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.
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.
By your logic then all objects in the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud all from outside the solar system.
...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
No, I didn't sign off on the paperwork. :lol:I heard that NASA is sending a probe to Uranus.
Is that true?
Nope, it's based on what I've learned about some conservatives since I first bought a computer.
I see.Probably that part just over the edge.I guess "some" equals "real" in some corners of the world.
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.
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."
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...
"The Documentary History of The Ratification of The Constitution." (1976), Merrill Jensen, ed., see page 508."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 Grand Incendiary" (1973) Paul Lewis, pgs. 359-60."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...."
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.
continuing on from an explanation of the influence wide-spread property ownership had in both Empires, Webster wrote: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.
Damn, Mr Webster sounds like a socialist!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.
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?
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.
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.
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, . . ."
.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
You are wrong. That is historically accurate. So, this is what happens when you let historians write history books.
Why? It's a high school history textbook, not a constitutional law textbook.
The primary concern here is the historical meaning of the second amendment.
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.
Incorrect, and only reflects a revisionist bias. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
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
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.
'
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.
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!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?