common core - an open door to liberal teaching of falsehoods to children

[Westside Steve]

Come on, surely you're making some of those names up

I am NOT making them up and don't call me....

WSS

[sadbrownsfan]

I would like to debate, like adults, the meaning of this:

 

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.

 

Unfortunately this leaves a lot up to interpretation. My opinion is current standards in our country are too lax to meet the definition of "well regulated Militia." One interpretation could go as far as to say that one must be a member of an actual militia in order to be able to own a gun, while another interpretation could state that a militia, by definition, isn't organized and therefore can't be effectively regulated.

 

As for the syllabus issue, it comes down to the same issue that was discussed in the evolution vs. creationism debates: schools should teach children to think critically and to debate issues, but not advocate one political position over the other.

 

 

The problem with the first part is that it was written 200+ years ago, when it would take month for a national army to form and move to any trouble spot(such as with indians) so a well regulated regional Militia was not only needed but cost effective to keeping a large standing army. Today we have a large regular standing army, national guard that handle many regional issues, FEMA to handle natural disasters, and even motorized transportation so it would only take days not months to get from any part of the US to the other. I think that the average person should still be able to keep and bear arms(though in a responsible manner).

 

The problem with having creationism as a standard when talking about a national movement for standardization, is which version of creationism do you teach? Do you teach what the majority of people in the US believe, or do you teach what the majority of people in the school/state believe, do you allow time for minority beliefs in creationism that people in the class may follow? Also by setting it as a standard you are forcing people who do not conform to the standard beliefs to study a religion that isn't theirs.

[Osiris]

Osiris I think the original intent is pretty clear. At that time the powers that be wanted Farmer Brown to have weaponry equal to what the British had and beyond that equal to whatever government may try to usurp power would have.

 

If a majority of American citizens banded together and decided that the xxxxxxxxxxxx administration had overstepped its authority and that armed revolt was necessary to take power back?

 

The equal weaponry part is already done. That horse has left the barn.

 

I just believe we are so conditioned to revere the Constitution and Bill of Rights that it's hard to admit that they are outdated.

WSS

 

I agree, it is outdated. Yet gun freedom advocates continually reference it to support their case.

 

 

 

 

The problem with the first part is that it was written 200+ years ago, when it would take month for a national army to form and move to any trouble spot(such as with indians) so a well regulated regional Militia was not only needed but cost effective to keeping a large standing army. Today we have a large regular standing army, national guard that handle many regional issues, FEMA to handle natural disasters, and even motorized transportation so it would only take days not months to get from any part of the US to the other. I think that the average person should still be able to keep and bear arms(though in a responsible manner).

 

The problem with having creationism as a standard when talking about a national movement for standardization, is which version of creationism do you teach? Do you teach what the majority of people in the US believe, or do you teach what the majority of people in the school/state believe, do you allow time for minority beliefs in creationism that people in the class may follow? Also by setting it as a standard you are forcing people who do not conform to the standard beliefs to study a religion that isn't theirs.

 

Good point, so where does this leave the Constitution when it comes to the right to bear arms? Does the fact that we have the National Guard mean the well-regulated Militia is satisfied, and therefore really the only people who have the right to own guns are those in the National Guard or military? Or has the constitution become irrelevant when it comes to gun ownership?

 

My point with my comment re: creationism is that you leave the 'editorializing' out of the class room, that is, you don't teach opinion or that one is better than the other, you teach the student to be able to make up their own minds instead. But regarding which version to teach, I would say you teach it in a religious theory context in which you teach the major versions represented in the world. I actually took this class in college and that's how they did it. I would also say that you teach it as an elective course, not a required one. Of course there will be people who say "why is science and evolution mandatory but not religion?"

[gftChris]

You could argue the basic premise of that part of the amendment - A well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State

 

Is that still the case? I'd say no. I'm sure in the 18th century it was more the case.

[Westside Steve]

Good point on the creationism, Osiris.

It actually should be simple enough to preface that discussion with "many people in the United States are Christians and a good many of them believe that..."

 

The problem has been underscored many times by school boards, usually pretty liberal, refusing to allow any mention of creationism whatsoever.

 

As far as the Constitution? I think you will have a hard time finding politicians on either side of the aisle willing to admit that it's time to toss that parchment in the fireplace in the Oval Office.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

I believe there are parts of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc that are outdated. Luckily, they were written with this in mind and if is possible to update them. Unluckily, we have people in this country that treat them as infallible and written in stone.

 

Of course the country has changed in the last 200+ years.

[MLD Woody]

The idea of creationism can be taught in school. You must can't say one religious belief is better than the other. You should probably also cover at least all of the major religions. Finally, you keep it out of science class.

 

I learned a little bit about a bunch of different religions in World History in high school and middle school. That seems fine to me

[sadbrownsfan]

It leaves it in the grey area that is always argued between the left and the right, not only who should be able to own weapons, in what context(concealed carry or not), and also what type of weapons should be allowed. It really needs to be "cleaned up" and clarified on the matter but there is no way we would be able to get enough states to agree one way or the other(think it requires 2/3rd of the states).

 

I would be ok with adding that creationism in that manner, teaching them more conceptually then saying x one is the right way. Maybe not so much as an elective but you can easily teach in a non science class such as history or even from a literature stand point.

[gftChris]

As far as the Constitution? I think you will have a hard time finding politicians on either side of the aisle willing to admit that it's time to toss that parchment in the fireplace in the Oval Office.

WSS

The part that always amuses me is that people will defend a constitution *and its amendments* as if it were holy doctrine. If it were perfect, it wouldn't have been amended in the first place - the fact that it already has shows that there is scope for it to be wrong.

[Osiris]

The part that always amuses me is that people will defend a constitution *and its amendments* as if it were holy doctrine. If it were perfect, it wouldn't have been amended in the first place - the fact that it already has shows that there is scope for it to be wrong.

 

People will defend it as if it were holy doctrine when doing so supports their point of view. However, there does need to be SOME respect for an original document that provides a guideline for governance, otherwise you get what's happening in Egypt, where whichever faction is currently in power tries to rewrite everything to suit their political agenda and secure their supremacy.

[calfoxwc]

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.

**********************************

The Supreme Court has ruled twice that is means citizens have the right to bear arms, too.

It's the comma, btw. While it is noted that a well regulated militia is necessary, despite that, the right

of the people to bear their own arms is necessary, and shall not be infringed.

 

If a gov is oppressive, and throws out the Constitution and becomes, say, a dictatorship, the citizens have the right to defend themselves from tyranny. The Revolutionary War was fought and won, incrediously, by citizens

with their own guns. That is more to the point.

 

I have never, and most folks never, ever wanted to deny the 1st Amendment rights of liberals, radicals (unless

they go overboard with threats to overthrow our gov, etc), regardless of the politics at hand.

 

But on the flip side, the IRS, and WH are working against the 1st amendment to their advantage.

And the 2nd Amendment, too, for that matter.

 

It is totally corrupt for a gov, or any group of people, to try to change our Constitution and Bill of Rights...

for their own political advantage.

 

You're a leftist? Demanding your free speech? Then support the free speech for conservatives, and everybody

else, too.

 

And the right to bear arms applies the same to every single American - Dem/Rep/lib,cons,religious/not religious,

every single person.

The rights specified are not political expediency tools. There is no getting rid of rights you don't care to

exercize, and there is not a political right to certain parts of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

Every single American gets to be free and gets to have those rights ingrained into their lives.

 

"Outdated? ? That's a very dangerous, slippery slope. And, the Constitution has been amended,

NOT to retract other parts, but to add to the Constitution. The lone? exception is prohibition.

It was retracted by a subsequent amendment.

 

As for that, there is no "shall not be infringed" clause in the latter amendments.

 

Meaning, it would be against the law to retract the 2nd Amendment, which permanently designates

the RIGHT to bear arms.

 

The retracted amendment establishing prohibition was not a legal permanent grant of

a RIGHT. And so, it was retracted by the later amendment to dissolve prohibition.

[MLD Woody]

How exactly are liberals and the white house attacking the first and second amendments?

 

 

 

Things can become outdated. The Constitution can become outdated. Its writers would be amazed at what our country looks like now. They would probably add/change/remove some of the things they wrote to fit the modern day.

[Westside Steve]

How exactly are liberals and the white house attacking the first and second amendments?

 

 

 

I think you just answered your own question. You are not trying to be obtuse are you?

 

 

 

Things can become outdated. The Constitution can become outdated. Its writers would be amazed at what our country looks like now. They would probably add/change/remove some of the things they wrote to fit the modern day.

It would seem that you, as a liberal or someone who just plays one on the board in order to bitch at self styled conservatives, in saying that parts of the Constitution are outdated and need to be changed or removed....

 

That in itself would seem like an attack.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

So I am attacking the first and second amendments because I believe the Constitution is not a holy doctrine that is perfect in every way and completely stands the test of time..... got it

 

 

 

I am a liberal by the barometer of this board, that is for sure. If common sense things like letting gays get married is "liberal" then so be it. I am not that liberal on other things and I affiliate with no political party. The conservative meter on this board is just sooooo far right that people near the middle seem left by comparison.

[Westside Steve]

Yes, dance, you are attacking The Constitution and the amendments if you say they are outdated and should be eliminated.

 

It's not that complicated.

You aren't even necessarily wrong.

 

WSS

[MLD Woody]

I never said they should be eliminated....

[Westside Steve]

I never said they should be eliminated....

Add change remove...

I would say remove is a synonym for eliminate.

You wrote that about 3 posts ago.

 

If, in fact, you don't believe anything in the Constitution or the amendments could be eliminated, or removed, then I stand corrected. Cripe...

WSS

[MLD Woody]

"Its writers would be amazed at what our country looks like now. They would probably add/change/remove some of the things they wrote to fit the modern day."

 

 

Alright, reading comprehension.

 

 

I was guessing the original writers would probably write a different looking Constitution is it was done today. This may mean adding, changing or removing some things in there now.

 

I never said anything SHOULD be eliminated explicitly. I never said the amendments or Constitution as a whole should be eliminated. I never attacked the Constitution. I don't believe that by saying it could be edited I am attacking it in anyway. If anything it should be a living, breathing document that evolves with the times.

 

 

 

I believe the Constitution is not infallible and can/should be edited. The writers knew nothing about cars, planes, the internet, weaponry of today, etc etc.

[Westside Steve]

"Its writers would be amazed at what or country looks like now. They would probably add/change/remove some of the things they wrote to fit the modern day."

 

 

Alright, reading comprehension.

 

 

I was guessing the original writers would probably write a different looking Constitution is it was done today. This may mean adding, changing or removing some things in there now.

 

I never said anything SHOULD be eliminated explicitly. I never said the amendments or Constitution as a whole should be eliminated. I never attacked the Constitution. I don't believe that by saying it could be edited I am attacking it in anyway. If anything it should be a living, breathing document that evolves with the times.

 

 

 

I believe the Constitution is not infallible and can/should be edited. The writers knew nothing about cars, planes, the internet, weaponry of today, etc etc.

Dumbass in that post you brag that you never said anything should be eliminated. And then later on you said it should. You're just bickering to bicker.

 

WSS

[The Cysko Kid]

The problem with editing and changing the constitution, especially the bill of rights, is that it opens the door for cal's pals, the future fascists, to take an axe to the whole thing in order to protect us from the outmoded language contained therein.

[Westside Steve]

The problem with editing and changing the constitution, especially the bill of rights, is that it opens the door for cal's pals, the future fascists, to take an axe to the whole thing in order to protect us from the outmoded language contained therein.

So apart from your desire just to take a shot at Cal could you list me a few rights or amendments or portions of the Constitution that you believe those future fascist would like to see it removed or edited?

 

Ones that are still true to their original intent?

WSS

[The Cysko Kid]

The right to free speech and demonstration for starters. You're kidding yourself if you think that any government is glad of it. The right to bear arms is another you can bet your sweet ass that s lot of power trip governments do in fact hate this.

 

The fourth amendment would be right out the door as any and all fascists would potentially want to be free to search and seize illegally. That would go largely hand in hand with rhe fifth as I'm sure any fascist would love to just be able to throw you against the wall and shoot you for, well whatever,.really and fuck due process. And t he sixth because fuck a jury right? And the eighth. Cruel and unusual punishment? Don't mind if I do.

 

And the ninth because I'm a facist so your privacy means nothing. And the tenth because who wants pesky good people in state government getting in the way of my huge power grab.

 

So basically, even though I have no fondness for guns or gun people, I'd pretty much defend that amendment to the death because if that gets removed, well, then none of that other stuff is safe either. If the other amendments aren't safe, we're all in for a bad time.

[The Cysko Kid]

One thing though, is the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. The supreme court ruled as much in 2008. Therefore, there is nothing to keep technologies out of firearms and the sooner gun makers start prioritizing safety technology the better of society will be.

[The Cysko Kid]

By the way I'm not taking a shot at cal with my original statement. I think he's right to an extent, although he obviously takes it to the extreme, jumping at shadows.

[gftChris]

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.

**********************************

The Supreme Court has ruled twice that is means citizens have the right to bear arms, too.

It's the comma, btw. While it is noted that a well regulated militia is necessary, despite that, the right

of the people to bear their own arms is necessary, and shall not be infringed.

 

I think the comma makes the point that you're trying to make, technically - that the militia and the right to bear arms are separate rights. However, I suspect that the general point of the statement is that the country should have a well armed standing army able to fight off any invaders, or tyrannical government - the three points would seem, to me, to be inextricably linked.

 

If you assume that a standing army is necessary, to keep the wolf from the door so to speak, then absolutely, everyone should be armed (there was a time when all men in England had to be trained with the longbow for similar reasons). On the flip side, if that's no longer the case, I'd argue that the right to bear arms goes with it.

 

Finally, though, I'm agreeing with Cysko - once you start removing amendments like this, there's precedence for others to follow. You'd have to make it a national vote, requiring a 2/3rds majority to repeal it. I'm pretty sure the laws about cruel & unusual punishment, privacy etc wouldn't get repealed by national vote. Then again, I doubt you'd get 2/3rds of americans to agree to repeal the right to bear arms, and even in itself it would be tricky to legislate in terms of the timescale of disarmament.

[Westside Steve]

the key word in the right to bear arms change is 2008. That's when the Supreme Court, consisting of less people than the Politburo, decided that the original intent of the 2nd amendment is no longer valid. I'm not arguing whether or not that is correct I'm stating a fact.

and that one was not because of cals future fascists, that would be the handiwork of the left. Right or wrong.

let's take another shower week? The freedom of assembly. I see some Toledo news spending the summers at Put in Bay and every year the Ku Klux Klan stages a march. Its part of the news cycle 4 weeks as the City Council decides where and when they can hold their stupid little demonstration. If they just show up on the steps of City Hall.... Off to jail boys. Disorderly conduct. another right neutered by public opinion. For good or evil. You decide. Freedom of the press? Well let's remember that was written. Because our revolutionary forefathers were writing stories calling the citizens to arms. Asking the populace to rise up in armed conflict against Chris's grandfathers. So now we have that right! Tell you what boys... Let's see somebody start publishing a revolutionary rag asking everyone to stockpile their weapons so we can oust the Obama administration! How long do you expect that to survive?

At the time of the Revolution the King could take your farm your house your livestock your property to station his troops or to use as the crown saw fit. We put a stop to that! And then, guess what, eminent domain. Voila.

Freedom of speech or religion? Ok boys say N***** or fuck on the radio.

Or wear a little gold cross around your neck in a, let's call it, a restricted area.

 

Again I'm not suggesting I agree or disagree with these changes which are tantamount to the repeal of some of these once treasured rights, just pointing out that it's not right wingers you fear so badly.

 

And also making fun of anyone who holds the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in very high regard. I repeat it's no different than a list of rules painted on farmer Jones barn.

 

WSS

[Legacy Fan]

Anyone wanting the 2nd amendment to be editted to "reduce" the amount of guns "the people" have the right to own, better brush up on their Chinese.

[ballpeen]

How exactly are liberals and the white house attacking the first and second amendments?

 

 

 

Things can become outdated. The Constitution can become outdated. Its writers would be amazed at what our country looks like now. They would probably add/change/remove some of the things they wrote to fit the modern day.

You my friend are a simpleton. I hope you grow up in time.

[MLD Woody]

You my friend are a simpleton. I hope you grow up in time.

 

 

I'll ask why exactly? Though I don't expect an actual response...

[Stewy]

So I am attacking the first and second amendments because I believe the Constitution is not a holy doctrine that is perfect in every way and completely stands the test of time..... got it

 

 

 

I am a liberal by the barometer of this board, that is for sure. If common sense things like letting gays get married is "liberal" then so be it. I am not that liberal on other things and I affiliate with no political party. The conservative meter on this board is just sooooo far right that people near the middle seem left by comparison.

 

Exposing liberal/democratic corruption, hypocrisy, lies...in other words, telling the truth... makes this board sooooo far right? Got it.

The truth is the truth Woody, it knows no partisanship,

 

You are free to post any transgressions committed by the right Woody, except that you cant...there isn't much out there, so your only alternative is to defend the left with as much spin as you can muster up....which in turn doesn't make us far right, but rather makes you soooooo far left.