• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why you can't let liberals write school books!

No you'd be wrong, and I'm shocked you'd call yourself a libertarian. I think they want their card back you don't belong in that constitutionalist realm of libertarians.

History is history. I am a libertarian with the guts to look at the truth square in the face. I am shocked that you would call yourself a libertarian with such a callous disregard for truth.
 
Schoolbooks have to be written from at least a 'somewhat' liberal point of view, mainly because the real conservatives still think that planet Earth is flat and the sun and stars revolve around it.

I bet you read that during your high school AP history homework last night...
 
I still remember my history book in school telling me the recession was Hoovers fault. :doh

Or how about how FDR had a solid plan to get the nation out of the recession.

Or my favorite of all that bread lines were because there was no food. :lamo

Having taught American History for over three decades - along with Government - I never came across a textbook with that "information" in it. Could you provide the name and publisher of this book please?
 
I see.
I guess "some" equals "real" in some corners of the world.
Probably that part just over the edge.




Maybe so.

Me, I'm just trying to make a point without being too disagreeable, some conservatives are a little less conservative than others.
 
This is based on the faulty premise that the textbook contains an inaccuracy. It doesn't. The historical meaning of the second amendment was, in fact, related to the militia. It has changed over the centuries, like much of the constitution. But it is well known among historians that the original meaning was related to militia service.

Incorrect, and only reflects a revisionist bias. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Colonists did not carry arms in order to be members of the militia back in the colonial period; they carried arms for self-defense and to provide meat for the dinner table. When they organized for group common defense this formed a local milita. The local militia was the basis for the early military forces used in the rebellion which turned into a Revolution (because we won). The right of individuals to own weapons predates the Constitution, and has it's foundation in the English Bill of Rights enacted after the forced abdication of James II which states "That the subjects which are Protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." This established the idea of a citizen's right to a means of defense against their own oppressive government.

Furthermore, the development of the Bill of Rights came out of Anti-Federalist efforts, among whom included Noah Webster who argued in one of the first Anti-Federalist tracts:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."

Online Library of Liberty - Webster, Noah. An / Examination / into the / leading principles / of the / Federal Constitution / proposed by the late / Convention / held at Philadelphia. / With / Answers to the principal objections / that have been rais

During the various state ratification conventions the arguments were clearly in support of an individual right and opposed to ideas of a "select milita" (national guard). For example during the Pennsylvania convention Delegate Robert Whitehill proposed a series of amendments which (along with the Virginia Constitution) greatly influenced the later development of the Bill of Rights; and included language showing that keeping and bearing arms was very clearly an individual right:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals...

http://history.wisc.edu/csac/docume...pa robert whitehill proposed amend 12 Dec.pdf

Pennsylvania Delegate John Smiley voiced a typical concern about limiting the right to bear arms to the possible creation of a "select militia" (National Guard) and was one of many who opposed it bitterly.

"Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army.... When a select militia is formed, the people in general may be disarmed."
"The Documentary History of The Ratification of The Constitution." (1976), Merrill Jensen, ed., see page 508.

Similar support for an individual right unrelated to militia service were found in The Massachusetts convention where Samuel Adams called for a bill of rights which provided:

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...."
"The Grand Incendiary" (1973) Paul Lewis, pgs. 359-60.

These ideals were regularly expressed at most other conventions including Virginia and New York. There were many leading citizens like Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry who felt this way. Even James Madison's first draft of the Bill of Rights clearly indicates that he saw the right to bear arms as a private civil right equal to freedom of speech, religion, etc. I could go on and on, citing more original quotes, but it should be patently clear to any Constitutional scholar that the 2nd Amendment right was NEVER intended to be restricted to an organized militia.

This book says it's preparation for the advanced placement exam, so the correct wording in the book will depend on what they're looking for in the exam...

Then the exam was misleading as well and should be corrected.
 
Last edited:
Just one problem with your argument, captain adverse, you provide no evidence that the offered amendments were passed at the various ratification conventions. Simply because a bill is put forth means little, they only become effective when they receive majority votes for passage.

For some reason the bill that got passed and became the Second Amendment has a rather specific reference to "militia". Why do the adamant Second Amendment proponents always seem to ignore the initial phrase: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . ."

Quoting Noah Webster as one of the "Anti-Federalists" must be a mistake on your part, right? Because if that is what you believe, one must wonder about the interpretation of the quotes you supply.

The paragraph following the one in which Webster excoriates "standing armies" begins as follows:
In what then does real power consist? The answer is short and plain—in property. Could [44] we want any proofs of this, which are not exhibited in this country, the uniform testimony of history will furnish us with multitudes. But I will go no farther for proof, than the two governments already mentioned, the Roman and the British.
continuing on from an explanation of the influence wide-spread property ownership had in both Empires, Webster wrote:
A general and tolerably equal distribution of landed property is the whole basis of national freedom: The system of the great Montesquieu will ever be erroneous, till the words property or lands in fee simple are substituted for virtue, throughout his Spirit of Laws.

Virtue, patriotism, or love of country, never was and never will be, till mens’ natures are changed, a fixed, permanent principle and support of government. But in an agricultural country, a general possession of land in fee simple, may be rendered perpetual, and the inequalities introduced by commerce, are too fluctuating to endanger government. An equality of property, with a necessity of alienation, constantly operating to destroy combinations of powerful families, is the very soul of a republic—While this continues, the people will inevitably possess both power and freedom; when this is lost, power departs, liberty expires, and a commonwealth will inevitably assume some other form.
Damn, Mr Webster sounds like a socialist!
 
Having taught American History for over three decades - along with Government - I never came across a textbook with that "information" in it. Could you provide the name and publisher of this book please?

How am I supposed to still remember that information? :roll:
 
Really? Its sad when someone claims to be a centrist has no idea what the right side is; kind of unbalanced point of view - shocking coming from the radical extremist on the left - not.

Schoolbooks have to be written from at least a 'somewhat' liberal point of view, mainly because the real conservatives still think that planet Earth is flat and the sun and stars revolve around it.
 
I've never called myself a libertarian and actually have great disdain for their anarchist elements or extremes. But you declaring a fact and calling it the truth is nothing more than a lie and living a lie; which is sad for you.

History is history. I am a libertarian with the guts to look at the truth square in the face. I am shocked that you would call yourself a libertarian with such a callous disregard for truth.
 
Just one problem with your argument, captain adverse, you provide no evidence that the offered amendments were passed at the various ratification conventions. Simply because a bill is put forth means little, they only become effective when they receive majority votes for passage.

Had you quoted me I would have seen this and responded sooner. :) You are in error in your facts. The Constitution was ratified first, however two states refused to ratify (North Carolina and Rhode Island), citing the absence of a Bill of Rights and calling for amendments before ratification. They both supported a right of the people to bear arms. Of the remaining 11 States, five ratified under the condition a Bill of Rights be added (these included New York and Virginia); and in two more influential minorities clamored for it. That's nine of the 13 States pressing for the Bill of Rights and demanding an amendment regarding the people's right to bear arms.

For some reason the bill that got passed and became the Second Amendment has a rather specific reference to "militia". Why do the adamant Second Amendment proponents always seem to ignore the initial phrase: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . ."

Madison's draft was lengthy and convoluted and underwent extensive edits in the House of Representatives. For example since "the right of the people" was already contained in the provision, the comment that the militia would consist "of the body of the people" was deleted. A religious exemption was deleted due to objections that the Congress might exempt too many people on these grounds and thus destroy the concept of the militia. When the House submitted the proposal to the Senate they had indicated that the right be limited to keeping and bearing arms "for the common defense." The Senate refused the limitation choosing instead to retain its broadest form.

No one doubted that the right to bear arms was an individual right, not until the very first Federal weapons control act back in the 1930's using the power of the commerce clause to prevent the sale and possession of tommy guns. Prior to that state and local limitations were almost non-existent; typically limited to open carry and/or concealed carry bans while within city limits. In each case you could still own a gun.

As for your comments on Mr. Webster? The Federalist Papers were written by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. Mr. Webster wrote as an Anti-Federalist. I will ignore the attempt to undermine his credibility and address the distrust of standing armies issue.

He was not unusual in his distrust of standing armies, since many citizens distrusted standing armies after having spent nearly a decade fighting them. In fact the second Congress enacted the Militia Act of 1792, rather than create a standing army. The Act required every free able bodied white male citizen who was 18 to 45 years old to be enrolled in the militia and within six months provide himself with a good musket or firelock plus ammunition and equipment. Although there was a small federal force (one regiment) the nation depended upon an armed citizenry as the main bulwark of national defense. This Act remained on the books until 1903. Also note that while militia membership was required by law, the people armed themselves and owned their own arms and ammunition.

It's people who want to revise the history of our nation and the development of the 2nd Amendment who truly fail to understand the history of the process. Now, thanks to that lack of understanding we happily have it cleared up for us in the SCOTUS Heller and McDonald decisions I previously cited. Strangely, the rationale of the majority follows actual legislative and historical intent. The opinion of the minority plays with history, just like you attempted to do.
 
Last edited:
Really? Its sad when someone claims to be a centrist has no idea what the right side is; kind of unbalanced point of view - shocking coming from the radical extremist on the left - not
.




I post what I feel like posting, I really don't care whether anyone likes what I post or not.

No one is forced to read what I post.




"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers
 
Point of views are great, calling conservatives flat earth followers is pathetic and you deserve the extremist label you earned.


I post what I feel like posting, I really don't care whether anyone likes what I post or not.

No one is forced to read what I post.




"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers
 
You are wrong. That is historically accurate. So, this is what happens when you let historians write history books.

The book is wrong and not historical. And since when did historians decide to write textbooks for primary and secondary education? I'm sure that textbook publishers have some staff people who are the veters. Whether they had much education on "history" or not is another thing.
'
 
Why? It's a high school history textbook, not a constitutional law textbook.

No, they would have to go into a bunch of screwy reasoning that level headed teenagers couldn't begin to understand or attempt to use. But the basics should be understandable and are not told here.

The primary concern here is the historical meaning of the second amendment.

And was stated wrongly.


The fact that the second amendment changed in 2008 to refer to an individual right rather than a militia right doesn't belong in a chapter about the eighteenth century.

It was always an individual right.
 
Incorrect, and only reflects a revisionist bias. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

No, that describes you. Your argument is insipid, and the quotes you cite only go to support my argument. I believe I've already posted the quote from the distinguished conservative historian Garry Wills but I will post it one more time so people like you might start getting it through your heads.

1. Bear Arms. "To bear arms is, in itself, a military term. One does not bear arms against a rabbit. The phrase simply translates the Latin arma ferre. The infinitive ferre, to bear, comes from the verb fero. The plural noun arma explains the plural usage in English ('arms'). One does not 'bear arm.' Latin arma is, etymologically, war 'equipment,' and it has no singular forms. By legal and other channels, arma ferre entered deeply into the European language of war. To bear arms is such a synonym for waging war that Shakespeare can call a just war 'just-borne arms' and a civil war 'self-borne arms.' Even outside the phrase 'bear arms,' much of the noun’s use alone echoes Latin phrases: to be under arms (sub armis), the call to arms (ad arma), to follow arms (arma sequi), to take arms (arma capere), to lay down arms (arma ponere). 'Arms' is a profession that one brother chooses as another chooses law or the church. An issue undergoes the arbitrament of arms. In the singular, English 'arm' often means a component of military force (the artillery arm, the cavalry arm)
[...]
2. To keep. Gun advocates read 'to keep and bear' disjunctively, and think the verbs refer to entirely separate activities. 'Keep,' for them, means 'possess personally at home'— a lot to load into one word. To support this entirely fanciful construction, they have to neglect the vast literature on militias. It is precisely in that literature that to-keep-and-bear is a description of one connected process. To understand what 'keep' means in a military context, we must recognize how the description of a local militia’s function was always read in contrast to the role of a standing army. Armies, in the ideology of the time, should not be allowed to keep their equipment in readiness." [...]
In America, the Articles of Confederation required that "every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia sufficiently armed and accoutred shall provide and constantly ready for use, in public stores, number of field pieces and tents, a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and equipage" (equipage being etymological sense of arma). Thus is as erroneous to suppose that "keep" means, of itself, "keep at home" as to think that "arms" means only guns. Patrick Henry tells us, the militia's arms include "regimentals, etc."˜ flags, ensigns, engineering tools, siege apparatus, and other "accoutrements of war.
Some arms could be kept at home, course. Some officers kept their most valuable piece of war equipment, a good cross-country horse, at home, where its upkeep was a daily matter feeding and physical regimen. But military guns were not ideally kept home. When militias were armed, it was, so far as possible, with guns standard issue, interchangeable parts, uniform in their shot, upkeep and performance— the kind of "firelocks" Trenchard wanted kept "in every parish" (not every home)[.]"
To Keep and Bear Arms, Garry Wills

To anybody who knows anything about history, this isn't an issue. If you're unbiased and even remotely educated about eighteenth century history, it is clear that the original intent of the second amendment is a militia-right, not an individual right. The individual right to own guns was considered a natural right that is nowhere directly referenced in the bill of rights.
 
check out the 3rd amendment in that rewrite

the people are not required to quarter (house) soldiers in peacetime


Amendment III

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.

property rights under assault here
 
The book is wrong and not historical. And since when did historians decide to write textbooks for primary and secondary education? I'm sure that textbook publishers have some staff people who are the veters. Whether they had much education on "history" or not is another thing.
'

Whoever wrote the passage quoted in the OP is obviously knowledgeable about history, since they are aware of the original meaning of the second amendment as it is understood by academic historians.
 
I've never called myself a libertarian and actually have great disdain for their anarchist elements or extremes. But you declaring a fact and calling it the truth is nothing more than a lie and living a lie; which is sad for you.

Whatever you are, you failure to acknowledge the historical truth of the second amendment is pathetic. It is either due to ignorance or a willful denial of facts. Either way it is inexcusable.

One more time:

A Historian Who Knows Far More About This Subject Than You said:
1. Bear Arms. "To bear arms is, in itself, a military term. One does not bear arms against a rabbit. The phrase simply translates the Latin arma ferre. The infinitive ferre, to bear, comes from the verb fero. The plural noun arma explains the plural usage in English ('arms'). One does not 'bear arm.' Latin arma is, etymologically, war 'equipment,' and it has no singular forms. By legal and other channels, arma ferre entered deeply into the European language of war. To bear arms is such a synonym for waging war that Shakespeare can call a just war 'just-borne arms' and a civil war 'self-borne arms.' Even outside the phrase 'bear arms,' much of the noun’s use alone echoes Latin phrases: to be under arms (sub armis), the call to arms (ad arma), to follow arms (arma sequi), to take arms (arma capere), to lay down arms (arma ponere). 'Arms' is a profession that one brother chooses as another chooses law or the church. An issue undergoes the arbitrament of arms. In the singular, English 'arm' often means a component of military force (the artillery arm, the cavalry arm)
[...]
2. To keep. Gun advocates read 'to keep and bear' disjunctively, and think the verbs refer to entirely separate activities. 'Keep,' for them, means 'possess personally at home'— a lot to load into one word. To support this entirely fanciful construction, they have to neglect the vast literature on militias. It is precisely in that literature that to-keep-and-bear is a description of one connected process. To understand what 'keep' means in a military context, we must recognize how the description of a local militia’s function was always read in contrast to the role of a standing army. Armies, in the ideology of the time, should not be allowed to keep their equipment in readiness." [...]
In America, the Articles of Confederation required that "every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia sufficiently armed and accoutred shall provide and constantly ready for use, in public stores, number of field pieces and tents, a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and equipage" (equipage being etymological sense of arma). Thus is as erroneous to suppose that "keep" means, of itself, "keep at home" as to think that "arms" means only guns. Patrick Henry tells us, the militia's arms include "regimentals, etc."˜ flags, ensigns, engineering tools, siege apparatus, and other "accoutrements of war.
Some arms could be kept at home, course. Some officers kept their most valuable piece of war equipment, a good cross-country horse, at home, where its upkeep was a daily matter feeding and physical regimen. But military guns were not ideally kept home. When militias were armed, it was, so far as possible, with guns standard issue, interchangeable parts, uniform in their shot, upkeep and performance— the kind of "firelocks" Trenchard wanted kept "in every parish" (not every home)[.]"
http://www.potowmack.org/garwills.html
 
No, that describes you. Your argument is insipid, and the quotes you cite only go to support my argument. I believe I've already posted the quote from the distinguished conservative historian Garry Wills but I will post it one more time so people like you might start getting it through your heads.



To anybody who knows anything about history, this isn't an issue. If you're unbiased and even remotely educated about eighteenth century history, it is clear that the original intent of the second amendment is a militia-right, not an individual right. The individual right to own guns was considered a natural right that is nowhere directly referenced in the bill of rights.

Mr. Wills is entitled to his "grammatical" interpretation. I provided factual quotes and analysis in support of my position regarding what the citizens of the Revolution considered the right to bear arms meant. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it is not my problem.

You are wrong, Mr. Wills is wrong. Facts are facts, and we now know that despite the "wrong interpretations" previously put forward by people like yourself that it has been clarified under Heller and McDonald. Nuff said!
 
Mr. Wills is entitled to his "grammatical" interpretation. I provided factual quotes and analysis in support of my position regarding what the citizens of the Revolution considered the right to bear arms meant. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it is not my problem. You are wrong, Mr. Wills is wrong. Facts are facts, and we now know that despite the "wrong interpretations" previously put forward by people like yourself that it has been clarified under Heller and McDonald. Nuff said!

You're wrong. Prof. Wills is right.

The fact that you can't even directly counter his argument is proof of that.
 
Back
Top Bottom