wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
10 years ago
UserPostedImage

This was part of a 7th grade civics class in Bolingbrook, IL. Sad thing is kids believe it then they don't know what the Constitution really says.

It gets so tiring that teachers think they can do and say anything they want in their classrooms.

A MI teacher gave his 5th graders O'Douls a couple of weeks ago.
UserPostedImage
Dexter_Sinister
9 years ago

UserPostedImage

This was part of a 7th grade civics class in Bolingbrook, IL. Sad thing is kids believe it then they don't know what the Constitution really says.

It gets so tiring that teachers think they can do and say anything they want in their classrooms.

A MI teacher gave his 5th graders O'Douls a couple of weeks ago.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



Where does "Well regulated" fit in there?
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
9 years ago

Where does "Well regulated" fit in there?

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



you tell me.
UserPostedImage
Dexter_Sinister
9 years ago

you tell me.

Originally Posted by: wpr 


Probably somewhere near the front.

Right before "neccessary".
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
9 years ago
Sigh.

I am *so* tired of hearing the tired (and wholly wrong) notion that this "well-regulated militia" means something akin to our present day "National Guard" where everyone keeps their militia guns at home in case rampaging Canadians or drug addicted zombies come into their neighborhood, when in fact that couldn't be farther from the truth.

The phrase is emphasizing that keeping and bearing arms is a right as against the power of the state. A right to balance against those who would use the state and its power to engage in "abuses and usurpations."

The second amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, wasn't about a nice balancing of interests via legislation, adjudication, and executive action. It wasn't establishing civil rights and liberties. It was protecting rights that superseded said legislative, adjudicatory, and executive power. It wasn't about regulating people to protect them from burglars, or rioters, childhood accidents, or even Al-Qaeda. And it sure as hell wasn't about protecting politicians or bureaucrats from outraged citizens.

It was about regulating the state and keeping it in control. It was to ensure that those politicians and bureaucrats realized they would *not* be safe when *they* failed to regulate their surrendering their temptations to subject us poor schmucks to the "good ideas" their possession of secular power offered opportunity.

Revolution, revolt, resistance -- as Jefferson said, these are not remedies we ought to seek for light or transient causes. But it is not the state or those with the state's power behind them that should be deciding what constitutes "light" or "transcient" -- it is the free individuals who have the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And *THAT* is why the second amendment is there. To remind us that it is US as individuals bearing arms, not the state officials we elect and appoint, who should be the ones who decide what sort of militia is necessary. We don't decide the proper ("well-regulated") use of arms in the same political/adjudicatory way that decide what sort of warning label to put on a pack of cigarettes. We decide the proper keeping and bearing of arms by individually deciding on how we are to keep and bear arms.

That is what the Founders believed anyway. Like the rest of the Constitution, of course, recent members of SCOTUS have effed things up. And, Americans being the civic and miseducated ignoramuses that have become, have allowed the bastards of the "three branches" to prey upon their fears and disarm them more and more.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
texaspackerbacker
9 years ago

Sigh.

I am *so* tired of hearing the tired (and wholly wrong) notion that this "well-regulated militia" means something akin to our present day "National Guard" where everyone keeps their militia guns at home in case rampaging Canadians or drug addicted zombies come into their neighborhood, when in fact that couldn't be farther from the truth.

The phrase is emphasizing that keeping and bearing arms is a right as against the power of the state. A right to balance against those who would use the state and its power to engage in "abuses and usurpations."

The second amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, wasn't about a nice balancing of interests via legislation, adjudication, and executive action. It wasn't establishing civil rights and liberties. It was protecting rights that superseded said legislative, adjudicatory, and executive power. It wasn't about regulating people to protect them from burglars, or rioters, childhood accidents, or even Al-Qaeda. And it sure as hell wasn't about protecting politicians or bureaucrats from outraged citizens.

It was about regulating the state and keeping it in control. It was to ensure that those politicians and bureaucrats realized they would *not* be safe when *they* failed to regulate their surrendering their temptations to subject us poor schmucks to the "good ideas" their possession of secular power offered opportunity.

Revolution, revolt, resistance -- as Jefferson said, these are not remedies we ought to seek for light or transient causes. But it is not the state or those with the state's power behind them that should be deciding what constitutes "light" or "transcient" -- it is the free individuals who have the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And *THAT* is why the second amendment is there. To remind us that it is US as individuals bearing arms, not the state officials we elect and appoint, who should be the ones who decide what sort of militia is necessary. We don't decide the proper ("well-regulated") use of arms in the same political/adjudicatory way that decide what sort of warning label to put on a pack of cigarettes. We decide the proper keeping and bearing of arms by individually deciding on how we are to keep and bear arms.

That is what the Founders believed anyway. Like the rest of the Constitution, of course, recent members of SCOTUS have effed things up. And, Americans being the civic and miseducated ignoramuses that have become, have allowed the bastards of the "three branches" to prey upon their fears and disarm them more and more.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



I haven't commented in this thread up to now because, frankly, gun rights v gun control is pretty far down my list of topics of importance/interest.

Wade, you said a LOT of things that the 2nd Amendment is not. When I finally got to what you said it IS, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's about the right of the citizenry to use those guns to keep the government in line? Not to be taken lightly, as Jefferson said, but for "Revolution, revolt, resistance"? If that's your position, I'd say it is just a little bit extreme. Can you say "throwing out the baby with the bath water" or "the operation was a success but the patient died" or "fucking up a wet dream"? Actions have consequences - big actions have big consequences. Yeah, I know, inaction can have creeping consequences too, but it seems to me that what you're talking about stands a strong chance of really messing up the GREAT situation we all have.


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
9 years ago

I haven't commented in this thread up to now because, frankly, gun rights v gun control is pretty far down my list of topics of importance/interest.

Wade, you said a LOT of things that the 2nd Amendment is not. When I finally got to what you said it IS, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's about the right of the citizenry to use those guns to keep the government in line? Not to be taken lightly, as Jefferson said, but for "Revolution, revolt, resistance"? If that's your position, I'd say it is just a little bit extreme. Can you say "throwing out the baby with the bath water" or "the operation was a success but the patient died" or "fucking up a wet dream"? Actions have consequences - big actions have big consequences. Yeah, I know, inaction can have creeping consequences too, but it seems to me that what you're talking about stands a strong chance of really messing up the GREAT situation we all have.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



I was angry, as I too often am these days. (Another one of the reasons its good that I personally choose not to bear arms, by the way, another reason I don't trust myself with firearms.)

But, to come back to you point, Tex: I'm not calling for revolt or revolution. As for "resistance", that can mean lots of things, most of which don't require a gun. And the fact of the matter is that the state will always have more and bigger guns than private citizens. The biggest "whackjob survivalist arsenal" out there pales in its firepower to the armory of even a small city's police force.

But, and here the but is the heart of the thing, but the last is exactly why the private keeping and bearing of arms is essential to keep that very "great situation we all have". An American with arms can't hope to stop the state after the state's armory has put in play because some official decides that American needs to be put in his place. Just ask the ghosts of Randy Weaver's wife and dog. But an armed populace can put the fear of God into that official.

Those who would regulate every aspect of our lives to the tune of a hundred thousand pages of new rules every year know damn well we're pissed off. But they also know they have highway funding, education funding, the IRS, and, ultimately the FBI/DEA/ATF/etc to make us obey all those rules, and they can sit safe behind their counters in their "gun free" public building.

The second amendment was all about balancing the threats of large and petty tyrannies by reminding those petty political/bureaucratic tyrants and true believers that they could as individuals be threatened, and that the more their rules and regulations pissed off people, the bigger the risks would be.

In a bureaucratic system like ours, the pettiest of bureaucrats can hold all the cards when you go to get a license or a building permit. And think of all the different things we now need government permission to do.

Why is it do you suppose that the biggest restrictions on gun possession are always applied where lawmakers gather and where bureaucrats work and where those lawmakers and bureaucrats have to deal with ordinary citizens?

It isn't because they're worried about Al-Queda. It's because they're worried about the Tim McVeighs out there. And they're worried about Tim McVeighs because they know each of their manifold rules and regulations and permits are pissing a lot of people off. Because they know they've got those regulations and permit requirements made into "the law of the land" without the great majority of the citizenry even noticing, much less participating in the rule-making process.

We object, vociferously, whenever we find out about a new rule that takes more of our wealth and freedom. We bitch endlessly about taxes being too high and politicians being a lot of nasty things. We bitch about bureaucratic requirements that can double or more the length of time it takes to build a new house or factory, or that triples the prices we pay for health care. Some of us like a particular bit, and so won't complain about that government benefit, but all of us bitch -- a lot -- about a lot of other bits.

Yet we also grant these lawmakers, politicians, and bureaucrats special protection from our anger. We can't sue them without their permission. We can complain when standing at the bureaucrat's desk, but will that bureaucrat (or his or her superiors) act on our complaint.

We allow police to carry arms into "no gun" buildings, even though we know there are always going to be some police persons who abuse the power that their gun and nightstick. But we restrict the millions of ordinary people from carrying arms into those same buildings because one of them, in anger arising out of one to many government interference with their life, might unlawfully pull and shoot.

Governments hate having the populace armed, and save in the case of an actual invasion, their approach is always going to be to find ways of restricting and reducing the ability of the populace to "hold and bear".

The Founders, having been students of history, knew this. And that's why they put the second amendment in there. They wanted to remind future "leaders" and their bureaucratic minions to avoid the temptations of power. They wanted to remind people that the things listened as"insults and usurpations" could bring about personal danger to the insulters and usurpers.

I don't think its any accident that the last fifty years has seen three things happening vis-a-vis the individual's relationship with the state:

(i) ever-expanding legislation, litigation on political issues, and regulation,
(ii) more of which can be analogized to or even be the same as, the "insults and usurpations" that Jefferson listed in 1776, and
(iii) the lncreasing "movement" for more and more gun control or, to use a more appropriate name IMO, citizen disarmament.

Has anyone ever asked themselves why "keeping and bearing arms" would be listed second by James Madison, George Mason, or whoever else did the drafting of the Bill of Rights? In a document concerned first, foremost, and throughout about protecting individuals from state coercion and prohibiting certain actions ("infringements") by the state, whyever would they put something designed to limit the actions and choices of citizens in the name of providing a national guard against invasion?

So back to your worry, Tex. IMO, the biggest threat to the greatest country in history is not going to come from isolated whackjobs like McVeigh, and its not going to come from isolated angry citizens who go nuts and shoot up a courtroom or assessor's office. Bombings and shooting sprees are bad, no doubt. But by the scale that is a nation of 310+ million people, the long run effect of the few that occur is small.

No, the biggest threat comes from it being too easy for us to restrict our neighbors in the name of this or that "policy goal". And every time we do so, we create more anger among the "losers" who prefer to not have that particular restriction. And more anger means more whackjobs and more whackjobs means more risk of violence against the state's minions.

If you want to save the country, you're going to need to stop this solving every problem through state legislation, adjudication, and regulation.

Citizens with guns aren't the problem. Doing too much stuff that pisses citizens off -- *that* is the problem.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Zero2Cool
9 years ago
AMENDMENT II

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.
UserPostedImage
texaspackerbacker
9 years ago

I was angry, as I too often am these days. (Another one of the reasons its good that I personally choose not to bear arms, by the way, another reason I don't trust myself with firearms.)

But, to come back to you point, Tex: I'm not calling for revolt or revolution. As for "resistance", that can mean lots of things, most of which don't require a gun. And the fact of the matter is that the state will always have more and bigger guns than private citizens. The biggest "whackjob survivalist arsenal" out there pales in its firepower to the armory of even a small city's police force.

But, and here the but is the heart of the thing, but the last is exactly why the private keeping and bearing of arms is essential to keep that very "great situation we all have". An American with arms can't hope to stop the state after the state's armory has put in play because some official decides that American needs to be put in his place. Just ask the ghosts of Randy Weaver's wife and dog. But an armed populace can put the fear of God into that official.

Those who would regulate every aspect of our lives to the tune of a hundred thousand pages of new rules every year know damn well we're pissed off. But they also know they have highway funding, education funding, the IRS, and, ultimately the FBI/DEA/ATF/etc to make us obey all those rules, and they can sit safe behind their counters in their "gun free" public building.

The second amendment was all about balancing the threats of large and petty tyrannies by reminding those petty political/bureaucratic tyrants and true believers that they could as individuals be threatened, and that the more their rules and regulations pissed off people, the bigger the risks would be.

In a bureaucratic system like ours, the pettiest of bureaucrats can hold all the cards when you go to get a license or a building permit. And think of all the different things we now need government permission to do.

Why is it do you suppose that the biggest restrictions on gun possession are always applied where lawmakers gather and where bureaucrats work and where those lawmakers and bureaucrats have to deal with ordinary citizens?

It isn't because they're worried about Al-Queda. It's because they're worried about the Tim McVeighs out there. And they're worried about Tim McVeighs because they know each of their manifold rules and regulations and permits are pissing a lot of people off. Because they know they've got those regulations and permit requirements made into "the law of the land" without the great majority of the citizenry even noticing, much less participating in the rule-making process.

We object, vociferously, whenever we find out about a new rule that takes more of our wealth and freedom. We bitch endlessly about taxes being too high and politicians being a lot of nasty things. We bitch about bureaucratic requirements that can double or more the length of time it takes to build a new house or factory, or that triples the prices we pay for health care. Some of us like a particular bit, and so won't complain about that government benefit, but all of us bitch -- a lot -- about a lot of other bits.

Yet we also grant these lawmakers, politicians, and bureaucrats special protection from our anger. We can't sue them without their permission. We can complain when standing at the bureaucrat's desk, but will that bureaucrat (or his or her superiors) act on our complaint.

We allow police to carry arms into "no gun" buildings, even though we know there are always going to be some police persons who abuse the power that their gun and nightstick. But we restrict the millions of ordinary people from carrying arms into those same buildings because one of them, in anger arising out of one to many government interference with their life, might unlawfully pull and shoot.

Governments hate having the populace armed, and save in the case of an actual invasion, their approach is always going to be to find ways of restricting and reducing the ability of the populace to "hold and bear".

The Founders, having been students of history, knew this. And that's why they put the second amendment in there. They wanted to remind future "leaders" and their bureaucratic minions to avoid the temptations of power. They wanted to remind people that the things listened as"insults and usurpations" could bring about personal danger to the insulters and usurpers.

I don't think its any accident that the last fifty years has seen three things happening vis-a-vis the individual's relationship with the state:

(i) ever-expanding legislation, litigation on political issues, and regulation,
(ii) more of which can be analogized to or even be the same as, the "insults and usurpations" that Jefferson listed in 1776, and
(iii) the lncreasing "movement" for more and more gun control or, to use a more appropriate name IMO, citizen disarmament.

Has anyone ever asked themselves why "keeping and bearing arms" would be listed second by James Madison, George Mason, or whoever else did the drafting of the Bill of Rights? In a document concerned first, foremost, and throughout about protecting individuals from state coercion and prohibiting certain actions ("infringements") by the state, whyever would they put something designed to limit the actions and choices of citizens in the name of providing a national guard against invasion?

So back to your worry, Tex. IMO, the biggest threat to the greatest country in history is not going to come from isolated whackjobs like McVeigh, and its not going to come from isolated angry citizens who go nuts and shoot up a courtroom or assessor's office. Bombings and shooting sprees are bad, no doubt. But by the scale that is a nation of 310+ million people, the long run effect of the few that occur is small.

No, the biggest threat comes from it being too easy for us to restrict our neighbors in the name of this or that "policy goal". And every time we do so, we create more anger among the "losers" who prefer to not have that particular restriction. And more anger means more whackjobs and more whackjobs means more risk of violence against the state's minions.

If you want to save the country, you're going to need to stop this solving every problem through state legislation, adjudication, and regulation.

Citizens with guns aren't the problem. Doing too much stuff that pisses citizens off -- *that* is the problem.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



In keeping with this mutual admiration society, I applaud your post too hahahaha. A lot of what you said, I was thinking also - particularly about the individual gun owners and groups being greatly outgunned by the various government forces.

As I said, this whole topic is not high on my list. I really am not worried about gun-toting crazies disrupting our happy lives. The consequences I spoke of were about revolution, that sort of thing. I agree with you about "resistance", but by better means than guns and bombs. I mainly sympathize with the gun rights crowd because they tend to be like minded with me on a lot of other issues.


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Fan Shout
dfosterf (9h) : Maybe
Mucky Tundra (10h) : Yes
Zero2Cool (11h) : No.
Mucky Tundra (13h) : End of a Degu-era
dhazer (14h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
Zero2Cool (16h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
Zero2Cool (17h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
dfosterf (28-Mar) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
5h / Around The NFL / beast

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.