Posted on 05/05/2017 9:32:30 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
When you wade through a sea of textbooks and lectures that mangle American history, finding one that doesn't makes an impression.
Into this category falls The Bill of Rights in Translation: What It Really Means by Amie Jane Leavitt. To see how accurate it is, just look at how this entry in the Kids' Translations series from Capstone Press handles what is arguably currently the most controversial amendment to the U. S. Constitution, particularly in an era of gun-free zones.
"To protect the country, citizens sometimes must serve as soldiers," Leavitt explains. "Citizens also have a right to protect themselves."
"The government can’t stop people from owning guns." Leavitt later amplifies this point in an amusing explanation of "bear arms" in her "Translation Guide" at the end of her book.
"We're not talking about wearing sleeveless shirts," she writes. "We're not even talking about having arms like a grizzly bear."
"In the Bill of Rights, to bear arms means to have weapons." The book came out last year and is geared towards grades 8-9. Philip Bigler, the director of The James Madison Center at James Madison University, served as consultant on the book.
About the only downside to the book is that it is printed in China but then, maybe they'll learn something too.
If I’m not mistaken, the largest textbook publisher in the country is a hardcore leftist, that has changed all the history books to push a very, very left leaning education.
It’s amazing to me that guys like the Koch Bros or Adelson, wouldn’t get something else going to put things right again.
Ping.
The Second Amendment is only “controversial” because leftists know it is the linchpin of the Bill of Rights. The bastards.
This is an area where the distinction between rights and liberties is critical. What is described in the 2nd Amendment is a LIBERTY. You can kill me for bearing arms if you think you have the authority or justification but you cannot stop me.
Taking back the truth will set us free. We have to teach children the truth and most truth was banned by the 60s as all Classical Christian curricula was removed/banned from Common Core which puts an evil Marxist/Freudian lens on the truth to warp it totally
Are there some good people out there. Absolutely, but they are being constantly censored and controlled. It is great that parents are looking at what ideas are being pumped into children’s heads.....it is a start. But the hyper-sexualization and destruction of the Natural Family (Objective Truth) is the worst, since it easily destroys virtue formation in children and controls their strong desires (worldview) for life. Promoting vice, like our “Justice” system now does with sodomy and baby-killing promotion, is a MAJOR problem and will destroy a culture and corrupt minds of children as Cicero stated.
All ideas matter. All “new” curricula written after the 1920s needs to be looked at with a fine tooth comb because the Marxist/Freudian worldview was forced into most textbooks, literature, etc., to destroy Christian worldview (the Kill God/Postmodernists knew to make slaves of the masses, they had to destroy free will and individualism/Christian worldview) and create division and hate-—identity politics/divisive language to embed hate of the “Other” (true diversity).
We have a totally engineered scientific “society”-—and they are using Hegelian techniques on all of us. Only true Christianity will create unity and bring back Objective Truth to our Constitution. It is not possible with any other ideology/worldview, since truth is not relative and only Christianity is the most rational, just, free faith/theology in the history of the World. Children are forced to believe in “moral relativism” (satanism) by TV/programming/publik skools. Remove your children from the irrationality of tubes/screens. etc. Real life unstructured Reality and reading the Great Books/Bible is the only way to Wisdom of the Ages—those minds which created the Age of Reason, the US Constitution and the most just, free political system in the history of mankind. Christian worldview is the only Theology which rid the world of slavery and pederasty and incest and polygamy are “Good” and “Natural”—all normal and fine in all other “cultures”, religions.
The Postmodernists sodomites had to flip 2000 years of Ethics back to the pagan, Ancient “ethic” systems so that Slavery is Freedom and Vice is Virtue, to destroy the Natural family so children could be totally warped and controlled, and unable to have Common Sense and understand Truth (God’s Design), which will make total slaves of the masses.
I've been seeing people write "bare arms" with increasing frequency in commenting on the 2A, even in the UK where English originated. Such is the state of education these days.
I would argue that to bear arms is not simply the right to own guns but to carry them unrestricted as well. What good is the right to own a gun if you are restricted in your ability to carry one for protection?
Mind exercise: How "unrestricted" can I allow?
Is a hand grenade an "arm"? How about a flamethrower?
Let's go a little less extreme here - how about a perfectly legal personal firearm, carried in an unsafe manner? Let's say I want carry my 9mm semiauto in a holster that holds the barrel horizontal (pointed out) instead of vertical (pointed down). Should I have a right to do this?
Discuss.
Gladly conceding the point that the 2nd Amendment is massively controversial these days, I would assert that, by exponential degrees, the 14th Amendment is more controversial still.
Despite the fact that the 14th was constructed to be very narrow in its application (i.e., despite having been 3rd-class citizents theretofore, the Negroes were to be protected so as to have voting rights, etc., same as anyone else).
Nowadays, the 14th is used, in conjunction with the Commerce Clause, as the left's sole bases for almost all of their legislative and bureaucratic moves.
The left makes sure that "equal justice" and "across state lines" dominates every policy they espouse.
Horizontal holsters are pretty common. Bra clip holsters for women and side carry for men.
Flamethrowers are currently legal. Flamethrower murders are, of course, very common as a result. < /sarc >
My first shoulder holster carried the piece horizontally, pointed to the rear.
Next question?
No, you do not have a right - there's a wrong way to do things and a right way. If it's unsafe, it's wrong; thus, you do not have a right. End of discussion.
To accept any restrictions as “reasonable” contradicts the Second Amendment. Once you allow restrictions it becomes a “slippery slope” as to what each of us define as “reasonable”. At the time of the creation of the Second Amendment the Founding Fathers did not envision a standing Army and state militias with citizen soldiers were preferred to a Federal standing Army. There were village militias with muskets, canon, mortars and pistols. All state of the art weaponry. And since the Fathers greatest fear was despots taking over the country, they believed citizens should be armed well enough to match weaponry possessed by a corrupt government. As for angle of a holstered sidearm, many holsters are now available with the muzzle angled forward or to the rear and either one, if accidentally discharged, could hit a bystander if they are standing close enough so that point, in my view, is moot. The bottom line, IMHO, is that it is a God given right to protect yourself anywhere, anytime and not at the discretion of any man made “authority”.
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.