most of them anyway, not having had time to be corrupted. All I suggested was that the kids might not understand "infringed".
The "Why" of a constitutional provision is not as important as the "may" or "must", or in the case of the bill of rights, the "may not".
The Second Amendm,ent 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.
This lie from the Harcourt propagandaDOES NOT say the same thing as the Second Amendment:
""The Second Amendment * says that states may enlist citizens for a trained militia [army] and provide and train them with weapons."
And this thing you said is definitely does not say the same thing as the Second Amendment, either:
"The second amendment protects the ability of the states to form their own Militia from federal infringement. The states MAY arm the people (or the people may arm themselves)." ... The second amendment protects the ability of the states to form their own Militia from federal infringement. The states MAY arm the people (or the people may arm themselves). ...then don't have thwe cojones to tell us how it should read?
That's a damned lie. what the nell do you call 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.
Or can't you recognize the truth yet? You haven't seemed to have that ability before this discussion -- I don't know why I should have thought you might this time.
Hey, fine. No one says you have to. Just sit there and criticize. You're damn good at that.
I'm also damned good at recognizing lies when I see tham -- from publishers or you -- mostly you and the other pests on this forum.
Says you? The US Circuit Court for DC and the 5th US Circuit disagree with you. The Supreme Court doesn't disagree with them either, in their one ruling, in which the respondent was not even represented, and in which the government (the petitioner) advanced your interpretation in their brief, but which the Court ignored.
In Miller (in the summary of argument section), the petitioner (Solicitor General) stated:
"Indeed, the very language of the Second Amendment discloses that this right has reference only to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people as members of the state militia or other similar military organization provided for by law. The "arms" referred to in the Second Amendment are, moreover, those which ordinarily are used for military or public defense purposes, "
The court only addressed the second part of that argument: and ruled on that basis. But only to the extent that they said that the District court should not have taken judicial notice that short shotguns were such weapons, not that they were or were not:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
They never said, as they would have if accepting the "persons in militia service only" argument, "Mr. Miller is not a participating member of the state militia (or if he was that his possession of the shotgun was not in conjunction with that service), and thus the second amendment is not applicable to him" or words to that affect. They did not.
Do you always have to twist everything? I called one part of that article a lie, which it was -- it said:"The Second Amendment * says that states may enlist citizens for a trained militia [army] and provide and train them with weapons."
The Second Amendment says nothing of the kind: it 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.
Therefore, I was not lying when I said that Harcourt was lying.
Also, YOU said: “The second amendmant protects the ability of the States to form their own Militia from federal infringement. The States MAY arm the people (or the people may arm themselves. “
Which is even further from what the Amendment actually says than the Harcourt nonsense was.
... then don't have thwe cojones to tell us how it should read?
If you could read you might have seen that I suggested rather strongly that the kids should be told the truth, and I posted, word for word, what the Second Amendment ACTUALLY SAYS. Are you really so dense that you don’t take that to mean what they should actually be told the truth, instead of some bloody fairy tale?
Hey, fine. No one says you have to. Just sit there and criticize.
You are a liar. I just told you for at least the third time. If you haven’t got it by this time, you never will.
You're damn good at that.
I’ll have to try it sometime, then maybe I’ll know how you feel all the time when you dodge every question you are asked.
You can lie all you want, but I’ll tell you what I’m really quite good at -- spotting lies, whether some publisher tells them or you do.
Yes, that’s it.
Do not feed the troll.
The definition given in the book gives the impression the 2nd amendment is not an individual right but a collective right. They could have very well cited the enitre text of the 2nd amendment and the kids would have understood it.
Yes they do. Two courts. Two cases. My statement reflected the decisions of the other 10 courts in over 100 cases. Sue me.
"The Supreme Court doesn't disagree with them either, in their one ruling, in which the respondent was not even represented, and in which the government (the petitioner) advanced your interpretation in their brief, but which the Court ignored.
Correct. Nor did they agree.
"They never said, as they would have if accepting the "persons in militia service only" argument, "Mr. Miller is not a participating member of the state militia (or if he was that his possession of the shotgun was not in conjunction with that service), and thus the second amendment is not applicable to him" or words to that affect. They did not."
That is also correct. Of course, they were never asked to rule on that aspect.
The U.S. Supreme Court was asked if the tax stamp provision of the NFA violated the second amendment. It had nothing to do with whether Mr. Miller was a Militia member or not.
The social studies textbook is for third-graders. It's called an Activity Book. I'd bet there are parts of it for them to color with their crayons.
The publishers are interpreting the second amendment for this audience. I asked you to contribute. Your response is to reprint the second amendment as is.
Hey. Thanks for playing. Go back to watching Wheel of Fortune.
That the states may provide citizens with weapons to be used in a Militia. I get the impression from that statement that it protects an individual right that is exercised collectively. Like voting, for example.
"They could have very well cited the enitre text of the 2nd amendment and the kids would have understood it."
They would have understood it, yet the greatest legal minds in the country cannot? As you may be aware, there is a major disagreement as to the meaning of the second amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.