I need a favor from all of you in school!

[UnschoolShqiponjë]

Can you please check your history books and show me exactly what it says about the 2nd amendment? Like. Go to the "Bill of Rights" section and tell me what is written under the 2nd amendment and let me know if the 2nd amendment has any footnotes and what those footnotes say. Or you could just take a picture of the page and post it here.

I appreciate it in advance, thanks a lot.

[Christian Hellhound]

Hmm, okay, I'll try to!

Edit - I found it. Here ya go...

"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."

[brainiac3397]

I think lots of people miss parts of this amendment. They either think its outdated or has to do with the right to own a weapon to hunt for food...

Have an American Govt book here somewhere, but I believe the above post covers it(Its a pretty short and simple amendment, most likely because the founding fathers overestimated our intelligence).

[UnschoolShqiponjë]

Thanks so far.

I asked this because certain textbooks have literally edited the amendment to make it sound like it isn't an individual right (or added a footnote "explaining" why it isn't). I just wanted to see how prevalent it was.

[brainiac3397]

I haven't seen any such editing or footnotes in any of the books I came across that had the US constitution in it. My high school US history textbook had explanations for parts of the constitution, but they didn't really contradict or downplay the 2nd amendment. Seeing that it's such a short and quite blunt statement, there shouldn't be a real need to define it or explain it(though learning why it was put into the constitution as part of bill of rights would be nice. The whole "protecting liberty by arming citizens in case of tyranny" sort of thing).

Editing or footnotes like that are just despicable. How academia can seriously tolerate such blatant "politicization" of education has always troubled me. Another downfall of the education system and academia.

(Clarification:I have no qualms of using education to promote political thought, but the purposeful smudging of facts for political gain I despise. I'm also not a large fan of political parties. They shouldn't even exist. I guess you can say I'm socially nationalistic, believing a nation should not be so fragmented as to stoop so low as insults and lies just to promote their own party and advance their own agenda. As Lincoln said, "government of the people, by the people, for the people...")

[154bmag]

After all, the founders knew that since they founded their nation by overthrowing their government, the time might come where they would have to do it again.
"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson

[Dead]

I don't think we have any history textbooks at my school

[Miab419]

The naval yard shooting in DC scares me. Obama will just keep pushing to increase gun control

[no]

According to the index the term "bill of rights" only appears on one page and I can't actually find it there -_-

But it's one of those shitty "big picture" textbooks that thinks that "women" is an adjective and sounds like it was written by robots.

[Lime]

The 2nd amendment is invalid because they only had single-shot muskets that took half a minute to reload back then, just like how we shouldn't have free press because there were only newspapers in that era!

[brainiac3397]

Single-shots like this?:

[Lime]

Pepperbox revolvers hadn't really come into widespread usage at the time. The highest capacity firearm you were likely to find was a flintlock pistol with multiple, non-rotating barrels.

[brainiac3397]

It shouldn't have surprised anyone however. It was basically every military minds wish for someone to come up with a weapon that'd fire at least more than once without having to reload each shot. It was like a wish every time a trigger was pulled.

[154bmag]

Quote:just like how we shouldn't have free press because there were only newspapers in that era!

...WHAT?!?

[Lime]

It was a cynical attempt at humor.

Basically, I don't see how magazine-loaded firearms are any more irrelevant to the Constitution than a news channel that lets people preach that to the masses. The whole "The 2nd Amendment should only apply to single-fire muskets" jab is a nonsense argument.

I generally favor liberals over conservatives, but it's their anti-gun BS that makes me distance myself from them somewhat.

[154bmag]

^Oh, I see, It's sometime hard to detect sarcasm through text. The anti gun movement is one of the few things of liberals I don't like myself.

[brainiac3397]

Shouldnt liberals want to uphold a freedom granted by the bill of rights? These titles sometimes make no sense(or better yet, the people dont make sense)