Defensive Carry banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
My neighbor's kid's 5th grade teacher has taken this opportunity at the end of the school year to educate the kids on the Constitution.

Each kid had a homework assignment of a literal and modern translation of the Bill of Rights. Her Mother knows little about the subject and asked me if I could help. NO PROBLEM!

Here is her 5th grade translation of the 2A:

"Every able bodied citizen is obliged to train and defend their community and country to guarantee freedom. The Federal government or its political subdivisions, will not create any law which will prohibit the people to own, possess or lawfully use, any firearm or firearms."
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,483 Posts
Dang - I could live with that 2A :smilez:

Darned good for 5th grade too - impressed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,752 Posts
looks Good...
Wonder how the teacher's union members will like that one?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
Sounds like a great idea. Having to re-write it makes them actually think about the wording.

That, by the way, was a good re-write.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
C'mon guys.....I had to do some teaching to her first

My lesson included:

That under English rule, citizens of the British Empire had the right to keep, carry and lawfully use arms. This right was continued under the laws of the 13 colonies that became states.

That each community had their own band....or militia of armed men, that drilled regularly to face threats to their communities.

That the National Guard is part of the Army. The National guard is not the militia.

That each man was expected and often times required, to have his musket with a good supply of powder and ammunition on hand in the event of an emergency. Some communities required men to come armed to church.

That soldiers could not protect everyone, all the time. There were no police at the time of English rule or the colonial formation of the United States.

That now soldiers are not allowed to act as policemen. While most police officers are good people, there are not enough police officers to protect everyone, all the time.

That meat for food was more times than not, hunted. There might have been a butcher's meat shop, but not everyone had a great deal of money to purchase meat for food.

That Congress included and required every able bodied man between certain ages to be part of the Militia.

That Militia fought alongside of the regular Continental Army.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,637 Posts
Sounds good to me.:hand10:


That would get my vote if a rewrite was actually called into play.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,068 Posts
It's a nice, clear pair of statements. I would argue against the first sentence being part of the rewrite for this reason: it constrains the people by placing an explicit obligation on them. The original doesn't do that. The need for the militia is acknowledged, but not defined (the definition of the militia is in the U.S. Code). IMO, the Constitution, as an instrument defines and constrains the Government, not the People; it tells the Government what it can't do and what it has to do. It doesn't tell the People what they can't do or have to do, except where it regards holding public office.

When we start using the Constitution to control the behavior of the People, we've lost. That's why the 21st was so dangerous. That's why I'm against a marriage amendment - it turns the whole concept of a Constitution on its head. It doesn't matter how I feel personally, I would oppose a definition of marriage in the Constitution, and I would oppose a sentence that placed an absolute, unequivocal obligation on citizens to train and defend their community.

This probably seems like a stupid, picky point, but to me, it is extremely important to defend the purpose of the document as much as its content. I have been lobbying my State representatives and Governor against the proposed marriage amendment to the Virginia Constitution for this very reason: it doesn't belong in the Constitution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
Tom357 said:
This probably seems like a stupid, picky point, but to me, it is extremely important to defend the purpose of the document as much as its content.
You are right. While I like the idea, the Constitution was written to restrain the government and not the people. I think every person has an obligation to protect themselves and their community, but it's not the government's job to say so.

I still say it's a good re-write; especially for a 5th grader. Most adults couldn't do anywhere near that well, even with Steelehorse's coaching.:smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State..........."

It appears to be the rationale for the people to keep and bear arms.

But I find it odd that this particular phrase to be only a statement or suggestion, as it is the only one within the Bill of Rights that I am able to locate.

Why not simply state,"The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

I believe there is a deeper intent.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top