teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-01-2015, 04:16 PM
RE: teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
(07-01-2015 04:04 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  I don't think you get it. In Japan, people are not truly free.

Like we are here in the United States I take it? Where the government is free to spy in on it's citizens without probable cause and where corporations have more rights than people? Just how free are we when our employers can force us to abide by their religion?


(07-01-2015 04:04 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  They say the have freedom of speech, but their government can prosecute you for speech if what you say isn't based on fact. So if you say the Japanese Prime Minister is a closet gay, you can be prosecuted if you don't have proof he is gay.

Right. Because that's libel, and as such, falls outside of protected speech even in the United States.


(07-01-2015 04:04 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  In America, one can say just about anything in regards to an elected official, short of making threats, and they can't touch you.

It depends, because not everything falls under the protection of fair use or criticism. You can make a joke about person X being gay, but claiming so as fact in an effort to defame their character is not protected speech. Context is key.


(07-01-2015 04:04 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  In Japan, they say they have freedom of expression, as long as that expression isn't deemed "obscene." Their obscenity laws are some of the strictest of the so called "free countries." In America, it is common for people to protest nude and it is considered constitutionally protected speech/expression.

Every country is different. Just ask the Europeans, who are on average relatively more comfortable with nudity and think us prudes, but are also shocked at our relatively higher tolerance for violence. Different cultures have different standards for what they consider obscene. Unless of course you'd like to impose on their freedom by forcing them to conform to our standards?


(07-01-2015 04:04 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  Japan also has a very high conviction rate for people arrested for criminal activity. Many human rights groups have pointed out that Japanese citizens cannot get a fair trial. Their police also have the authority to detain people for long periods of time without seeing a lawyer or judge, which has lead to a high number of false confessions by corrupt police.

Once again, coming from you, statistics or it didn't happen. Cite your sources please.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2015, 04:30 PM
RE: teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
(07-01-2015 04:04 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  I don't think you get it. In Japan, people are not truly free. They say the have freedom of speech, but their government can prosecute you for speech if what you say isn't based on fact. So if you say the Japanese Prime Minister is a closet gay, you can be prosecuted if you don't have proof he is gay. In America, one can say just about anything in regards to an elected official, short of making threats, and they can't touch you.

Um they are. First here is a note from their constitution.


Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed. (集会、結社及び言論、出版その他一切の表現の自由は、これを保障する。?)
No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated. (検閲は、これをしてはならない。通信の秘密は、これを侵してはならない。)

In fact read this:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/...lear-power

Yeah so they can make fun of the prime minister, you mistake what America's government does with every other country. You can also protest there, oh did I mention it is without guns like america?


(07-01-2015 04:04 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  In Japan, they say they have freedom of expression, as long as that expression isn't deemed "obscene." Their obscenity laws are some of the strictest of the so called "free countries." In America, it is common for people to protest nude and it is considered constitutionally protected speech/expression.

They HAVE A FUCKING PENIS there.

Also there was a protest in japan where the people where naked.

http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-ener...japan.html

Why aren't there more of them? Because japan does not suck as hard as america and therefor does not need as many protest. You need to learn a country with less problems tends to be a country that has less protest.

(07-01-2015 04:04 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  Japan also has a very high conviction rate for people arrested for criminal activity. Many human rights groups have pointed out that Japanese citizens cannot get a fair trial.

There is a reason, and that is because of japans low crime rate. So pretty much they bring in only true criminals, compare that to america, which would not know a true criminal even if he said they where one.

(07-01-2015 04:04 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  Their police also have the authority to detain people for long periods of time without seeing a lawyer or judge, which has lead to a high number of false confessions by corrupt police.

And where are these confessions? Police being corrupt is japan is no surprise, but if we are going to talk about corruption between america and japan, america has no right to talk, in fact none. Americas corruption makes japan's corrupt cops look like saints.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/12/corrupt-...world.html

So japan has one corruption, america has 100. As they say choose the lesser of the two evils. Get over it america is the worst first world country.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
07-01-2015, 05:12 PM
RE: teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
is there a reason why people protest naked? Blink


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2015, 05:13 PM
RE: teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
(07-01-2015 05:12 PM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  is there a reason why people protest naked? Blink

To offend those they want something from to give it up. They will where cloths when they get what they need.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2015, 05:52 PM
RE: teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
I was taught all of the amendments in junior high. The second amendment was presented in the context of defending a new nation with a feeble standing Army. "Yes we will conscript your sorry ass and yes you need to bring your own gun 'cause we ain't got one for you."

(07-01-2015 01:36 PM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  and for side info....SC was one of three states to vote to drop Common Core and are writing their own state education curriculum standards Facepalm

Now that's just fucking scary.

(07-01-2015 11:08 AM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  I don't think it should be mandatory, but ok as an elective class like woodshop, cooking, sex ed with parents permission etc. I believe they still have shooting sports at some schools, at least they did in my time.

I think I'm good with that as well. Except in SC, MS, LA, OK and other backwoods backasswards States where the genpop's literacy rate is on par with Afghanistan. There it obviously should be mandatory.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
09-01-2015, 08:22 AM
RE: teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
I was linked to another article on this. The curriculum provider is the NRA and its a THREE WEEK course.

For those of you not in touch with a student....three weeks is HUGE amount of time-- especially on the elementary and middle school levels. Shitloads of material is covered in three weeks. And they want three weeks devoted to the second ammendment. FFS.

Facepalm

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/01...ts-course/


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2015, 12:37 PM
RE: teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
(07-01-2015 01:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-01-2015 01:01 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  No, if parents want to teach their kids they can. It shouldn't be up to the schools.

What isn't up to the schools?

Knowledge of the Constitution, its interpretations, and the controversies should certainly be part of the curriculum.

I'll believe that's the motive when the third amendment is given as much attention as the second.

Hate the belief, love the believer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Elder Cunningham's post
09-01-2015, 05:06 PM
RE: teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
I... have absolutely no idea why the entire document isn't taught in schools...

[Image: sigone_zps207cf92c.png]

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015
Live long and prosper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cetaceaphile's post
12-01-2015, 08:17 AM
RE: teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
(07-01-2015 07:51 AM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  My grandfather had gun classes in school as a child. They brought their hunting rifles to school. School shut down the first week of hunting season. Kids were taught the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, the way James Madison meant it when he wrote it. (if every American owned a gun, no standing army could take over America, nor could an overbearing American government rule -federalist papers #46)

You, sir, have no idea what you're talking about.

First, anytime I see a reference to the "true meaning" or "original intent" of the Constitution, it's a pretty safe bet that whomever is saying that is a) an ideologue and b) convinced all the 18th century farmers who wrote the thing off course agree with his or her 21st century preferred interpretation. What a crock. News flash - there was no unified interpretation. That's not an opinion, it's historical fact. The original 13 states had not even all ratified the document before they ran into interpretation issue. Some of you may recall learning about the debate between Hamilton and Jefferson over the idea of a federal bank. Right then and there, in 1791, it was clear the document meant different things too different people. And, these are the guys who wrote it.

Second, the 2nd Amendment was not interpreted to create an individual right to gun ownership until the late 1960s. As recently as 1939 the Supreme Court held the Amendment referred to a collective right, not an individual right. That view is very, very modern. I can't recall the exact year the Supreme Court flipped but it was within a free years of 1970.

Third, the prevailing reason there was a 2nd Amendment was not so people could over throw the government or defend against an invading army. I'm sure a thorough search of the historical record will find evidence those arguments were made by someone, but that was not where the push came from. The push came from the south and the concern was over slave uprisings. There was already tension then between the slave and free states. The south feared a federal government that wouldn't protect them from the slaves (who significantly out numbered the whites) and would prevent them from protecting themselves. At the time the slave states had standing militias to deal with uprisings and runways. They were not signing up to any new government that didn't overly agree the slave states could continue that practice.

On the ludicrous idea that they wanted people armed so they could over throw a tyrannical government - one of the reasons they scrapped the Articles of Confederation was issues were not getting dealt with and there were a few revolts against the new government, the most famous of which was Shay's Rebellion. While the ruling class did recognize that things needed to change, those revolts were put down with violence. The idea that they then wanted an armed population who could again rise up is laughable.

So, you want to teach the 2nd Amendment, I'm all for it. But teach the truth, that it was implemented to protect the south from their slaves.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
12-01-2015, 01:46 PM (This post was last modified: 12-01-2015 02:13 PM by Patriot10mm.)
RE: teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
(12-01-2015 08:17 AM)BnW Wrote:  
(07-01-2015 07:51 AM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  My grandfather had gun classes in school as a child. They brought their hunting rifles to school. School shut down the first week of hunting season. Kids were taught the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, the way James Madison meant it when he wrote it. (if every American owned a gun, no standing army could take over America, nor could an overbearing American government rule -federalist papers #46)

You, sir, have no idea what you're talking about.

First, anytime I see a reference to the "true meaning" or "original intent" of the Constitution, it's a pretty safe bet that whomever is saying that is a) an ideologue and b) convinced all the 18th century farmers who wrote the thing off course agree with his or her 21st century preferred interpretation. What a crock. News flash - there was no unified interpretation. That's not an opinion, it's historical fact. The original 13 states had not even all ratified the document before they ran into interpretation issue. Some of you may recall learning about the debate between Hamilton and Jefferson over the idea of a federal bank. Right then and there, in 1791, it was clear the document meant different things too different people. And, these are the guys who wrote it.

Second, the 2nd Amendment was not interpreted to create an individual right to gun ownership until the late 1960s. As recently as 1939 the Supreme Court held the Amendment referred to a collective right, not an individual right. That view is very, very modern. I can't recall the exact year the Supreme Court flipped but it was within a free years of 1970.

Third, the prevailing reason there was a 2nd Amendment was not so people could over throw the government or defend against an invading army. I'm sure a thorough search of the historical record will find evidence those arguments were made by someone, but that was not where the push came from. The push came from the south and the concern was over slave uprisings. There was already tension then between the slave and free states. The south feared a federal government that wouldn't protect them from the slaves (who significantly out numbered the whites) and would prevent them from protecting themselves. At the time the slave states had standing militias to deal with uprisings and runways. They were not signing up to any new government that didn't overly agree the slave states could continue that practice.

On the ludicrous idea that they wanted people armed so they could over throw a tyrannical government - one of the reasons they scrapped the Articles of Confederation was issues were not getting dealt with and there were a few revolts against the new government, the most famous of which was Shay's Rebellion. While the ruling class did recognize that things needed to change, those revolts were put down with violence. The idea that they then wanted an armed population who could again rise up is laughable.

So, you want to teach the 2nd Amendment, I'm all for it. But teach the truth, that it was implemented to protect the south from their slaves.

You fail. All one needs to do is read the federalist papers, and additionally the words of the debates by the different delegates while ratification of the Constitution to see what they thought at the time.

But I'll leave you with some words by true patriots:

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution

"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." -James Madison, Federalist No. 51

I could probably dig up a thousand quotes by the founders on their intentions and beliefs about personal arms.

Death is a debt we all must pay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Patriot10mm's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: