wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
11 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
11 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
11 years ago

Where does "Well regulated" fit in there?

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



you tell me.
UserPostedImage
Dexter_Sinister
11 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
11 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 It was protecting rights that superseded said legislative, adjudicatory, and executive power.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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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 (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”
Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup
dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw
dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.
Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.
wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : I might be late on this but Aaron Rodgers is now married
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : Well he can always ask his brother for pointers
Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : Bo Melton taking some reps at CB as well as WR
Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : key transactions coming today at 3pm that will consume more cap in 2025
Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : Jaire played in just 34 of a possible 68 games since the start of the 2021 season
Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : reported, but not expected to practice
Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : Jenkins has REPORTED for mandatory camp
Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : I really thought he'd play for Packers.
buckeyepackfan (9-Jun) : Packers releasing Jaire Alexander.
Mucky Tundra (8-Jun) : (Context: he wants his defense to create turnovers)
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Jun / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

16-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

15-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

14-Jun / Around The NFL / beast

14-Jun / Community Welcome! / dfosterf

13-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

13-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Adam

12-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

12-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.