Update By Ben Swann:  Parents Retract Story About School Teaching Cops Can Confiscate Guns At Traffic Stop

The parents of a South Carolina 8th grade student now say their daughter lied to them over a classroom discussion regarding the confiscation of guns.

On Wednesday September 18, concerned parents Braden and Andrea Gammon from South Carolina contacted Joshua Cook who writes for Benswann.com to express their concern regarding “Constitution Day” curriculum taught in their daughter’s history class.

The Gammons became concerned when their daughter showed them what she learned in school. Below is the quiz, including question #10 pertaining to the U.S. Constitution:

Specifically, question #10 caused controversy because it asked if police have the right to confiscate a legally owned, permitted firearm at a traffic stop.  On the worksheet, the Gammon’s daughter had marked “No” but that answer was scratched out and replaced with the word “Yes”.

I talked personally with Andrea Gammon by telephone Saturday and she tells me, “We sat down for two and half hours to talk about the whole issue.  My husband is an 8 year veteran and we both fully believe in the Constitution.  When we got to the question we said ‘what about this, what happened?’”

According to Gammon, her daughter explained that she had originally answered the question “No” but that “the teacher said for me to cross it out because it is constitutional.”

Gammon tells me that she contacted the school’s principal but was told he didn’t know what was on the worksheet.  That was when she contacted Joshua Cook.

The story written by Cook for Benswann.com went viral and garnered attention from across the nation.  But even as the story grew, the Gammons found what they had been told by their daughter was falling apart.

Superintendent Ron Garner contacted the family about the issue.  A meeting was set up between the Gammons and the school’s principal and the teacher in question.  After the meeting, Andrea Gammon says that she and her husband now believe their daughter did not tell the truth about what happened in class last week.

“We sat down with this man and I believe him.  My husband and I did look up the answer key online to make sure that the answer key was correct and it was.”

Further, Andrea says that her daughter has now changed her story, claiming it was another student who stated that an officer can confiscate the weapon and that the teacher actually disagreed.

“We reacted emotionally because this is something important to us and we never thought that she would lie to us about it and we shouldn’t have reacted, we should have backed it up first.  I feel terrible about what this man and his reputation have gone through.” says Gammon.



South Carolina parents were furious this week after seeing questions regarding the Constitution – in particular the Second Amendment – as taught in their daughter’s 8th grade history class.  The daughter’s teacher had given the class a pop quiz regarding the Constitution.  Question 10 asked, “Mr. Jones’ gun was confiscated at a police traffic stop, even though he had the proper permit and license of ownership of the gun. Is this Constitutional?”  The student originally answered “no,” but the teacher told daughter to change her answer to “yes.” See picture below.

Gun Confiscation

This is not a unique event.  Just this week, another report emerged in Texas of an Advanced Placement (AP) textbook presenting a modified version of the Second Amendment.  The textbook’s wording indicated that only police and military were allowed to have guns with the wording “The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia.”


AP textbooks and exams are created by the College Board, an organization which has participated in the implementation of Common Core, the already-invasive and controversial set of education “standards” organized for the Federal Government and pushed on states with financial incentives and a lack of transparency.  People have already found disturbing lessons in the program, such as teaching children to argue on an emotional level to manipulate people into accepting social change.

This educational push for the modification of the Second Amendment comes at the time of an intense and multifaceted, nationwide battle over gun rights.  This battle, prompted by the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Connecticut, has been fought in both the legislative and cultural spheres.  Attorney General Eric Holder, however, was the first to indicate it should be brought into the educational sphere when he said people should be “brainwashed” about guns.

“I’ve also asked the school board to make a part of every day some kind of anti-violence, anti-gun message,” he said in a video released in March 2012.  He went on to say “It’s not enough to have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it every Monday.  We need to do this every day of the week and really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”


Bias in education has been in the spotlight multiple times since 2008.  It’s clear that there is a nationwide push to change the understanding of the Second Amendment in the next generation. Now parents are concerned that the school systems are being used to push a leftist agenda instead of educating students with the skills needed to excel in their careers.


Editor’s note: The pop quiz was given to Benswann.com as a tip. The parents and student live in Campobello, S.C. and wanted to remain anonymous.

The following two tabs change content below.
Profile photo of Joshua Cook

Joshua Cook

Joshua Cook is a writer and reporter for Truth In Media. He has interviewed many politicians including Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Walter Jones, Bob Graham, Trey Gowdy and thought leaders who shape U.S. policy. He is a host of 'Beer and Politcs' on Truth In Media. If you have any tips please email him at joshua@truthinmedia.com. Find him on Twitter @RealJoshuaCook

Reality Check: Donald Trump May Be RIGHT on Birthright Citizenship!

Enter to win $500 of Gold or Silver from Anthem Vault!

Enter below or CLICK HERE for more details.

"Like" Ben Swann on Facebook
  • ashleigh

    this is why I’m going to home-school my children.

    • Stryker100

      WE already are, this is one reason why, not to mention bullying, crime, piss poor care otherwise, etc, etc, etc.

  • sc2pilot

    Wow, that textbook is priceless. The bias is obvious, and we’re allowing them to teach our children this garbage.

  • John

    Public schools are nothing more than indoctrination centers.

    • defyentropy

      YES, and it has always been so.All young people really need in the way of education is the ability to read with comprehension & the motivation toward a questing mind.

  • Jon

    I need some proof of the SC story. Provide the school and teacher if this is actually newsworthy.

    • jwclark

      Yes, we are beyond the point where “objective” news eliminates the names of persons and thereby protects them from themselves. We need to name names and shine a light on these people. Courtesy is fine for normal times, but in a crisis we need justice not mere form. JWC

    • Mike

      Please, Of course it is newsworthy (go look up what that means). I think you meant credible. It doesn’t matter the school or teacher or even if the event was made up. Fact is: Holder, common core and College Board want to subvert your own thinking about gun issues. That is what you need to know about the story, not the name of the school.

      • Jon

        It’s not newsworthy unless it’s true, and until I see the name of a school, teacher, etc., I’m not buying it.

        And I am by no means a progressive anti-Second Amendment POS, just a freedom loving Libertarian who needs facts.

        • Luke_Cage1225

          Here’s an idea: instead of being a coward and calling Ben Swann a liar, get off yr ass and do the research.

          • acetyl

            We should demand of ALL “news” reporters credible stories (period). Since when has it EVER been “ok” to report a news story as accurate when some or all of the facts were “fudged”?

            I am not saying that is what happened here. Rather I am saying, as Americans, we should demand accurate news from “news reporters”. Otherwise, the “news” is no different than a blog….worthless!

          • Karen Kay

            I don’t believe anything I hear in the MSM. There are no credible reporters associated with the big three broadcast stations because they are all affiliated in some way with the current administration. We would get more accurate news from news sources outside the US.

        • Robert Schneider

          Then a lot of the news is not newsworthy. Mike is correct, you misunderstand the meaning of newsworthy. Just because a story on the news is not 100% accurate does not mean it is not newsworthy. Most news outlets falsely stated that the Navy yard shooter used an AR15 assault rifle. Even though that part was not credible, the story was still newsworthy.

          There are two pictures in the article above providing all the proof you need to make a judgment concerning credibility. If you choose to not believe the evidence provided that’s you prerogative. I for one believe both pictures above to be credible, which is enough information to determine the story is most likely the truth. Not quite sure why names are so important to you, especially since potential repercussions exist if the names are released.


  • kiki_badaboom
  • Klapton


  • Chris Harkins

    my daughter (freshman in hs) sent me a text the otherday saying she was given an assignment on the topic of gun control either for or against, she asked my opinion because as she says, I have a lot of opinions on the subject. She chose the side of against gun control because as she stated in her piece, guns don’t kill people, people kill people and if someone really wants to kill someone there will be other ways of making that happen. She says having a gun for protection against someone wanting to do you harm is a great deterrent not to mention the Constitution says “shall not be infringed” which she interprets to mean not to be changed or limited…Im waiting to see how she is graded!

    • Rob Dies

      Be prepared to blow up in the teacher’s face if she’s given a failing grade on a spotless report.

  • jwclark

    Of course they (educators) are out of the box now and the propaganda content of our curriculum (and the “news,” and the voices of our “leaders”) is just in our face every day, and getting worse. Of course this did not start yesterday. As a student, and I stayed a student for a long time (much of it un-learning what I had already been taught), I met perhaps 4 or 5 teachers who were independent thinkers who were able to defend their views with recourse to first principles, or “self evident truths.” The rest were content to operate entirely from their private (unreflected and un-defensible) opinions. Based entirely upon “mastering” the offered curriculum, second-hand knowledge, they were convinced that they were themselves the measure of what ideal humanity should look like. Of course that is stupid but that is what people like that are, stupid. And yet they have our students before them as captive audience for from 12 to 20 years. That is scary. No wonder the nation is NOT up in arms. They look out at the world, but their ability to see has been muted by their education and by t.v. based enculturation. Much of what is in the curriculum is an outright lie and is defended by teachers who know the difference but who think their opinions are preferable to the truth. So, on top of their ignorance they are ethical morons as well. It is not possible for such a cadre to produce an independent and well informed citizenry. But they are able to produce malleable slaves, eh? JWC

  • Sagebrush

    The Nazis used brainwashed youth to great effect during WW2.

    • David Williamson

      Speaking of the Nazis, their gun control laws were used as the basis for one of the most restrictive gun control laws passed in the United States in the 1960s.

  • Waldetto

    Someone should do a video about this contrasting this with how the pigs changed the laws in the movie 1984!

    • Duun

      Thats Animal Farm bro

  • Guest

    I took APUSH last year in high school and this book was one that my teacher bought as just a prep for the test. We used it in tandem with a older textbook that he had used for many years. I thought I had noticed something off about the first books summary of the bill of rights, but I never really payed any attention to it because my teacher taught us the constitution, from the constitution. Not the textbook. Which is why none of us caught it. I plan on going to talk to my old teacher and show him this and try to find where the book is wrong. I’m curious to see his response, though I’m fairly center he will end up having a chat about this with the school board.

  • Samuel

    I took APUSH last year in high school and this book was one that my teacher bought as just a prep for the test. We used it in tandem with a older textbook that he had used for many years. I thought I had noticed something off about the first books summary of the bill of rights, but I never really payed any attention to it because my teacher taught us the constitution, from the constitution. Not the textbook. Which is why none of us caught it. I plan on going to talk to my old teacher and show him this and try to find where the book is wrong. I’m curious to see his response, though I’m fairly certain he will end up having a chat about this with the school board.

    • Rob Dies

      I look forward to seeing your school board’s reaction in the news. They’ll probably flip out and threaten your teacher with disciplinary action. There was a story about another teacher in New Hampshire (I think) that got himself canned because he wouldn’t teach the wrongthink they were pushing him to teach his classes.

  • Kaisdaddy

    Of all the states to try to pull something like this, South Carolina was probably not a good choice… :)

    • Heartland Patriot

      They’ve already got the kids brainwashed in some places, they are trying to expand their foulness.

  • Lisa Farkass

    It is why they don’t want you to home school…..they won’t be able to indoctrinate the children to the new world thinking…..this is what is happening…they are getting ready for the new generation of total gun control…..which is total people control….I am torn….I truly believe in the Second Amendment…..but…there is a part of me that would like to see the world disarmed….not just the people…but the Police and Military…you know…like Global Peace…but until then…I don’t think it is fair that the cops get them and we don’t…. :(

    • Randy

      Their plan is not “global peace” once we give up our guns tho…

  • simba

    This whole article is shallow. The first paragraph provides little context and evidence, and merely stands as a foundation to repeat an article done yesterday.

  • Jackie Milton

    It has been known for years that the key to creating a society of slaves is to indoctrinate/assimilate their minds at an early age. This is just one more example of that being carried out at this time.

    • docdave1

      John Taylor Gatto’s 14 Themes of the Elite Private School Curriculum (as listed in part in The
      Ultimate History Lesson) They are NOT teaching much of it at the Government Schools folks. HOME SCHOOL YOUR CHILDREN!

      1. A theory of human nature (as embodied in history, philosophy, theology, literature and law).

      2. Skill in the active literacies (writing, public speaking).

      3. Insight into the major institutional forms (courts, corporations,
      military, education). Example: Seperation of powers of government.

      4. Repeated exercises in the forms of good manners and politeness;
      based on the truth that politeness and civility are the foundation of
      all future relationships, all future alliances, and access to places
      that you might want to go.

      5. Independent work.

      6. Energetic physical sports are not a luxury, or a way to “blow off
      steam,” but they are absolutely the only way to confer grace on the
      human presence, and that that grace translates into power and money
      later on. Also, sports teach you practice in handling
      pain, and in dealing with emergencies.

      7. A complete theory of access to any place and any person.

      8. Responsibility as an utterly essential part of the curriculum;
      always to grab responsibility when it is offered and always to deliver
      more than is asked for.

      9. Arrival at a personal code of standards (in production, behavior and morality).

      10. To have a familiarity with, and to be at ease with, the fine arts. (cultural capital)

      11. The power of accurate observation and recording. For example, sharpen the perception by being able to draw accurately.

      12. The ability to deal with challenges of all sorts.

      13. A habit of caution in reasoning to conclusions.

      The constant development and testing of prior judgements: you
      make judgements, you discriminate value, and then you follow up and
      “keep an eye” on your predictions to see how far skewed, or how
      consistent, your predictions were.



      The Ultimate History Lesson


      The Underground History Of American Education-


  • Gregory Alan of Johnson

    Simple solution: HOME SCHOOL!! The public library is their for a purpose. So many folk are hung-up on “Accreditation”. Is not “Truth” much more important than that?!?

    • ded2me

      Public Library? Shoot, all one needs now is a home PC or a friggin Tablet.

    • Dan Bender

      i have been around some home schooled kids,and they are smart kids,a 6th grade level home school kids smarter than 95% of 7th and 8 graders

    • Dan Kozlowski

      Of course, public libraries, being public, are government-run, too.

  • Heartland Patriot

    Eric “My People” Holder may indeed someday succeed in disarming the American people…maybe. But if he does, he’ll be pulling our bodies out of piles of brass…and he’ll have a lot fewer sycophants at the end of the deal.

  • noin007

    The scary part to me is the people who don’t see what’s going on. They’re being brainwashed and the people who’re doing it are openly admitting it and they still trust those people.

    • Balto2

      Part of the problem, the parents were brainwashed themselves as this started in probably the 1960s’ so kids now have parents that are liberals and it is getting worse. Those of us who are older, we got through school before this agenda got too far along.

      • noin007

        I’m glad my father was older, he was from the generation before most of the parents of the people my age. He wasn’t 1/10th as far gone as so many.
        I was taught things like economics from a very early age. I look around at people today and I can’t even fathom how their minds word. How do people function at all when they don’t understand things as basic as what money is or what happens when you arm a society?

  • trigon400

    Regarding Sandy Hook, until many of us see a single video or picture from Sandy Hook’s $300K video security system of Lanza walking the hallways, breaking into the front door, the shot up walls or Lanza’s body on the floor after his demise, we shall remain convinced that Sandy Hook was “Sandy Hoax”.
    Remember that we were shown all of these pics after Columbine.
    Until then, I shall consider this to be a gun grabbing psyop that flopped.
    Also, Pete Williams of ABC a month after the supposed “event” said that: “The story is ever changing, we are now told by authorities that there was no assault rifle used, only 4 handguns”.
    This means that the CT medical examiner lied to the press about “rifle wounds on the kids” & all the subsequent hype about Colt Bushmasters was a lie crafted by the usual suspects in order to confiscate our most effective tools to resist tyranny; our mil pattern weapons.
    I shall give no man, cop or king my tools of self defense, ever.

    • David Williamson

      Colt Bushmasters? Colt and Bushmaster are two separate companies.

    • SlimJim

      I feel the same way about every horrific event before and after. It’s all crap until proved otherwise.

  • Mom of 7

    ” Now parents are concerned that the school systems are being used to push a leftist agenda instead of educating students with the skills needed to excel in their careers.: Now?! The school systems are being used to push an agenda. That agenda is not, and has not been for a long time, to educate students with the sills needed to excel. Wake up parents.

  • thebull

    I’d like to brainwash Eric Holder with a gun.

    • David Williamson

      You can’t brainwash someone with a gun. However you can clean the shit out from between their ears.

  • h5mind

    My daughter’s seventh grade Social Studies textbook defined the lawful role of government as “telling people what to do and how to live.” That was last year. If I can get hold of the same textbook I’ll scan the relevant passage and post it here. IT’s not your imagination they are doing this– it is overt, and intentional.

  • denru

    Parents should be up in arms (not firearms) to address this in whatever school they find this. We should NOT tolerate indoctrination of our CHILDREN!!!

  • Jeannie Gilbert Bruce

    we live in texas and my third grader bruoght home a doctored version of the bill of rights. they didn’t stop with the second ammendment…the butchered a bunch of them! when i called the teacher she apologized and said she didn’t read it before handing it out. we are considering homeschooling because of this and other crap that is being taught in CSCOPE curr.

  • libertyczar

    “It is very important to fascists that all schools in the country teach children that the state is the most important thing in the world”. Got that off the wiki for “Fascism”.
    When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives. -Robert A. Heinlein And so enters, Common Core.

  • Kristi Walker

    Parents in SC wouldn’t be so surprised if they’d been involved the way they should have been when parents like myself were trying to tell them about CC and what it would do to education. This is a federal take over of education and parents have been sitting on their apathetic butts or calling those like me who’ve been talking about this since 2010 conspiracy theorists. Common Core is wrong and so completely out of kilter with our Constitution it’s laughable. Bill Gates should be horse whipped for this.

    • Jonnydoe

      These are the same knuckle heads who keep voting Lindsey Graham into office so don’t expect much in the way of intelligence.

    • Christopher Tutt

      Keeping involved will not save anyone since the books are written by government shills and promote what the current government wants them to promote. And above the government push is the UN push to stop/limit the weapons in the hands of the people.

      Agenda 21 is happening and no one wants to actually point out what it really is. A full assault on our country by the UN in order to get the world under one power.

      • Kristi Walker

        Speak for yourself. The group I’m a part of has been discussing it for about 3 years now…with anyone who will listen for more than 10 second.

  • libertyczar

    Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted. -Vladimir Lenin

    In Progressive phraseology, “No reasonable person” would believe this abridgment of the Constitution was just to summarize for an already dumbed down generation, its purpose is purely for indoctrination and historical rewrite to suit an agenda.

    • Balto2

      You certainly have that right. We need to be involved in our school systems and serve on the Board of Education more than ever now.

    • Christopher Tutt

      Absolutely agree. One of the main purposes for schools was for the control of education. The movie PsyWar is a great documentary that points out the purposes and the creation of schools.

  • Kevin Merck

    “People have already found disturbing lessons in the program, such as teaching children to argue on an emotional level to manipulate people into accepting social change.”

    That’s feminism run amuck. The same can be said about the practice of abortion. I often speak out on the issue of child murder and am always confronted with the emotional argument that it could have been a rape, yet less than 1% of abortions are attributable to rape.

    They have brainwashed an entire generation of children in to thinking that unrestricted child murder is okay, what makes people think that they can’t brainwash them in to taking our guns?

    They have been doing this for decades and everyone here knows it.

  • Question Everything

    The proof of this test is suspect. Why would a teacher instruct a child to change their answer on a pop quiz? Did she also correct the student’s repeated failure to cite the correct amendment? Where is her third answer to the question? Anyone could have typed this “quiz” up and filled it out accordingly. Showing a clip with no real details is not journalism, its just rabble rousing. Then again, I’m sure your readers question everything except for your fair, unbalanced word, which could never be suspected of bias…

    • Tim Tokal

      You don’t have or know anyone with children in school currently, do you?

      Kids don’t get failed anymore… wrong answers are routinely corrected and kids given credit for incorrect work… it’s common place.
      The school system only cares about passing everyone.. because somehow that makes the teacher/school look good… it doesn’t… failing is an important part of a school.
      Please continue being a good little liberal troll though… your attempt this time was fairly poor though, you can do better, perhaps you need to go back to school?

    • Kevin Merck

      You’ve got this kid’s quiz paper confused with Obama’s birth certificate.

      Question that!

      Any moron knows by now that the certificate he provided as proof of eligibility is a fraud, yet there this psychopath sits, with his finger on the nuclear trigger.

      Phony paper or not, the agenda is clear.

    • Christopher Tutt

      Government SHILL!!!

  • Melissa Katsmom Votano

    Not cool.

  • Marcus

    Perhaps the teacher was citing the 2nd Amendment in it’s entirety. True, the people have the right to bear arms, but only in a State Militia. It amazes me that people continually ignore that part of it…

    • Jokef1000

      As ratified by the states:

      “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.”

      • justice1906tamu2

        If the intent of the founding fathers was to simply give the people the right to bear arms, why would they mention the “well regulated militia”? The answer is that they are connected. I know that people site the Supreme Court’s case law, but can’t that be overturned and left up to interpretation as well? What is written is clear.

        • Knave-On Startin

          Punctuation matters. Someone who is routinely attacking people for their grammar on this thread should realize that. Lawlz.

        • Christopher Tutt

          Probably because they meant both. The militia AND the people.
          If you don’t understand the necessity for the people to have the right to bear arms then you don’t really understand what is keeping us between tyranny and being free. Although the tyranny is starting to succeed because of comments like yours ?justice? (not so much justice in your world just supreme government control.).

        • Flit

          Read the federalist papers, and the anti-federalist papers, to fully understand what the intent of the 2nd amendment was by our founding fathers. It was so we could protect ourselves against threats, from individuals to our own government.

        • Kevin Merck

          It is clear, crystal clear, and has been understood to mean exactly what it does for over 200 years.
          The second amendment stays my friend. It’s people like you who need to go.

        • A Wilde

          What were the founding fathers thinking, well, “At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, a political sentiment existed in the newly formed United States involving suspicion of peacetime armies not under civilian control.”

          “During the Congressional debates, James Madison discussed how a militia could help defend liberty against tyranny and oppression:”

          “Tench Coxe, a prominent American political economist of the day (1755–1824) who attended the earlier constitutional convention in Annapolis, explained (in the Pennsylvania Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789) the founders’ definition of who the militia was intended to be and their inherent distrust of standing armies under the direct control of ‘civil rulers’ when he wrote:

          The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American …the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

          The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.

          Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

        • BG777EMT

          The founding fathers didn’t GIVE the people the right to bear arms, or any other rights. They stated that our rights are from our Creator (or “natural” rights) and we are born with them. Governments can only grant “privileges”. Privileges can be taken away, Rights cannot. Go back to your studying.

        • ThatGuyWhoHatesRacism

          Judging by all the arguments everyone has made, I get the impression that the interpretation is thus;

          So that the people maintain the ability to form a militia at any time as necessary, the people have the right to keep and bear arms and that will not be taken from them.

      • davemundy

        To make it easier for Marcus to understand:
        “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, since the people make up the militia and a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.”

    • Gilbert Fernandez Jr.

      No Marcus, you’re wrong the Supreme Court has said as much. What amazes me is that people clearly don’t pay attention to any case law and the amendment clearly states, that the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. What part of that do YOU not understand.

    • Lord Mannyrossa

      Are you reading challenged? I am asking seriously because I will feel horrible if I attack you too harshly and you have a reading disability. Did you not learn about clauses in English? Let me re-state the actual text for you again:

      “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”

      See the comma? That is a separate clause. Just like the First Amendment has. So it is two parts: 1) Well regulated militia (btw regulated means one that gets to shoot and militia is non-government run) 2) the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. (i.e. non militia just regular folks)

      second comma, applies to the previous two clauses “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

      So no, no one ignores that part. We just pay attention to BOTH PARTS.

  • Austin Gag

    The College Board doesn’t write AP Textbooks, there is no such thing as an “AP” textbook, its just a freshman college textbook used in a high school AP class.

  • justice1906tamu2

    I can read that the 2nd Amendment says that I have the right to bear arms in a state militia, so conversely, if I’m not a part of a state militia, I do not have that right. The CONSTITUTION states this plainly and simply. It’s funny how people ignore what is written and claim people are infringing on their rights.

    • FirearmsInstructor

      Perhaps you should read the other half, then the preamble and all the other shit so your not confused

      • justice1906tamu2

        Please explain “your” point. “You’re” the one who seems a bit confused.

        • ReadTheConstitution

          “The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia” is not the original amendment. It is a translated version by bureaucrats with liberal agendas. Instead of keeping the amendment historical and true to what our country was founded upon, they have manipulated it to serve their goals.

        • ReadTheConstitution

          Just a side note. As an African American I believe we should be most concerned about maintaining the right to legally bear arms as we statistically live in the most dangerous neighborhoods. If they ban all the legally owned guns, only the criminals breaking into my house will be armed with illegal weapons.

    • Frank Gardner

      your reading the bullshit version, try reading the real constitution

      • justice1906tamu2

        To quote the Constitution: “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.” If the intent was simply for everyone to have guns to defend themselves, they wouldn’t have mentioned the “well regulated militia” part. This is plain and clear.

        • Slaveon Fartin

          “regulated” meant trained and properly equipped, in the 18th century. Sorry your boy Tray Tray took a bit o lead to the chest. Maybe he should have kept his hands to himself.

          • justice1906tamu2

            I’m confused, who’s “my boy Tray Tray”? I’m simply reading the text as it was written. And to provide clarification, “a militia” existed because there was no federal police force to control the state level law enforcement. With the advent of the justice department, state troopers, and local police, there was no longer a need for a state militia, and therefore no need to keep and bear arms.

          • Kevin Merck

            Wrong again my friend. The standing federal army replaced the militia, but that doesn’t mean a militia can’t exist.

            BTW, I don’t know if you’re black or not, but if you are, it might interest you to know that the KKK got the first gun control laws passed to keep freed slaves from being able to bear arms.

          • K Frazier

            When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Its not the responsibility of police to protect at all times, they can’t, its impossible. They come fill out the report and arrest the people they have probable cause and then the system does the rest. Who protects you when its the police that are committing the crime, ot when they’re more than thirty minutes away?

          • SlimJim

            I would like to correct my previous response to your post. I don’t think you are a troll. I think you really are that stupid. At best you might be a stupid troll.

            FWIW, being college educated does not carry the same meaning as intelligence, logical or well reasoned thinking.

          • ThatGuyWhoHatesRacism

            That “your boy Tray Tray” shit is just him being a racist fuckwit, that’s all.

          • FreedomIsnotFree

            Actually it says “well regulated” and that did not mean trained, it meant well supplied. In other words, people should have plenty of guns and ammunition.

        • Kevin Merck

          The “militia” in those days was every able bodied man.

        • razrbac
        • lawrence

          the militia was derived from the anglo-saxon word, the “fyrd”, which meant everyone, every able-bodied man to contribute to the defense of the town/village

        • lawrence

          fyrd [fɪəd faɪəd]
          (Historical Terms) History the local militia of an Anglo-Saxon shire, in which all freemen had to serve

        • whardwick

          I believe I’ve heard Tom Woods explain it best. Something like, “They expect us to believe that even though all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights applied to the people in general, for some reason the 2nd amendment didn’t.”

        • Frank Gardner

          The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed

    • Kevin Merck

      No mistaking where you went to school. What you said is completely false and you should take it upon yourself to learn the true intent of the founders.
      You have been brainwashed.

      • justice1906tamu2

        I’m a proud graduate of Texas A&M University. I can read and formulate my own opinions based on what I’ve read. It sounds to me like I’m the opposite of being brainwashed.

        • FreedomIsnotFree

          So what exactly are you reading? It is obviously not Bill of Rights!

        • Kevin Merck

          Not if you think the second amendment only guarantees rights to a militia. The “citizen’s” right to bear arms **SHALL** not be infringed. What part of that don’t you understand.

        • some guy

          He went to college guys.

          • Kevin Merck

            He’s doing us a favor. Maybe he’s just playing devil’s advocate.
            Some people just need to have it explained to them because of all the brainwashing. When I went to school in the sixties no one in their right mind would make the argument he just did. It just goes to show how damaging the feminist teachers are to our children.

          • ThatGuyWhoHatesRacism

            I’m all up in here calling people out on racism, but now you’re being sexism. Feminism is not a problem. Being an asshole is.

          • Kevin Merck

            “Feminism is not a problem. Being an asshole is.”

            Then stop being an asshole.

            Feminism is a problem, which only assholes like you refuse to acknowledge.

          • Fara Wiles

            He went to called you guys!

            Sounds more sarcastic. Use that one next time. ^_^

        • gortron

          Do you know what a militia is? Its a group of normal citizens, who, if the state is threatened, form an armed fighting force to defend their state. So, the 2nd amendment says that that a militia is necessary to a free state, and because of that fact the peoples right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Because, an unarmed people are unable to even form a militia, meaning they are unable to defend themselves and their states. I don’t know how to explain it to you any more clearly. It’s obvious that you were either taught what you believe, or your reading comprehension level is about 3rd grade level.

        • Paula

          Not to mention, you are black, so by default, you will agree with whatever your (not my) brutha president wants you to believe, even if you are both DEAD WRONG! Get a better education dude, you are making a complete ass of yourself! Good luck with that! I am sure the United Negro College fund will be helping you out, while the rest of us “Truly” Educated people struggle to pay off our multiple loans.

          • justice1906tamu2

            Spoken like a true, card-carrying, sheet wearer. Grow up. My race has little to do with my “argument”. My thoughts come from simply reading. Never did I say that I don’t exercise my right to bear arms (I do), and never did I say that I should not have that right (I do), I just have the ability to read what is written on paper. I won’t give up my guns, but in all honesty, it’s kind of a farce to say that the Constitution has given me that right. Truth be told, the Supreme Court “gave” me that right. What’s more hilarious is how you default to a racist and bigoted response instead of formulating a coherent argument on stated fact. You just showed your ignorance Paula. God bless America (apparently, you don’t understand that my rights match those that you have). And on another note, President Obama is the President, Black, White, or otherwise, and any REAL American would support him, regardless. I wasn’t a fan of Bush invading Iraq and getting thousands of our servicemen killed for no reason, but he was the President. One thing you also need to know about me is that I don’t have any student loans. I went to Texas A&M on ACADEMIC scholarship. I got it because I’m smart, not because I’m black. Sounds like you are ignorant regardless of your race. The point is: Dumb people come in all colors, you just proved it.

          • Smith & Wesson

            wow, this guy is stupid^^^^^!!!

          • Kevin Merck

            God gave you that right, God gave us all our rights, not the corrupt, Supreme Court.
            I doubt that you’re even black. That avatar picture doesn’t mean anything. My guess is that you’re a white female trying to instigate something racial.
            Obama and Bush are both treasonous rats who need to be arrested and tried accordingly.

          • ReadTheConstitution

            Supporting, respecting or kowtowing to a man based on his title when in fact you do not support or find his actions appropriate is naive and dangerous.

          • ThatGuyWhoHatesRacism

            Man, so racist…

        • Montgomery Scott

          SO, which did you study? Agriculture, or Mining?
          You are quite silly, you know. You have been taught WHAT to think, not HOW to think, and now you think just like the communist-infiltrated NEA ‘teachers’ that you learned to repeat by rote (or else, fail their ‘classes’). You should have studied 18th century English. You DO have a DEGREE in this, do you not?
          A well-regulated militia (COMMA) being necessary to the security of a free State (comma) the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms (COMMA) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
          I suppose that you think the FEDS have the ‘right’ to interfere in the sales of weapons because of the ‘interstate commerce’ clause, as well. In the 18th century, to ‘regulate’ was to insure that things were ‘REGULAR’, I.E., NORMAL, UNHINDERED, UNENCUMBERED by ‘LAWS’ written by the individual STATES, you pathetic ‘colledge-edumacated’ trollista!

        • lawrence

          if you haven’t read that much,- and i mean that when you have read, i mean that you have read books on your own, to pursuit your own train of thought. i need to get back to reading, i don’t know why i logged on the internet again. but these colleges don’t really encourage you to read, as i noticed, in the end. i asked professors about all these books, and i began to take notice that they hardly read at all, and they weren’t interested in knowledge, for the sake of it. they were happy as government stooges.
          I recommend reading John Taylor Gatto’s Weapons of Mass Instruction, where he discussed the dialectic. It’s important to gather as much opposing information as possible, and to have a working order of bringing these things together, and once you’ve done that, it is continual resolution. you have something to work with and to continually keep your mind working afterwards. You are only taught narratives in college, with some information being omitted.

        • lawrence

          important information is hidden. especially by colleges. wouldn’t you agree ? how else can you explain the topsy turvy world ? at least it should be something to consider.
          but if you majored in mining and agriculture, then i envy you. but even if you majored in that, i’m sure you would come across rare exotic plants later that you would like to grow and wonder to yourself how come you never knew about this in college

        • Eric

          Obviously you failed English!!! I’m surprised you can formulate sentences.

        • Eric

          Just because you graduated from college doesn’t mean a whole lot either. I am going to college at UNL and it’s pretty cake. Most of it is just showing up. UNL also has higher academic standards 😉

        • Fara Wiles

          I know another fellow who graduated from Texas A&M — he’s a hell of a lot more educated than you are, sir.

          Thinking for yourself doesn’t mean you can ignore facts. If you ignore facts than you wasted a hell of a lot of money going to college. Give me a break “I went to college to think for myself.” What nonsense. You went to college and someone told you that ignoring facts was somehow a genius thing to do. No.. it just makes you a foolish individual as well as being utterly unable to hold your own in a debate.

    • FreedomIsnotFree

      And who is the State Militia? Answer: All Free People
      You may not have that Right, but I do!

    • Brother Jonathan

      Everyone has a natural right to bear arms. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights they simply state natural rights. You can read anything anyway you wish, but I have the right to bear arms without any need for a license or permit.

      Keep in mind that slaves were not allowed to bear arms.

      • ThatGuyWhoHatesRacism

        Hey look, more racism!

        • Brother Jonathan

          Dude not all slaves were black. Sure they were in America in 1860 but slavery did not have a color in history past. There is nothing racist about my post. Slaves are not allowed weapons because weapons allow people to be free. Slave masters always take weapons from their slaves no matter what the color of their skin. Otherwise they would not be slaves.

          • ThatGuyWhoHatesRacism

            I would concede the point IF you had used present-tense. You used past, so that’s just a cover-up. 😛

            But you are much nicer than all the other racists, and really, you are hardly being racist if at all.

          • Brother Jonathan

            America was not the only place to embrace slavery. There have been five major slave societies in history. Most of them were white slaves. The last slaves were black. People who believe that all slaves were black don’t know their history.

            Slavery is not a racial issue.

          • YouAreGettingMoreRacist

            You aren’t making your point because it was only in the time of the black slaves when firearms were a thing. Saying that you didn’t mean the blacks because there were slave societies before them only works if those societies actually had firearms.

          • Brother Jonathan

            Dude, firearms is not mentioned in the Second Amendment. It says ARMS. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, because it is a natural right. Owning a sword, a gun, even owning a nuclear weapon is a natural right. However, using them is an entirely different story.

            “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.”

          • iGiveUp

            By your logic, the government should have no problem with citizens making their own nuclear weaponry. Because yeah. Owning the ability to kill thousands or more with the push of a button is an inalienable right.

            No one, ever, has argued that the second amendment was referring to bladed weaponry, either. No one has been scared of the government taking our swords.

          • Brother Jonathan

            So if I make a nuclear weapon in my garage then that should be illegal? What if I never use it? What if no one ever knows that I made it? Should I go to jail simply because I made one? Should Obama go to jail because he owns one? If so, then put him in jail because he does own one.

          • DontBotherAnymore

            Obama doesn’t own nuclear weapons, the government does. Obama is not the government, he is the leader of it. Even governments shouldn’t own nuclear weapons and they are moving away from that, but by your logic… the government should go to jail, I guess? 😛

            And yes, if you built a nuclear weapon in your garage you absolutely should go to jail. That is a pile of mass-murder just sitting around. There is no rational reason for any citizen to every own a nuclear weapon.

            But hey, now you aren’t even addressing my commentary in full. It’s clear that you’re just flailing to try to look like you aren’t racist. Grow up, you are racist.

          • Fara Wiles

            And what is the government?

            what if there were no human beings working in the government? Then what would the government be?

            Who owns the government? Please clarify who you think owns these nuclear weapons that our ‘government’ has.

          • Brother Jonathan

            What if you don’t ever know? Is it still a crime?

          • Fara Wiles

            lol. Slaves weren’t allowed to own ANYTHING. Particularly any weapon that would be used against their masters. Stop acting like you don’t know what this man is talking about simply to save face.

        • Fara Wiles

          Again — you’re being antagonistic and claiming racism where there *ISN’T* any. Get a life, TROLL.

    • SlimJim

      You cannot be that stupid. The only other thing you can be is a troll. Plainly and simply.

      • bohicarico

        You’re right, no one can be this stupid. The real question, “How much money do these trolls make?”

        • Clarifier

          No, he really could believe what he says. He takes the wording to imply that a militia is necessary to keeping and bearing arms. That doesn’t make him stupid, it means he is doing his own thinking and it doesn’t agree with yours.

          • Fara Wiles

            LOL — sounds like the rationale of a child. People do their own thinking every single day.

            You can interpret anything you read any way you want to interpret it. But you can also be a complete fool and tell yourself a bunch of lies about what you’re reading and folks will realize you have zero intelligence as well as zero common-sense.

            The Constitution was specifically written to be understood by the ‘lay’ person. A ‘lawyer’ nor a highly-educated individual was required to understand the Constitution. The problem is — politicians have given *THEIR* ignorant opinion (or biased opinion) and have make the People of this country think it’s impossible to know what their rights are. It’s not impossible.

            It’s quite easy.

            If it still isn’t easy enough for you, there are personal and private writings of our founding fathers that go into greater detail of their intentions for the document. And that’s the whole crux of the matter. They had specific intentions for the Protection of our Liberties (Just think of what they went through with a tyrannical king and you’ll get a better idea of the burning ache for liberty they had) and never, EVER, wanted us to let those liberties to be limited.

    • Montgomery Scott

      Federal government routinely hires
      internet trolls, shills to monitor chat
      rooms, disrupt article comment sections

      lots of links, good article. The NSA link is pretty good…

    • RichieBraddy

      “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.”

      As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State.

    • Sam Jones

      Here we go…

    • Eric

      WHAT?!?!? http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

      Notice this says .GOV on it means this is actually what is written. Not some hokey wiki crap. Go there Justice and read that again.

      In fact here it is verbatim: 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.

      Does not mean you have to be in any kind of militia. The well regulated militia is a right that shall not be infringed. Neither is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It didn’t say nor of it’s people. the right of the people of the UNITED STATES is what it implies you illiterate moron.

    • bohicarico

      The security of a free state is dependent on a well regulated(which means trained) with arms. There’s no clause stipulating that militia membership is required to be armed. None, please turn off the television and revisit the documents you’ve read.

      The most important part, ‘…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’, you’ve ignored this, why?

      The clause doesn’t state, ‘…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms is dependent on being in a militia.’

  • davemundy

    Bias in education has been happening since long before 2008, Joshua. It’s been happening since John Dewey and B.F. Skinner, and has been mainstreamed since the formation of the US Dept. of Education in 1968 — read Charlotte Iserbyt’s “The Deliberate Dumbing-Down of America.”

  • tom

    We know all these mass murder pawns are brainwashed every day to get them to become patsys. Yes Alexis had voices in his head. Those voices are his Israeli handlers setting up all these killings. Yes sirhan was an israeli patsy. he had voices in his head. it says things like: “you are getting sleepy”…. “you will obey the sound of my voice”….”you will not remember any of this”… Holder = flunky for Israeli interests.

  • Christopher Tutt

    Since the books are written by government shills and promote
    what the current government wants them to promote we don’t have as much say as we need to in our schools. And if you look above the government push you will see the UN push to stop/limit the weapons in the hands of
    the people. This is all part of the plan and that has been happening slowly and incrementally just as planned. Small bumps in the road such as Snowden are getting in their way, but the american people are so “busy” to realize the magnitude of the truth of the matter.

    Agenda 21 is happening and no one wants to actually point out what it
    really is. A full assault on our country by the UN in order to get the
    world under one power. This will be under the power of the central banks.

  • oldmaninblackforest

    FACT is that even with a concealed weapons prmit a cop CAN confiscate your gun during a traffic stop. HOWEVER it must be returned….

    • Kevin Merck

      A cop can rape your wife at a traffic stop too.
      What’s your point?

    • Brother Jonathan

      A cop can kill you and get a paid vacation for it too.
      It does not make it right or legal.

  • WilliamGillingham

    Love it all… but change the background to a lighter color – white on black is very hard to read (especially for more than 10 seconds!) :)

    • Fara Wiles

      I actually find it easier to read. Bright computer monitors make my eyes tired. Since I was 16 I’ve dimmed all the monitors I’ve ever used and switched backgrounds to black w/ white text.

  • L.King

    Yet another point for homeschooling. Don’t the government raise our kids people!

  • Mr. Jay

    The teacher needs to be FIRED, IMMEDIATELY, and given a lifetime ban from every being allowed to take part in the education of any person of any age.

    • Gaijinman

      Amen… and perhaps brought up on child molest charges for a blatant attempt to willfully molest a young mind with absolute lies.

  • Paula

    You think this is bad? You should hear and witness what they are teaching and brainwashing young adults in most universities!

    • Michael

      This is so sadly true. The thing is it’s been going on for years. My son made it through college without going “liberal” however my daughter didn’t quite make it. They are 34 and 35 now. The good thing is my son and his wife haven’t bought into this brainwashing and won’t allow their children too either.

    • justice1906tamu2

      Now Paula, you know that you’ve never set foot on a college or university campus. Working a custodial shift doesn’t count.

      • ThatGuyWhoHatesRacism

        Don’t lower yourself to her level, man. There is no ladder tall enough to climb back up.

  • Paula

    What is next? They are going to start teaching children that black on white crime is excusable but white on black crime is not? Seems like that is the way things are going already! smh

    • ThatGuyWhoHatesRacism

      Ahh, delicious racism.

      • Fara Wiles

        You’re antagonizing just to antagonize. Be more productive if you think these comments are ignorant.

      • Sam Jones

        Racism or not. The truth is the truth. If Zimmerman was black and trayvon was white, nobody would have said a damn thing. The cops at the crime scene would say “What the hell was his dumb white ass doing walking around here? He should have known better.” Double standards. Wish I were black. Then I could get all kinds of shit. You know how hard it is being a poor white guy? It is racist. White people are becoming the minority and everyone is discriminating against them. yay me. guess its our turn. but don’t go thinking that there is as much racism againts blacks as there is against whites now. There are no tax break incentives for hiring white people. Nor are there any government programs or charities strictly for whites. Not saying there should be, but the United Negro Fund? really? what if there was a United white-persons Fund? The entire country would shit. There would be so many pissed off people. Like I said, I’m nowhere near being a racist, but the truth is the truth.

      • Sam Jones

        Just saying what everone else is afraid of bringing up.

  • Paula

    Two words: “Home School” End of story

    • Michael Le Houllier

      Not everyone can afford to do that…

      • Jack Leo

        That is negative view. MOST people who think they can not afford it really are able, it requires some changes and often sacrifices..

        • Michael Le Houllier

          We can’t afford to not work and we don’t have the flexibility to do this. However, it is illegal where we live anyway.

          • Fara Wiles

            Where do you live? Germany? It’s legal in every State in the United States…

          • Fara Wiles

            Good grief, you live in Taiwan. Sheesh.

          • Michael Le Houllier

            And believe me, with some of the stuff they feed our kids in school here, I wish we COULD home school… but truly couldn’t afford to even were it legal. What we DO, is talk to our kids every day about what they are learning in school and correct when their teachers/textbooks are promoting too much pro-KMT ideology.

          • Fara Wiles

            No, seriously. Homeschooling isn’t expensive. Especially when you have the internet. We do school work at all hours of the day. Whenever it strikes our fancy to get into school work.

            Programs my son watches is part of his education. Documentaries, youtube videos, etc. Any book he reads. Any article. Anything I instruct him on (like how to trouble-shoot or fix something) is all education.

            People think homeschool and they think “Public Structure transferred to my living room”. Nope.

            Not even the slightest. Inside, outside, in the car, at the playground, taking a walk, on the couch, at the dinner table, laying on the floor, watching a program, reading a book, doing text work.. wherever they learn — that is homeschool.

      • L.King

        My husband and I both work opposite shifts, and we homeschool. it’s not that hard, nor is it expensive. It’s only hard if you try to follow some rigid curriculum – which is not necessary. Kids learn better when you follow their interests, and let them learn at their own pace in real world situations.

      • Fara Wiles

        More people can afford it than you think. You don’t have to buy hundreds of dollars worth of curriculum. And I live in one of THE most regulated states in the country. We’re doing just fine on free materials and inexpensive text books. Not to mention the ENORMOUS support system that is available as well as co-ops and trades that are available all over the place.

        • Michael Le Houllier

          Some people are simply willfully ignorant and do not understand others whose situation is different than their own.

          • Fara Wiles

            Like yourself, I imagine.

  • justice1906tamu2

    So, the interpretation of the Supreme Court matters on the topic of gun control (or non-control) but it means nothing regarding Health Care? All the pro-gun lobby should be sold out in defending Health Care simply because the Supreme Court says so. Right?

    • Pete

      Here is his FB page. Obama supporter. Its cause he is black I suppose, so you voted for him? https://www.facebook.com/marcus.leflore

      • justice1906tamu2

        Pete, grow up guy. I support my President because HE’s the PRESIDENT. I live in a great country, one that gives me the right to speak my mind, bear arms, and play devil’s advocate. Yes, I have guns, and no, I won’t be giving up my right to bear them. My point is that the Supreme Court gave me that right, not the Constitution. The Constitution said that I would need to be a part of a well regulated militia. Me supporting President Obama and you posting my facebook page means what?

        • Sam Jones

          With out the Constitution there would be no Supreme Court. The Supreme court simply interprets the Constitution. Therefore the Constitution gives you your rights. I think I’m done arguing with someone who is not even well versed in the basic principles of the Federal Government.

        • Sean

          wow man your so misinformed.

        • ThatGuyWhoHatesRacism

          It means he is a racist, or didn’t you catch that when he said you voted for Obama just because you’re black? Don’t worry, his opinion doesn’t matter. He’s subhuman.

        • Niki83

          Supporting “the president” simply because he’s “the president” is a HORRENDOUS reason for doing so! One should support someone in whom they believe, not just because they hold a title that some people consider important.

        • bohicarico

          The government grants no rights whatsoever. The framers asserted that the Creator granted all rights. The constitution limits what government can do.

          Where in the constitution does it state one must be in a militia to bear arms?

          • Athiest

            The creator never told me what I can and can’t do, actually.

          • Fara Wiles

            Get over yourself. God-Given rights or Natural rights. It means the same thing. They’re YOURS.

        • Jonathan Courtney

          privileges are given.. rights cannot be given

        • Fara Wiles

          Dude — get with it. **NO ONE** gave you the right to ‘bear arms’.

          You were BORN with the innate right to LIVE and the right to fight to STAY ALIVE. No government entity can GIVE YOU the right to defend yourself in any way possible.

          The Constitution, nor did the Supreme Court, GIVE you anything. The Constitution was made LAW of the land and to expressly **PROTECT** the rights you were born with. It was to restrict the *government* from thinking it was okay to make any law to restrict your liberty. The amendments make clarifications and specifications that are to restrict GOVERNMENT. Not to *give* you something.

          YOU are your own government. YOU rule yourself. YOU mind your own business, earn your keep, defend yourself and your keep, and leave everyone else alone. The Government is only here to punish those who DON’T mind their own business. They are given *VERY* limited (enumerated powers — all others are left to the States and the INDIVIDUAL — that means YOU) abilities but mostly, the government is to be *restricted*.

        • Sam Jones

          F*** it, why not… Pete you know that is the exact reason. Everyone voted for that asshole just because he IS black. Seems pretty racist to me. Watch this comment get removed because it’s true and they don’t want anyone to know…

    • lawrence

      i don’t think the supreme court was ever allowed to interpret the constitution

      • Sam Jones

        Look it up guys… That is the defined job of the supreme court… To interpret the constitution. Has anyone ever taken a Federal Government course? Ever? It’s like debating with a bunch of high school kids.

        • lawrence

          i think the constitution was pretty self-explanatory

        • lawrence

          this is what this one guy wrote to me, recently:

          “Also study the Judicial powers in the Constitution for the Litmus test for the power of the SCOTUS.

          The Courts do not have the power to interpret the Constitution only to decide cases challenging laws as unconstitutional.

          The power to interpret is the power to decide intent and the Drafters and Signers were very clear because they understood how interpretation can be used to corrupt.

          Any case law that defines the Constitution is a violation which collapses the whole federal house of cards.”

  • Sam Jones

    When I first read the Constitution, it simply said “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.” That is what is written in the Constitution. The Federal Government’s military is not the same as the militia. You (as a citizen) have to freedom to form a militia and bear arms…. Gun control is a f***ing infringement!!!! Dumbasses… Therefore it is unconstitutional.. Why does nobody f***ing get that.???? “Well regulated” means that they don’t want a bunch of unselected brain-dead assholes with no training to be responsible for the local militias. Hanging yourself up on the the term “well regulated” is pretty f***ing dumb. Just because it is not clear to you doesn’t mean that no one else gets it. You obvioulsy went to A&M. What did you go there for a Philosophy Major? Now you want to go all over the internet with you sad-ass college education, spreading you ill-informed opinions just because you probably voted for Obama? Lets face it, 97% of the black community did vote for Obama, and I’m willing to bet it didn’t have a damn thing to do with his policies. So I can assume that if you did or were to vote, the odds of you voting for him would statistically significant in a major way. Therefore, not only do you not comprehend Federal literature, but you are also biased to side with a Socialist Magalomaniac. Do the world a favor and refrain from procreation.

    • ThatGuyWhoHatesRacism

      Gun control isn’t an infringement, restricting guns without cause is. Tracking who owns guns is okay because it doesn’t take the right of the people to keep and bear arms away.

      I was going to say more then then I realized that you’re racist and your opinion doesn’t matter.

      • Sam Jones

        Hahahaha I knew someone was going to call me racist. First of all infringement may mean something else to you, but to me it means placing restrictions on what we can buy and limiting the size of the magazines.. Second, I’m not racist. Its just that the facts are facts. Just because you don’t want to hear it, doesn’t make it any less true. Also I feel it is extremely racist to vote for somebody just because they ARE black. Which is what happened the past two elections. I’m not saying that black people shouldn’t vote, because that would be really messed and that WOULD be racist. However you cannot refute the statement that nearly all of the the black voting population voted for Obama. Everyone was so wrapped up with “making history” that they didn’t stop to think who it was they were even electing or what he stood for. The only thing that most people though was “It’s about time we had a black president”. I would have been ok with Condalisa Rice (who happens to be a black woman) as the president. It does not make me racist to point out the truth though. Just calling it as I see it.

        • Chris James

          Sam, I’ve read many of your posts and you’re spot on with most of your arguments…but don’t waste time with fools. If you are getting called “racist” when you obviously haven’t said anything racist and if you are dealing with people that do not even know what the 2cond amendment means, then debate isn’t going to change their minds. Just hate to see such an intelligent sounding guy waste his time on fools. Enjoyed your posts, take care.

          • Sam Jones

            Thanks Chris. Unfortunately I realized that late last night. I appreciate someone else who can actually reason. That’s getting pretty rare to find these days.

      • Sam Jones

        You’re a f***ing retard. If I were racist I’d have a lot more to say.

  • Pete
  • Sam Jones

    Hahaha “engineering”… Even worse. Which one? It couldn’t be more vague. civil engineering? Biological and Agriculural engineering? Electrical engineering? However, Safety engineering seems more your speed.

  • David Chen

    Wow…. just the education establishment biasing its opinions on the rest of us… Today, The School Revolution was released, just in time.

  • Keith Houston

    Our children are no longer educated. They are indoctrinated.

    • YayPrivateEducation

      I wasn’t educated or indoctrinated, I was taught to think for myself.

      But I was also expelled from public schools because of a rumor and they were forced to pay for my private schooling education.

      • Keith Houston

        Children are no longer taught to think for themselves. Independent thinking is a threat to the two parties ruling over us.

  • Shenandoah Flowers

    Give Teachers more money and we will get higher quality people. Bust Unions and special interest groups and fire teachers when they need it.

    • AntiCapitalist

      Yeah, unions are evil! Let’s work for even lower wages!

      • Jason

        I take issue with them when they are more concerned maintaining tenure of their members hnd running political ads than educating students.

        • AntiCapitalist

          And that’s a good reason/time to take issue with them. But that doesn’t mean all unions are bad. If we simply had regulations around how a union can be run, much like we need regulations around how a bank can be run, it would solve the problem.

          We need to make it illegal to be immoral greedy fuckwits, because if we don’t than people will do it. Because that’s capitalism.

          • Charles

            Because making things illegal totally causes people to stop doing them lol worked so well with murder, drugs, and money laundering. You can’t stop evil by making it illegal…History has shown this time and time again..

      • Fara Wiles

        LOL! Fool..

        • AntiCapitalist

          Without the unions in the way all that money at the top would start to trickle down to the people at the bottom!

          Or, you know, instead of going to the unions it would just stay in the company’s pocket instead. And without the unions they’d keep even MORE money. Unions are, at their most basic, a collective bargaining tool against the companies in the same way a militia is to the government.

          That’s right: If you support the 2nd amendment, you also need to favor unions.

          • Fara Wiles

            My father has been in a Union for 20 years. One of the biggest unions in the country. He’s a Teamster.

            I know what Unions do. I know what they’re like. And I know that what you’re talking about.. is BS. All of it. He’s been forced to pay union dues or get run out of his job. Those union dues supported all of the Liberal Democratic candidates for the last 20 years. He complained that he didn’t want his union dues to go to the election and a week later a guy came into the lunch room and joked that some folks find themselves at the bottom of the river with ‘cement shoes’.

            It was the hokiest threat, but it got the point across. He never mentioned the union dues again.

            Unions are made up of FORCE. Not bargaining. They bully the businesses as well as their members. You haven’t the faintest idea what Unions are capable of nor what goes on behind the facade of “Pro-Unions”.

          • AntiCapitalist

            I said “at their most basic”, miss. Unions are meant for good but they are being used for evil.

          • Fara Wiles

            The same thing can be accomplished without the bullying of the organization itself. People can agree to organize without the backing of a threatening leadership.

      • Shenandoah Flowers

        Yeah those Unions really helped the Auto industry How about those Steel workers they are doing great huh? Our Unions have gotten too greedy and force companies out of business or oversea’s. Remember the company is in it for a profit not just to give you a job if they cannot make money here in the U.S. they will go to where they can. How many Auto plants have moved to the South over the last 20-30 years? I’m sure those who work at the southern plants would rather have their jobs then to see them exported to china like everything else has been. They may only make 18 an hour instead of 40, but those companies who were paying 40 are gone now.

        A union is not needed to protect your wages, competency in your job and continued skill growth will do it just fine. McDonald’s is not a job to support a family on, it is a entry level position only for kids in or just out of high school. Nothing more.

  • mcbeese

    Curious to understand people’s thinking on the big deal between “well regulated militia” and “state” militia. ‘Regulated’ means government – federal, state, county, or municipal – and state would seem to be the right balance of competence and regional compatibility between those options.

    My guess is that the key point amongst those obsessed with owning guns is that since the form of government regulation is not specific in the wording, they can get away with pretending that part of the 2nd Amendment doesn’t exist or is unimportant. Not for long, people.

    America has a sick obsession with guns and 10s of thousands of people die each year because of it. Many of the comments in this thread are a frightening example of how obsessed some people are with guns, and it seems to be fueled by a seriously unhealthy paranoia. Thank goodness you people are not representative of the mainstream. Whether you acknowledge it or not, you’re the ‘gun nuts’ that educated America refers to.

    • foltzy

      I don’t think everyone here is a gun nut. I support the 2nd amendment to the end, because it is a right of the people. If people standing up for their rights makes them a nut, then the civil rights movement should be written off, since they were “nuts”. When they campaigned for their rights, people shot them down. However, they did get rights, and now that our right to keep and bear arms has a threat posed to it, you call us “nuts”. Makes tons of sense.

      • mcbeese

        If you want to make that argument, I think you first have to rationalize the blind eye that everyone turns to the “well regulated militia” part of the 2nd Amendment, just like you have just done. When we’re square with what that part of the 2nd Amendment means and how we begin to apply it to gun ownership rights and controls in America, I will once again embrace the 2nd Amendment with open arms. Until then, I regard the 2nd Amendment as something that is being perversely distorted by the gun nuts, resulting in the deaths of 10s of thousands of innocent victims.

        • Jonathan Courtney

          you realize according to FBI gun crime statistics that gun related crimes are down by 50% from 20 years ago when there were stricter gun laws right? also gun laws do not work look at that shooting. it happened in a known gun free city in a gun free zone.. criminals don’t obey laws so what you are left with is a bunch of defenseless people against a maniac

          • mcbeese

            Yes, gun crimes dipped a lot during the Clinton years, which skewed the data. Are YOU aware that since 2000, gun-related crimes have increased every year, and the increase has accelerated over the past three years? That is a dozen years of steady increase… in other words, statistically relevant.

          • halcrawford

            You’re probably citing the Mother Jones graph, which is actually the one that’s skewed. Gun-related crimes are definitely down, even considering the horrific crime this week.

          • mcbeese

            No, gun crimes are definitely not down. Gun homicides are up year over year since the start of the last decade. The horrific events don’t even register on the scale. 38 people are shot every damn day. The number of people who were killed at the naval yard is just a couple of hours worth of the problem for a single day, but CNN love that kind of gun porn so it gets days worth of coverage.

          • halcrawford

            And speaking of these events, the killer walked onto a military base where HE KNEW it was illegal to carry, and he knew he could attack with minimal resistance. You can lay the death of most of those 13 at the feet of people like you who make it impossible for others to defend themselves.

          • mcbeeseisafuckingretard

            are YOU aware you’re a fuckstick?

          • Fara Wiles

            hahahahahaha oh man..

          • mcbeese

            LOL… who could have guessed…

          • mcbeese

            Ha ha ha. Wow. What a great contribution. “fuckstick” Ooooo… you’re so cool, man. Such a smart insight. I bet Fara is really impressed… and you two deserve each other.

          • Fara Wiles

            lmao “That skewed the data.” haaahahahaha oh wow.
            That’s an awesome response.

          • mcbeese

            It’s ok, Fara, I understand that numbers and statistics are beyond your comprehension.

          • Fara Wiles

            You’re an idiot! Data is data! YOU’RE the one who wants to act like some data “SKEWED” the results! They didn’t skew anything! They *ARE* the data you half-wit!!

          • Jonathan Courtney

            are you going by the fbi crime statistics or some other statistics

        • foltzy

          Well regulated does not mean regulated by the government. It does mean that something is in control of it, meaning in charge. And where do you get the statistic “tens of thousands”? Last I checked, nobody I know who has a gun or even has access to guns kills people. Many of the people who are shot are shot by people who illegally obtained the guns. Gun ownership is a right, and the whole “guns kill people” is a load of crap. If that’s true, then spoons make people fat, and we should outlaw all silverware, since people eat with that. As for a militia that is well regulated, that comes into play when we need the militia. We don’t need that right now. Also, if we don’t have any guns to use in the militia, are we expected to have our government spend more money (which it doesn’t have) to make guns for us, rather than let us keep what we have and use those?

      • justice1906tamu2

        The civil rights was a fight for EQUAL rights among all people. Fighting for gun rights is so that a select few can fuel their obsession to shoot 80 rounds per minute. I say ban all guns except for the muskets the Founding Fathers were writing about when the Constitution was penned.

        • ThatGuyWhoHatesRacism

          I disagree. Rifles should be legal but handguns should be restricted.

          • mcbeese

            I think ALL reasonable weapons should be legal and controlled/well regulated, just like our founders intended. I am anti-gun-nut, not anti-gun.

          • BecauseGunsArentBadByThemself

            I think we just shouldn’t allow private sales and we should make the ID-numbers on the guns require them to be made non-functional to change/erase. Made an RFID-tag that is sealed from direct access in a way that makes it so you have to destroy the gun to get at it. Then a national gun registry, so that we know who was the last legal owner of a gun, then if a weapon is ever used in a crime, that person can be charged with conspiracy.

          • mcbeese

            Yes, something like that. We have the ability to solve or at least significantly address a good part of the problem without affecting people’s ability to own guns. Sensible control will protect our ability to continue to own guns. The status quo is providing a lot of reasons to significantly restrict gun ownership. The gun nuts don’t get that.

          • Fara Wiles

            I think all weapons should be legal. The purpose of guns was to use them against tyrannical government. Not *only* for self-defense against a rogue neighbor or crazy criminal. It is in our legal and founding documents that we defend ourselves from a government that might turn into a Satlin, Hitler, or other tyrannical murderous regime.

          • mcbeese

            …yes, but those same documents said you had to be part of a well regulated militia. You people keep ignoring that.

          • Fara Wiles

            lol *smh* No. It doesn’t.

            It’s amazing you consider me a gun nut when I don’t even own a gun. This is why you’re paranoid and obsessed. I’m fighting for the liberty of ALL people. Not just myself. I don’t own a gun and I doubt I ever will. But other people do want to own a gun and that is their right.
            For equal self-defense.

            You need to read what these “crazy gun-nut” founders actually wrote and what they *actually* believed. You simply look like an uneducated, modern-media-fed, ignorant, frightened, propaganda-regurgitating, lobotomized, knowledge-lazy punk.

            You too can remove yourself from said mind-trap by doing some deep history research. Study the men who founded this country, not just their ultimately agree-upon legal documents.

          • Sam Jones

            You are my hero…

          • mcbeese

            Ha ha ha… I’m embarrassed for you, Sam.

          • Sam Jones

            hahaha you should be embarrassed for yourself.

          • mcbeese

            But I’m not. I’ve done my homework and a person who doesn’t even read posts before adding her stupid comments is not my hero.

          • Sam Jones

            The longer I talk to you, the more I’m beginning to find that I really don’t want to read your mindless troll posts either. Also, if you had done your homework, you would have a litte better grasp on history, government and reality. I don’t really feel like debating simple fundamental ideas with someone who apparently doesn’t have an educational history beyond highschool.

          • mcbeese

            Sam, I have the same feeling towards you. I hope you have a long and fruitful career at Wal-Mart and I hope you and ‘your hero’ Fara enjoy the perfect Honey Boo Boo life together.

          • Sam Jones

            Hahaha If only you knew…

          • mcbeese

            Actually, at this point I just consider you not very smart. I’ve done the research, you don’t even read the posts before regurgitating the dogma that the NRA have fed you. Good cow.

          • Fara Wiles

            The NRA is a waste of time. I couldn’t care less what you think of me. You couldn’t care less about anyone’s liberties, why should anyone care what you think?

          • mcbeese

            If you think you and your guns are a defense against our government, you are the craziest of the crazy gun nuts I refer to.

        • Brother Jonathan

          Ban all guns eh? How about we ban guns from all government employees including the military. They want to ban guns from all non-government employees. They want to control us. They want absolute power. Our founding fathers were smarter than that. They knew that all bans are because of power hungry people. Ban alcohol and get John Gotti. Ban Industrial Hemp and get Oil powers. Banning anything is stupid. Banning guns will simply lead us to underground guns. It is stupid. I can make a gun in my garage. Does anyone think that I will not make a gun in my garage if I want one? I am not a criminal because I make a gun. I am only a criminal if I use my gun to kill. Jefferson Davis killed a bunch of people. Was he a criminal because he owned guns or was he a criminal because he used them to kill a bunch of people? You tell me.

          • mcbeese

            Gun controls serve a purpose. Not everyone is intelligent or responsible enough to posses a gun. We all know people like that. Gun controls are for the protection of potential victims of these lunatics. Gun controls will reduce gun deaths and make guns more available to law abiding citizens, not less available.

          • Charles

            Because gun control did SO much good for those people on that Naval Base on Monday….You need to wake up and get the koolaid IV out of your arm…

          • mcbeese

            We don’t have gun controls and that’s why those people are dead. In Canada, for example, that guy couldn’t have purchased a gun and gone to the base to shoot people up. The background check would have stopped it.

            That naval base is the model of what the NRA says we need in our schools – and it didn’t work. Do we need to arm everyone on the base? No we need to arm all the kids in schools? Wake up. We need more controls. We can fix this problem.

          • Charles

            First off, the Naval base is a gun free zone…the exact opposite of what the NRA has been pushing for…And Washington DC has some of the strictest gun control laws in our nation. Every single person on that base should have been allowed to carry a firearm. I guarantee you it would have ended differently had that been the case. And I don’t care how illegal you make something, criminals will find a way to get it and use it. It happens every single day in the U.S. with drugs…or if that example “isn’t a real comparison” let’s look at Australia…where the government called for a mandatory turn-in of all firearms (and destroyed them) ….And now the gun murder rates there have shot up more than 20% in the last year or so. How does that happen? I’ll tell you — criminals don’t obey the law. It’s pretty easy to comprehend if you just look past the crap that the media is spoon feeding you.

          • Sam Jones

            Just so you know.. regulations have never made anything easier to do, much less make guns “more available”. lunatics can and will get a hold of guns. You know how I protect myself from a gun wielding lunatic? By putting two in his chest. Not hoping some stupid restrictions somehow reduce my chances of getting shot.

          • mcbeese

            Fine, that’s your choice. By not carrying a gun, i am 75% less likely to get shot than you are. I am equally likely to get a beating, but I’m experienced with that kind of conflict and happy to take my chances.

          • Kevin Merck

            Obama has his finger on the nuclear trigger, that is who we need protection from.

        • wouldntyouliketoknow

          You sir are a complete idiot! If the founding fathers wouldve had had simi and automatic fire arms it wouldnt be a single country willing to attack America. I sat lets be like Switzerland.

          • mcbeese

            You can’t even put together a proper sentence in English and you’re calling someone an idiot? Not a good start. You’re helping to make my case though, so I shouldn’t complain.

            You do realize that there isn’t a single country that can attack America today, right?

          • Let there be peace

            Ummm hello 9/11 Huge attack…It’s that type of thinking that left us wide open to attack. No one is completely safe you can ban all the guns you want it will not stop people getting killed. Anything can be used as a weapon; but bottom line rights are rights. I personally do not own a gun but I do not feel taking away peoples rights will solve anything; if anything it will make things worse. What is really telling if everyone reads these posts thoroughly is it is causing more fighting among ourselves and honestly how does that help us?

          • mcbeese

            Hahaha… seriously? Ok, where the hell were all the suburban warriors with their guns on 9/11? Why didn’t they stop that attack?

            Wake up people. Our guns aren’t killing our enemies, they’re killing us. We’ve killed more Americans with guns than Assad killed Syrians with chemical weapons in the last couple of months.

          • Sam Jones

            Gee, he’s only one man… give him a chance will ya?

        • Witchwindy

          It does NOT say in the 2nd Amendment “the right to keep and bear muskets” it says “ARMS”, meaning it included ALL of the arms of their time, and I’m pretty damn certain (since they were very intelligent and well educated) they also knew there would be improvements to the arms they knew.

        • foltzy

          Ah yes. The guns that would work outstandingly against a person with any other type of gun. News flash: criminals don’t follow the law. That’s why they’re CRIMINALS. And what about the flintlock pistols and cannons that we also used? Ban all but those as well?

    • Brother Jonathan

      Curious to understand people’s thinking on the big deal between “well regulated militia” and “state” militia. ‘Regulated’ means government – federal, state, county, or municipal – and state would seem to be the right balance of competence and regional compatibility between those options.

      My guess is that the key point amongst those obsessed with owning cars is that since the form of government regulation is not specific in the wording, they can get away with pretending that part of the 2nd Amendment doesn’t exist or is unimportant. Not for long, people.

      America has a sick obsession with cars and 10s of thousands of people die each year because of it. Many of the comments in this thread are a frightening example of how obsessed some people are with cars, and it seems to be fueled by a seriously unhealthy paranoia. Thank goodness you people are not representative of the mainstream. Whether you acknowledge it or not, you’re the ‘car nuts’ that educated America refers to.

      • mcbeese

        Cars are not designed to kill people. Cars sometimes do kill people, and as a result they are highly regulated. These ever tightening regulations have been reducing the number of automobile fatalities while the semi-regulated increase in gun ownership has been leading to an increase in gun homicides and fatalities for more than the past decade. The most recent data forecast shows gun deaths exceeding automobile deaths by 2015.

        Sorry, that car argument is old and was shown to be a bad example a long time ago.

        • Fara Wiles

          Cars are also highly regulated because they DO kill people.

          • mcbeese

            That’s what I said. Pay attention.

          • Fara Wiles

            Forgive me. I didn’t want to go through another paragraph of your prattle.

          • FuckwitsSuck

            If you aren’t willing to read than don’t argue.

          • mcbeese

            That’s right, you comment without reading or thinking. it’s obvious. You should cut down on that… you’re making my point.

          • Fara Wiles

            You have no point.

        • Brother Jonathan

          Are you kidding me? I could kill you with a car much easier than I could kill you with a gun and get away with it.

          • mcbeese

            A. No, you couldn’t.

            B. Why don’t you go look up the number of intentional car ‘homicides’ over the past decade and compare them to the number of gun homicides.

        • Brother Jonathan

          Which is better? Use a gun to rob a bank? Or use Congress to rob the banks? Using TARP is much smarter than using a gun. Using a car to kill a person is much smarter than using a gun.

          • mcbeese

            Now you’re just being stupid and talking about things that you don’t know anything about. Better to quit while you’re ahead. TARP is going to be profitable for the taxpayer… you know that, right?

            Also, people are lazy. If it were easier to kill people with a car, they would.

          • Brother Jonathan

            Taking money from me does not make me profitable. You are the one being stupid.

        • Brother Jonathan

          The military and police have been using guns to kill people for centuries. They want everyone else unarmed. 250 million people were killed by governments just last century.
          You say they should be the only ones armed? The founders of America said everyone should be armed. An armed society is a polite society. There is reason that most mass murder happens in gun free zones. I believe the founders were a lot smarter than you.

    • Economan

      You are wrong in your interpretation of “regulated”. “Regulated” did not, when the bill of rights was crafted, refer to government “regulations”. Well-regulated meant “proper working order, calibrated correctly or functioning as expected”. The state militia was the entire populace of able-bodied men.

      • mcbeese

        No, you are wrong in your interpretation. ‘Regulated militia’ most definitely included a government and/or military command and control structure & hierarchy, which they had in place at the time.

        • wouldntyouliketoknow

          Do us a favor and quit brown nosing the liberals and Pierse Morron ok and actually think with your head and not your butt. I was raised in a house full of fire arms and was taught the proper way to use them and when to use them and niether had a triger lock nor hidden. I suppose that if people started assaulting people with i pads and laptops you would be on the side that wants to bann them.

          • mcbeese

            I was raised in a house full of guns too, without locks or keys. Unfortunately, there are too many imbeciles out there who aren’t responsible and ruin it for the rest of us. That’s why we need controls… to protect us all from the dumbest common denominator.

        • Sam Jones

          Actually I’m pretty sure they barely had any structure or hierarchy at the time. This was in between the Articles of Confederation and the Bill of Rights. They were still trying to hash out a working government. Also the term regulated has been changed to meaning government controlled. If a militia were regulated by the government it would defeat the purpose of having a militia. A militia is not the government’s army. It is made up of the local communities residence whose sole purpose is to protect their community from any threat. Especially the government. The president cannot send troops into a state without that governor’s consent. If he does so without consent then the militia is the last line of enforcement. They are here to protect us from our own government if necessary. This is why a government regulated militia would defeat the purpose of having a militia at all.

          • mcbeese

            Sam, why post if you don’t know? They absolutely had a command and control structure at the time or we would all be tea drinkers now.

            A regulated militia – that is what is in our constitution – can be regulated at multiple government levels, but it is regulated. The regulated part is important… it was not dropped in to our constitution for fun.

          • Sam Jones

            Here’s a little idea. Take a history class or at least educate yourself about what was happening at that time. If you could even refute the fact that having a government regulated militia would defeat the purpose of having a militia at all, then we might begin to have an actual educated conversation. Also the Articles of Confederation was written after the Revolutionary War. However it did not work like they had planned. The country was extremely vulnerable because each state wanted to act as its own country. So after they scrapped the Articles of Confederation, they eventually came up with the Bill of Rights. The idea of government control (or regulations) was outlandish and something they opposed because it too closely resembled the government they had been previously under. There is such thing as a self-regulating entity. Unless you consider yourself a sheep.

          • mcbeese

            No, there is no such thing as a self-regulating entity without a command and control structure. That would be an unregulated entity.

            You keep insisting that I assume Federal regulation, or even State regulation. I only want better regulation than today’s mess. We can do better as a country than we are doing.

          • Sam Jones

            Spoken like a true socialist. Do you work for the IRS? The only thing I can agree with you on is that the country could do better… Only I believe it is without the current president, without infringements on the 2nd amendment, and without
            regulations out the ass every time I want to take a piss. Regulations are necessary for people’s safety up to a certain point. That point however is way the hell back there because we pass it a long time ago. Now sensless regulations are being passed for the purposes of gaining votes.. So that it looks like they did something. Instead it makes it hell for a majority of people. Just like the mandatory health insurance bullshit… What happens if you can’t afford it? they fine you. As if making you owing more somehow allows you to afford it. A lot of people will argue that but the real test will be when that deadline comes.

        • Doug Holmes

          Militia means “unscripted.”

          Government controlled militaries are specifically scripted men.

          Drafted soldiers are referred to as “conscripts.”

          Militias are not government controlled, hence “well regulated.”

          Your clue here is “freedom and security of a free state.”

          Now who on earth would threaten the freedom and security of a free state?

          Perhaps the government?

    • Fara Wiles

      I think you’re the only one with the obsession. People simply want the ability to defend themselves at a moment’s notice.

      Police officers are trained to use guns b/c criminals get guns. They’re gotten here and all over the world. Registered, unregistered, stolen — they get guns because people are afraid to die. Guns make that happen quickly.
      Normal, non-obsessed people, simply want the same ability to defend themselves.

      Of course situations that involve guns don’t always turn out for the benefit of the victim. But the ability to use a gun also saves lives.

      I think you, McBeese, are the one who is paranoid and obsessed. You seem quite frightened of people who might own a gun. As if everyone who owns a gun is a psycho. Maybe you need to turn the tv off and stop permitting yourself to be brainwashed by the fear-mongering media. Eh?

      • mcbeese

        Fara – again, pay attention. I have no problem with people having guns. I have a big problem with our ineffective regulations and controls for guns. There are a lot of irresponsible and/or stupid people in this country who need rules to protect us from them and to protect them from themselves.

        • Fara Wiles

          There isn’t a rule on this planet that is going to keep an insane and irresponsible person from doing something insane or irresponsible.

    • KY NFA gunowner

      Im sorry but “Regulated” doesnt mean government. The english language has changed a little since the time of out Founding Fathers.
      A well regulated militia, in 1790’s meant: A well practiced militia.
      At the time, they did not have much of a standing army. Google Militia Act(s) of 1792.

      The MAIN problem with the gun-control issue is NOT the guns, and what kind of guns civilians can get. The MAIN issue IS people NOT respecting HUMAN LIFE!!!!!!

      • Sam Jones

        “Regulated”, in the liberal definition, means Government controlled. “Regulated”, in the sane person’s definition, means controlled by the people.

        • mcbeese

          No Sam, controlled by the people is the definition of unregulated, because it means there is no control. Don’t be a dummy.

          • Sam Jones

            I was illustrating the idea of something called “perspective”. Look up the work regulated in the dictionary. No where does it say “government”. dummy

          • mcbeese

            Sam, how about if you remember that our topic is the 2nd Amendment. The context is government. FFS… seriously?

          • Sam Jones

            That IS what I was talking about considering that everyone is peeing themselves over the word “regulated”, which… wait for it… APPEARS IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!. Are you slow? Its like arguing with a child… Try and keep up please.. jack ass

      • mcbeese

        We will never solve the problem of some people not respecting human life… or just being too stupid to act responsibly. That’s why we have seatbelt laws and that’s why we need more effective gun controls. Cars weren’t banned and guns don’t need to be either.

    • halcrawford

      You seem to have a problem with the 2nd part of the 2nd Amendment, specifically, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Supreme Court pretty much nailed it down that it’s more than just militias. As far as the “mainstream” repeated surveys indicate most people believe in freedom, and that such freedom translates to free gun ownership.

      • mcbeese

        No, you’re wrong. Most of mainstream America wants more gun control, by a large margin. The NRA is lobbying to block that and thanks to the cowardice of our elected representatives, they are being quite successful. BUT, that will change, eventually. Better controls than we have today will protect law abiding citizen’s ability to own guns more than the mess we have today.

        • halcrawford

          You sure throw out “you’re wrong” a lot to people around here. Unfortunately for you, the empirical evidence is stacked against you. If “90% want more gun control laws,” as the liberal media repeatedly throws out on the news, then why were two representatives just thrown of office purely on their gun control efforts? In Democrat-dominated districts, and where they outspent their opponents 7-1? Those “brave” representatives you speak of have just been thrown out on their ear.

          BTW, don’t think I didn’t notice you ignored the main thrust of my point. Your arguments are thin gruel.

    • Daniel

      Addressing your point about the “10s of thousands of people” dying each year because of guns, I never quite understood that argument.

      Is your problem with preventable death, because I am not convinced every gun related death is preventable. Saying 10s of thousands die each year does not mean that 10s of thousands would have lived had stricter gun control been in place. Furthermore, there are many types of preventable death, with some easier to prevent than others. Car accidents, children drowning in pools, suicide, etc. are all preventable, but I don’t see the same vitriol against those types of preventable death.

      Is your problem with the violent nature of gun related death, because there are many forms of violent deaths (none of which seems to get the scrutiny of those with a gun involved). Historically, violence in general is going down. I am not convinced gun control has much to do with this natural decline. Also, I am not convinced that passing more gun regulation will cause Americans to become less violent. Rates of violence and the causes of violent behavior are all very complicated issues. There seems to be violence with and without gun control, and there is not a clear correlation between the rates of violence and how strict the gun control is. Sometimes the rates of violence go down when gun control is introduced, sometimes the rates go up, sometimes they stay exactly the same. Also, Americans are empirically more violent than other first world nations. It is currently an open question why that is, but it is hard to say that Americans are more violent because of the presence of guns. Even if you subtract all the killings with firearms and count only the ones with rope, knives, lead pipes, wrenches, candlesticks, and so on, Americans still kill at a higher rate than Europeans. It really is hard to make the case that the presence of guns create violence or that gun control will prevent violence if you’re looking at empirical results (though it does seem to be rather easy to make that argument on based on societal ideals or political leanings).

      • mcbeese

        Daniel – thank you for the intelligent reply. Always welcomed.

        I need to correct you on one point. Historically, gun violence is not going down. For the past 12 years, it has been steadily increasing year over year and the curve is getting steeper, not flatter. 12 years is statistically significant.

        My problem isn’t with the violence aspect or the fact that Americans want to own guns (and feel entitled to). I’m fine with all of that. I think the root of my passionate concern is that the inadequate regulations and controls we have for gun ownership is so obviously inadequate and yet it is heresy to suggest that we should even try to do something about it. We will never disarm America, nor should we. We will never get to zero gun deaths, nor do we need to. But we could easily start to bring down the number of unnecessary deaths if we started to apply some intelligence to the problem. We overcame the anti-seat-belt nut jobs ok, I think we can overcome the gun nuts too, so that responsible gun owners can keep their guns.

      • ozlanthos

        He would rather the millions of potential victims who are saved by armed individuals go without assistance at a time when someone having a gun nearby would make the difference between life and death. I mean really, if the number of deaths caused by activities was how we ranked their legality, we would all have to hop a bus to the nearest penitentiary right away.. Last I heard, life has a 100% mortality rate…


        • mcbeese

          Ok, you might be in the running for the most outlandish gun-nut comment of the thread, if you believe that millions of potential victims are saved by armed individuals. Too bad the data says it is more like dozens, versus the 10s of thousands who are killed.

    • ozlanthos

      Have you actually read the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America? No, I didn’t think so. And despite what you may believe, the majority of Americans want to retain the right to keep and bear arms.

      “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
      When you study this Amendment further, you will find that it is every militia members duty to have a weapon, maintain their ability to use it, and maintain the functionality of the weapon. As to who in America this applies to… Men ages 16-45. There is a price to being an American, and right now you are living on credit bub…


      • mcbeese

        Why are you people so dense? Why do you assume ‘control’ and ‘regulation’ equals taking your guns or banning guns? It means idiots shouldn’t have guns. It means the mentally unstable shouldn’t have access to guns. Isn’t that a good thing? Why not keep your guns and support some controls that restrict guns to sensible law-abiding people like yourselves? Why not keep guns out of the hands of people with a history of mental problems, domestic violence, gang membership, etc… are you seriously against that? We don’t have effective controls for that today.

        • ozlanthos

          Hmmm Let’s see, it might be that every new regulation has consistently further winnowed away the right of every American to keep and bear arms. Did you know that back in the 50’s a 10 year old boy could LEGALLY order a rifle out of the back of a magazine (and somehow they managed to do just that without running around killing people! Imagine that!)? And you wonder why we talk about your ever persistent clarion call to take our guns as being exactly what it is. It’s called having a memory. If you think about it long enough, you might remember that you have one too…


          • mcbeese

            Oh for crying out loud… WHERE HAVE I SAID WE SHOULD TAKE YOUR GUNS? FFS! Are you on drugs? I’m for necessary controls because there are a lot of stupid and irresponsible people in this world who need controls. If you can prove that you’re smarter than you’re demonstrating here, you should keep your guns. The problem was just as bad in “the olden days” you refer to, but there was no Internet to make it visible. Plus, the middle class was stronger, which helped.

        • Sam Jones

          because decreasing clip size and decreasing selection does not stop that. You know what happens when you take guns away from people who obtain them legally? The people who obtain them illegally have free reign. You think that helps us…? The only real way to keep gun violence in check is by allowing everyone to have them… Do I want crazy ass people having guns? no…Do I want to be able to protect myself from crazy ass people with guns? yes. but how are you going to do that? Is it going to be mandated that everyone who buys a gun be physchiatrically evaluated? Thats and infringement. You can’t do that for voting. There are crazy ass people who vote… you can’t stop them. Trust me, I hear what you’re saying, but whoever told you it was feasible didn’t think it through.

          • mcbeese

            …and that might be a reasonable argument if it weren’t for the fact that there are so many examples that prove otherwise. Canada put tight controls (not bans) on guns. Gun crimes went down, not up. Same with many other countries. Our heads are too far up our asses to look beyond our borders on any topic where we might learn something.

          • Sam Jones

            Yes well I doubt that they had the amount of criminals we do. I have grown up on a bad side of town where I doubt gun control laws would have affected the immediate population. Canada also has better education and their university tuition tends to be much cheaper for canadian residents.
            Here’s a thought. Don’t just tell me “I would tighten gun control”.. what would you actually propose be done? Because saying you want more regulation is good and well, but how? What would you do? Rarely will you find a scenario that satisfies the application of a regulation while not imposing on the second amendment.

          • Sam Jones

            Allow me to clarify.. There is a correlation between education and crime rate.

          • mcbeese

            Yes, I agree. There is also a related correlation between the strength of the middle class and crime rate.

          • mcbeese

            That’s an intelligent response and an intelligent question, so I’ll do my best to answer it. I communicate best in point form…

            – Canada is a very good equivalent of the US on a per-capita basis. Same cultural influences (movies, video games, etc.). Same large immigration challenges (US has Mexico, Canada has Middle East and Eastern Europe).

            – Canada has a stronger middle class, which helps. More accessible and more highly rated (on average) university education and health care. We should be embarrassed by that, but we aren’t. Sigh.

            – There are no gun purchase loopholes in Canada. I would implement that here immediately. It’s the biggest part of our problem. No private sales. No gun show sales. No family transfers without registration and background check.

            – Two-week waiting period for new (unregistered) gun purchasers. No crimes of passion.

            – Family check. During the two week period, direct family members are notified of the pending gun purchase so they can flag violence or suicide concerns. This is a great idea.

            So, Sam-I-Am, I would do these things at a minimum. And it wouldn’t affect any law-abiding mentally healthy citizen from owning a gun.

            I would also monitor what was effective and what wasn’t. Canada implemented a long-gun registry program and after a few years they decided it wasn’t worth the effort, so they dropped it. We need to approach the challenge like that too… let’s try a bunch of stuff and we’ll keep going with what works and we’ll drop what doesn’t. Our current religious-like approach of denying there is a problem and trying nothing is getting a lot of people needlessly killed.

          • Sam Jones

            F***, I wasn’t expecting that. I agree with most of it, however I feel that the country as a whole is too far gone for reform such as that. Fire arms have been a major part of our society for too long to just add those restrictions and not expect a violent reaction. Also, say that a family member doesn’t agree with the idea of guns or is just in disagreement with you and flags you for violence or suicide concerns even though they know better. This prevents me from buying a gun. This might be deemed unconstitutional becuase it is in the long way around preventing me from purchasing a gun, which infringes on my 2nd amendment right. Just playing devil’s advocate. I can definitely see the advantages of a screening process, but if it becomes too preventative it may be a problem. Lastly prohibiting personal sales will not prevent criminals from buying them off of people who want to make money. In fact it will drive up demand and they will become an expensive commodity for gangs and other shady people making it more advantageous to conduct personal sales. All gangs have to do is sell more drugs to afford them. From what I have seen in history, making something illegal tends to make it a bigger problem

          • mcbeese

            All your “what-if” issues are playing out live in Canada right now. The data is there. We don’t have to guess. We know what works, we know what doesn’t. We know what they’re doing to work around the issues you raised. Beyond Canada, we can pick and choose from what works around the world. Instead we do nothing. We deny there is even a problem. That makes us the world’s retards.

          • Sam Jones

            Ok not saying there isn’t a problem cut the “what-if’s” are valid. Can’t legally get regulations in place that aren’t constitutional. Specificity is key. Making it work while keeping it constitutional is going to the biggest hurdle. Its not that no body has attempted this. We just have different obstacles. Canada’s version of a Constitution differs from ours. They are a good model but they are not our identical.

          • Sam Jones

            Also I beleive the French are considered the world’s retards. The only thing keeping their sad-ass little country going is that they are in the middle of European economy.

        • Doug Holmes

          You can attribute it to that all you want. They also have more lax drug laws, as do many countries throughout Europe.

          If you want to see “gun crime” go down, introduce sane drug laws in this country.

    • Witchwindy

      Sorry, but you need to refer to the meaning of “regulated” at the time that Amendment was written, you have the meaning wrong. Back at that time, the words “well regulated” meant ” kept in good working order, and the word “militia” did not refer to any kind of formal military, instead it was all the able bodied “men” who owned arms (including those who were not what we, today, would call adult, but who could maintain their weapon and shoot well), they were expected to defend themselves and their families,neighbors, and communities against all enemies.

    • Don McPato

      We ran the British off with guns…..We protect this country with guns…..The police use guns to control the citizens…..People hunt with guns….We will take back control of tyranny with guns……I protect my family and myself with guns….It is our god given RIGHT to keep and bear guns…..We are America and you probably sit next to someone with a gun every day of your ignorant life…..

      • mcbeese

        OMG… here’s another one to jump in and reinforce my point about gun nuts and their delusions.

        – No, armed citizens do not protect this country with guns. That scenario was obsolete decades ago.

        – We don’t have any tyranny, but if we did, your silly little guns wouldn’t matter.

        – You should be allowed to protect yourself and your family with regulated guns, but you should also know that your odds of being killed by a gun increase by 4X if you have a gun in the house.

        – There is no god in our constitution so leave your primitive superstitions out of this.

        • Jonathan A Parker

          A typical liberal, uneducated, no common sense, and a complete fool. “The right to bare arms shall not be infringed.” Reinforced by the Dick act of 1903. Now go and cry because you will not get our guns.

          • mcbeese

            Ha ha ha!! “bare arms” ha ha ha… you can bare your arms all you want as long as they don’t have nasty tattoos on them! Seriously, people who don’t have a command of their native language should never suggest that others are ‘uneducated’, etc..

            Jonathan – like most right-wingers, you can’t even spell. Go get your money back from that home schooling.

          • Sam Jones

            Aww.. you operate under the “left wing, right wing” paradigm… That’s so cute.

          • momsaid

            Perhaps he was referring to open carry. Your ignorance of basic common sense compels me to advise you to get some real education, esp. ‘Cause and Effect’.

          • Jonathan A Parker

            And just like most left wingers you have no argument so you try to nit pick the spelling… Have a nice day moron…

    • Doug Holmes

      I said this in an earlier comment, but I’ll say it again.

      Regulated in that day referred to discipline and functionality. Soldiers were called “regulars.” Militia were called “irregulars,” because they haven’t been drilled by a commanding officer. Even better, militia refers to an unscripted man, meaning one that took no oath of fealty to a government or government leader.

      All you have to do really is look back to see this is the case. “Well regulated” coming before “militia” means a militia that has been well drilled and is banging on all cylinders.

      If you truly pride yourself in your knowledge on this subject, I suggest you consider taking your education a bit more seriously, because you’re embarrassing yourself in front of a bunch of people that know better.

    • delightfully_difficult

      Straight from the Supreme court DC vs. Heller ruling

      1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a

      firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for

      traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

      (a)The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but

      does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative

      clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it

      connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

    • Davin Evans

      Are you that ignorant of the English language? “Regulated” means well trained as the framers explained in the federalist papers and as defined in the 17-1800s. Please keep your ingnorance to yourself.

      • mcbeese

        No, ‘regulated’ does not mean well-trained, it means regulated. Also, ‘militia’ implies a command and control hierarchy. Neither regulated nor militia applies to the context of most gun owners.

        • Davin Evans

          You are still mistaken. Tea the framers notes or ANY right to bear arm amendment from that time period.

          In 1776, “regulation” was a mechanical term rather than a legal term. The spin-governor on a steam engine or water wheel, for example, was the “regulator.” Thus, in 1776, “well regulated” meant in good working order, i.e. the rifles would fire reliably and hit what they were aimed at.

          • mcbeese

            Your example is correct, but your understanding of it isn’t. The spin-governor on a steam engine or water wheel is a regulator – it has a clear control function. Calling them ‘well regulated’ does indeed mean good working order, but it is the word ‘well’ that means good working order, and it is the word ‘regulated’ that describes the control function.

            In the context of guns, ‘militia’ is the equivalent of the steam engine, ‘regulated’ is the control function applied to the militia, and ‘well’ means the regulation is effective.

          • Davin Evans

            Sorry I was on the road trying to post that last comment. I agree you have thought this out well but I would like to point out your one missing link. Why does ALL (44 of them) of the right to bear arms amendments for each state reflect the people?

            “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; …”

            I would also like to point out that by law, ALL citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia are members of the militia.

            The current Virginia Militia under Virginia Code § 44-1
            states “The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The militia shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State Defense Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia.”

            Both of those points blow holes in your theory.

          • mcbeese

            You think? I think it means that most people fall into the category of “unorganized militia”, which is obviously not “well regulated”.

          • Davin Evans

            I would also like to ask you how the Bill of rights only apply to rights given to the people, but somehow it does not apply to these people?

          • mcbeese

            It does apply to these people. They are all free to become part of a well regulated militia (or not). It’s their choice. I think it would be great if all gun owners were National Guard reservists, or Navy reservists, or whatever.

          • Davin Evans

            I am glad the Supreme Court is on my side and not yours

          • mcbeese

            The supreme court is a very political organization. The pendulum of it’s opinion will swing the other way at some point if people don’t start accepting common-sense safety measures for guns, like closing the loopholes and making background checks mandatory.

  • Donald Ingram

    I would not expect nothing less from a liberal teacher. No wonder our children are learning nothing in school.

    • mcbeese

      Dude, why don’t you go back to the school and work on your grammar?

      • Erik Kilpatrick

        Bad Grammar is preferable to liberal indoctrination….

    • Kevin Merck

      Liberal, feminist teachers.
      They teach that girls are good and boys are bad.
      It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why they’re doing that.

  • LIV2500

    Move to Utah! Our teachers can carry on campus and are generally pro freedom. Today in AP Geography we talked about political correctness being a bad thing. In German we talked about the NSA wire tapping. In AP US History we talked about Lexington and Concord being a British gun control attempt and how our Bill of Rights came largely from grievances under British rule.

    • Fara Wiles

      I would sooner move to Oklahoma. The homeschool laws there are EPIC. It’s even written into their state constitution to protect Homeschooling.

    • mcbeese

      Sure, everybody knows that people in Utah are cool. I especially like the reports of the Mormon child molesters. Let’s hold Utah up as an example… great idea!!!

  • Rogoraeck

    The parents should have a “robust” conversation with this teacher.
    Reinforcing the meaning of the second amendment with the help of a base ball bat if necessary!

    • mcbeese

      What a loser you are. I disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, specifically the ‘regulated militia’ part. Should I beat you with a bat to emphasize my point? Seriously… you and your kind are gutter trash.

      • Jonathan A Parker

        you can try, but I believe that sense he defends the second amendment he might just blow your excuse for a brain all over the nearest wall when you try.

        • mcbeese

          Pffft. I think not. People who are so attached to guns are lacking something.

          • Sam Jones

            fear of other people?

          • Erik Kilpatrick


          • Sam Jones

            The innate ability to piddle on one’s self?

          • Sam Jones

            a recent eulogy?

          • Sam Jones

            I’ve got a whole list of these I could go on.. Shall I?

          • Marti

            Yeah it’s called fear.

      • Doug Holmes

        1) Historical context.
        2) They just overthrew their own government by forming a militia to fight against the standing army that was oppressing their rights.
        3) They were armed with superior firepower, IE the Kentucky rifle vs. the Brown Bess.
        4) Soldiers in that day were referred to as regulars. Militia was called “irregulars.” It referred to their discipline, hence the fact that “well regulated” came before “Militia,” and the last part says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        Disagree all you want, and feel free to come back once you familiarize yourself with those facts.

      • Rogoraeck

        You’re right I am a looser. Because your tribe have disarmed the population in my country. There was a time when the police was unarmed & the people were free to own guns. Today we the “cattle” as your tribe is calling us, we are disarmed cattle but the police is armed to the teeth!

        • mcbeese

          I said you were a ‘loser’, not a ‘looser’. what the heck is a ‘looser’? Oh wait…

          • Rogoraeck

            Looser? Loser? Just a spelling mistake! But my comment stand, & most of us “cattle” as you chosen are calling us, know who’s behind disarming the “cattle” & why it is so!
            Your tribe has a lot of chutzpah & I would say hubris as well! Not quite comforting I think! Karma is a bitch!

  • Witchwindy

    This is why people need to immediately remove their children from the government indoctrination centers (public schools) and start them “unschooling” (google that word). If enough parents remove their children, the public schools will collapse and so will the tax systems funding them (thereby putting more money in every family’s pocket).

    • mcbeese

      The tinfoil you need for your conspiracy hat is on sale at Costco this week.

      • Doug Holmes

        Welcome to Costco, I love you.

        By the way, that is no conspiracy. How are you gonna say that because of gun murders we must institute gun control and on the other hand suggest that one doesn’t need a gun to protect one’s self because they can’t shoot worth a shit anyway?

        Learn to debate. Not that I blame you, because you’ve never seen no plant grow out of no toilet.

    • Elizabeth Ellen-speranza Campb

      Unfortunately that would take generations to achieve. A two pronged approach would be better. Home school as much of the population as possible. Have a large majority of them become public school teachers so that they can influence the next generation or two. Also open private charter schools that teach the common core as it was meant to be: a guide line along with a robust critical thinking, individual driven, arts dominated educational curriculum .

  • Hidden_In_Sight

    What does “well regulated” mean? In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that
    the adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
    Sounds like the teacher needs to try some free-thinking….escape the pressures of government, live like you’re supposed to, teach the truth.

  • PiscesBoi420

    Gun control does NOT work for one main reason….criminals don’t care how strict gun control laws are. There are plenty of examples from the past in which gun laws have been passed that all have the same end game. After the government disarms the people in order to “protect” them, they are free to do whatever they desire with little to no resistance. Germany, China, Guatemala, the Ottoman Empire, Rwanda and The Soviet Union (to name a few) all passed strict gun laws and I think we all know what atrocities happened in those countries. Guns aren’t just meant to protect law abiding citizens from civilian criminals, but also to protect them from a tyrannical government. Think about it, who would you rather face if you were an elitist trying to push your agenda by using force: A) A well armed well educated and informed public…or B) A compeletly vulerable and ignorant group of sheep. I think the path of least resistance is painfully obvious Wake up, stop arguing amongst yourselves, which serves to further divide the powerful MAJORITY our great nation (the have nots), educate yourselves, unite, and take a stand for the few liberties we have left!!! Please, if you must discuss or debate the subject matter, take it back to the headline: “School teaches children it’s constitutional for cops to confiscate guns” Assuming the citizen in question broke no laws during this stop and had all his “papers” why would it be constitutional for the police to seize his weapon? And more importantly, why are they indoctrinating our children with this nonsense? The answers to the these questions should also be pretty obvious.

    • mcbeese

      You’re wrong. Gun controls do work. The closest comparison to us is Canada. Gun controls are working there. Not perfect, but a LOT better than us.

      • Sam Jones

        That’s because killing a moose isn’t considered a homocide.

      • bob

        gun controls work at making criminals use other weapons…we all just get stabbed in the UK now. so much better…sheesh

        • Sam Jones

          I’d prefer to be shot to death rather than stabbed to death. stabbing takes longer. But I wish there was a weapon to protect you from that… OH WAIT.!!!

          • mcbeese

            There is… pepper spray. Much more effective than a gun.

          • Sam Jones

            Last time I checked pepper spray doesn’t put holes in people. I’d say that’s pretty f***ing effective.

          • mcbeese

            It’s a proven fact that suburban warriors are more effective at stopping people with pepper spray than they are with a gun because i) most people can’t shoot worth a shit, and ii) most people are more likely to use their pepper spray than they are to shoot and kill someone.

          • Sam Jones

            That last part is a real shame. They should be responsible for making that choice between a gun and pepper spray. In the scientific world there is no such thing as a proven fact (especially when it comes to staticstics). Only well supported hypotheses.

          • mcbeese

            Well, good thing this is the statistical world and not the scientific world, isn’t it? I feel like I should call you a moron here but I’m retiring.

          • Sam Jones


          • Sam Jones

            hahaha Ok guys, same time tomorrow? hahahaha

          • Right

            Pepper spray. Good lord. So a crazy guy busts into your house swinging an ax, and you’re going to reach for the pepper spray.. Good luck with that. If the pepper spray doesn’t stop him, you can warn him that you’re calling the police, or better yet: throw your cellphone at him. I’ll be reaching for my Glock.

          • Guest

            feel free to move to a country without rights. Have fun and good riddance.

          • Marti

            It’s also a proven fact you are full of shit. Now eat a snickers, because you sound like a McDumbAss when you are hungry.

          • Thvwandool Yusef Moring

            Mcbeese. I suggest you look a city called Boston. Strictest gun laws highest murder rate by guns in the US. Actually look up all cities in the US with strict gun laws they all have the highest gun crime rates. Show me one source that supports your claim. Until then blow your hot air elsewhere.

          • Sam Jones

            not only that but the asshole who attacked you won’t get a chance to attack anyone else later.

          • RTKABA

            I challenge you to a duel…
            From 500 Meters, You bring your pepper spray and I’ll bring my M40A3…. I’ll even give you the first shot.

          • Nos

            Um. No. I’ve been sprayed with oleoresin capsicum, the most popular, and most effective form of pepper spray, and spent the next ten minutes in a five station fight-through course, demonstrating that I could defend, attack, and use my gear, including a radio, handcuffs, and weapons. OC can cause a lot of pain, but it is not guaranteed to eliminate a threat, particularly with an individual’s pain response is diminished, pharmacologically, emotionally, or otherwise. Furthermore, to compare it to a gun, in terms of efficacy is to overlook several salient differences between the two. If, as you suggest, pepper spray were simply “much more effective than a gun,” police would carry OC, but no guns.

        • mcbeese

          A lot fewer of you die. If you want to live, you don’t want guns.

          • Sam Jones

            Wait.. No… no .. that doesn’t sound right.. Tell that to the guy I shot defending myself…

          • Kevin Merck

            “Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery; forbid it almighty God …..”

      • True American

        Hey Retard, gun control only works for the criminal.
        Show your case where gun control actually worked, Oh yeah, you can’t be cause gun control does not work, period.
        get your head out of obummer’s ass and wake the frack up

      • The Enlightened One

        Please :) South Africa has one of the strictest fire arm possession laws in the world yet according to Anti Gun activists there is at least 18 people killed daily. So Gun control works about as well as the pill does to prevent STDs

      • kanenas101

        ROFL… take a look at Mexico. They have some of the world’s strictest gun control laws too.

      • Simon Says

        I live in the South. We have very little crime. Do you know why? This is because everyone knows that there are always a few pistols, rifles, or shotguns behind every door. If you want to live in fairy land where everything turns up daisies, be my guest; just don’t come knocking on my door to defend you while the cops take several minutes to respond to your pansy-ass call to 911 as you are robbed, raped, and mutilated. Please tell me you are impotent so I can sleep safer tonight.

        • mcbeese

          The south… where people believe in creationism over evolution and breed with their relatives. Not a good opening line.

          • Simon Says

            Well, apparently, the stupid have spoken. We all believe in evolution, I haven’t had sex with my relatives. You are a liberal, when it comes to rational debate you are clueless on how to conduct yourself. Did I call you any names, did I stereotype you? I can, but I won’t, I am above that. Please go back to picking your daises, I doubt seriously if you could ever have an adult conversation. That’s ok, America needs fodder.

      • Juliet Dillon

        no, YOU are wrong. Stop drinking the kool aid.
        Gun laws dont stop murders or violence. They just make it more likely that you get bludgeoned to death by a hammer than shot.
        People who want to hurt you will hurt you with or without a gun.
        People with guns for the sole purpose of personal defense aren’t out there killing people.

      • Andrew Christopher Higgins

        I want to point out that the weapon used most in violent crimes is…. (drumroll)… A baseball bat! Wait, what? Not a gun? No! A ball bat! An item that gun-hating liberals buy their six year old! Wait… maybe they don’t… do liberal kids play sports?

  • McSane

    Mcbeese…needs a Mcjob instead of harassing every single comment on this topic… Are you like the comment police here? If you don’t like our freedoms then move to Canada since you are so fond of it. Some people are just to scared and dependent to handle freedom I guess.

  • Sam Jones

    Yay I’m sorry Mcbeese, but you’re kind of being a Mcbitch. Just sayin.

  • Bug Byte

    McBride … you claim you positions are statistically rooted but you yet to cite a single source. Please leave the table until you are properly attired.

  • MrMystery

    When they pass a law saying no more guns, Then I will be made a criminal. At that point all hell breaks loose and we have been taken over by corruption and it is our duty, those of use who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution, to use the arms we bare to take back our rights by force!

    • Juliet Dillon

      I’m right there with you, Mr. Mystery.
      Molon Labe

  • Cheryl Newcomb

    So they figure if they can brain wash the youth they’ll have no problem disarming us all. Parents, please stay alert for these blatant attacks on our Constitution. Just like Hitler, if they can convince the next generation of their lies and deceptions it would be very easy for the atrocities of World War 2 to repeat themselves.

  • David Burkhead

    It’s not just the Second. There’s also the Fourth (search and _seizure_) and the Fifth (nor be deprived of life, liberty, or _property_ without due process of law).

    • Juliet Dillon

      and the really sad part is- that is what the kid wrote in the first place.

    • CW

      Depriving of life still seems to cover abortion, though no-one will discuss it.

    • Scratch4416

      If you look closely, this girl not only answered the first question correctly writing “no’ before the teacher told her to change it. She also first wrote “IV” for the second part, which clearly the teacher made her change that too, the the girl wrote “V”, the teacher made her change that too, finally she wrote “II”. This is craziness.

      • samchez

        That’s a damn smart kid…

        • Charles

          And a damn stupid teacher lol

    • Dan Kozlowski

      The PATRIOT Act has significantly changed both of those.

  • Kevin Merck

    Look up the word “Democide”

    Governments are the ones in the business of murdering people. Over 260,000,000 in the 20th century alone.

    Governments around the world need to give up their guns, including nuclear weapons, and all the people of the world need to be armed, to keep tyrants from forming oppressive governments who want to murder them.

    Let’s make the “New World Order” one where governments exist to serve the people, not murder them.

  • tim_lebsack

    Remove government from the education industry.

    • thompsonsaraht

      The only way that is going to happen is if everyone pulls their kids out and starts homeschooling. I think we’re getting closer to that all the time.

      • Juliet Dillon

        and then obama will pass an executive order that makes it illegal to homeschool and all those parents will be arrested.
        Our country is being hijacked guys.

        • http://www.karentrina.com/ Karen Childress

          can they really arrest everyone?

          • Marti

            What do you think they need these FEMA camps with mass grave sites for?

        • thompsonsaraht

          I might be concerned about that if he weren’t halfway through his maximum term without having ever made any moves on homeschoolers. Reality is that homeschooling hasn’t always been legal in every state. The more mainstream it gets, the easier it gets. In fact, I think it’s getting harder for many people to justify traditional school.

          • Charles

            You have a point, but who’s to say the next crazy to get elected won’t continue right where he left off?

            Homeschooling has already been made a punishable offense in Germany..They will actually take your children away from you for not sending them to public school…If this administration/leftist social mentality is so determined to make us more like those countries over there you could very well see it here.

          • thompsonsaraht

            Compulsory education began in Prussia (now Germany) in 1717 and home education hasn’t been legal there since. It is legal in other parts of the EU, however, and moving somewhere where it is allowed is also legal.

            In some parts of the US homeschooling is so restricted that it might as well already be illegal for many. Parents in those states also have lots of options, including moving to a state where it is less restricted.

            Sure, the next crazy in office, or the next, or the next, could attempt to stop homeschooling, but I think it will fail. It’s getting too easy, too popular and too successful for that to happen.

          • Charles

            Too true. Thank you for presenting an educated rebuttal lol

          • Josh

            Actually homeschooling parents are one of the special groups that are watched by the government which also includes, preppers, anti-war protesters, occupy protesters, some veterans, basically any dissenting group. It might not be illegal but they got their eye on you.

          • PaulBrosamJr

            Obama is currently trying to raise the term limits on the Presidency, so as to stay longer in office. Don’t know if it will happen, but he sure is trying.

          • Juliet Dillon

            I agree- I’m a huge fan of homeschooling (especially now that Common Core is coming into effect)
            My comment was totally tongue in cheek .

      • Stephanie Hall

        I already homeschool my kids

      • http://pipwelda.yolasite.com/ Francis White

        They’ll try to make it illegal to home school next. You watch, Mark my words this will be the next shit on their agenda.

        • thompsonsaraht

          They’ll try, but they’ve tried before, yet it keeps getting easier and more popular.

    • Johnny Appleseed

      I agree, but when they killed the one income household back in the 70’s this became a problem. Guess what is going to happen when all the jobs are gone though. I saw the rise of the private school frenzy in the south several years ago. Any upper or middle upper middle income family’s (some that were not even religious) we putting their kids in private schools just to get them away from the public school system. I wasn’t sure why it was happening at the time, I thought it might have just been a trendy fad, but I sure know why now.

  • More Liberty

    Take a look at this one. It says, “The Constitution tells us how our government gives us special rights and how our government works.”

    • CrackerJack

      Oh great government, thank you for granting me these rights. You are so generous and liberating.

  • turdmonger

    as someone who focused on con law in law school I think I’m more offended that a teacher would reduce a constitutional inquiry to an anti-intellectual yes/no option, or settle for any less than 10 pages on the topic. The only correct short answer would be “It depends”

    • Anthony

      It depends? Are you f***ing kidding me? The question is loaded and flawed to begin with : you do not need a “license” or “permit” to own a gun.

      To carry one, maybe, depending on the State, and how well or poorly they protect your right to carry a firearm. But never to own one. If a police officer shows up at your door and threatens to kill you over owning a particular piece of property, your *right* to own that item went out the window decades ago.

      10 pages on the topic? I’m appalled you are so weak and hopelessly brainwashed to think a clear answer isn’t possible. It’s hard to believe you even have a pretense at education in this realm.

      • turdmonger

        Have you ever heard of Peaceable Journey Laws?? There is a federal law that regulates the transportation of firearms in one’s car. Guns have to be properly loaded, locked up and out of reach. The peaceable journey laws in some states are even more restrictive.

        With respect to licenses/permits I’m afraid you are misinformed. Many states require ownership licenses, permits to purchase, concealed carry permits, open carry permits and firearm registration. In some states the rules may vary depending on the locality you’re in.

        It depends on the type of firearm too. Different rules may apply to handguns or assault rifles.

        Additionally, the hypothetical doesn’t make it clear if the police are federal or not.

        You misused the word pretense, and I think you have been brainwashed if you believe there is a clear answer on anything related to the law. Have you ever seen a judicial opinion that was one word? DC v. Heller was 157 pages, and I kind of doubt you have read that.

        • Constitution.

          Any law outside the constitution is unlawful. Shall not be infringed.

          • M20Keeper

            It’s not turdmonger’s fault. He has been trained to think that way. He went to law school to forget how to think like a common person and become an elite club member that rules over the rest of us. That’s why he doesn’t understand what the plain meaning of words are.

        • Kevin Merck

          “turdmonger” fits you well. All you’re selling people is BS.
          Every-single-one of the restrictions you posted are unconstitutional.

  • The Retro Housewife

    Pull your kids out of school and home school – or start a charter school.

  • Ashley Rose

    Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder SAYS TO “Brainwash People” about Guns !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HE NEEDS TO BE FIRED! NOW!

  • Matt Owens

    Just say NO TO GUNS. Unless you’re handing them over to violent drug cartels or Al-qaeda. What he is trying to say is that only Holder can be holdin’.

  • dsadsasd

    just waiting for US to start another war.. oh wait.. it already started – good luck ”citizen” of the ”land of the free”

  • 65snake

    “Now parents are concerned that the school systems are being used to push
    a leftist agenda instead of educating students with the skills needed
    to excel in their careers.”
    And the right wing are trying to do the exact same thing regarding science classes, to push their agenda.
    Both sides, people, both sides.

    • James

      What agenda is science pushing? Facts are not an agenda so I’m confused

      • turdmonger

        I believe he is referring to people trying to have intelligent design taught in science class alongside evolution

        • Ornery Old Guy

          What the two sides in science don’t realize is the possibility that intelligent design might be achieved through evolution. Their argument is as ridiculous as right Twix or left Twix? LOL

          • 65snake

            What “two sides” of science? ID is not actual science. It is an attempt to dress up creationism to look like science, nothing more.

          • Jim

            ID is more of a theory to rectify the differences between science and faith (albeit not a scientific theory). Belief in God on some level must place a system of beliefs within the ID realm. And you are correct there aren’t “two sides in science” there are many more than that. Which is why there are hypothesis that are tested. The Big Bang is not accepted by all fields of science, nor all scientists within an individual field. And in any case this article is about constitutional rights, not science and religion.

          • maelstrom3of2

            If I.D. is not science, then why did Richard Dawkins acknowledge it’s possibility due to lack of evidence for the great monkey theory :) He’s actually admitted this several times, and hinted towards extra terrestrial involvement.


            You might want to check into a theory known as panspermia while your at it.


          • A nony mouse

            just because it could be true doesn’t mean it is a science, the definition of science (pulled from wiki, but so what,i don’t feel like finding my notes) is as follows.

            a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of TESTABLE explanations and predictions about the universe

            notice the keyword?

        • Patriot1

          If you knew your history, then you would know that the classroom textbooks in the early days of this country were Christian and creation oriented. Just look at the McGuffey Readers. I have a set of them. Nobody had a problem with it back then. They taught that God created the world and that our rights come from Him, and with those rights also come responsibilities and duties. They also taught patriotism and the virtues of our founders. So anybody who is against God is against America.

          • turdmonger

            If you knew your history, then you would know that the McGuffey readers also taught sexism, racism and anti-semitism. Lots of people did have a “problem with it.” Did you learn your logic skills from McGuffey too? Did you learn in a racially segregated classroom? If you did, it might help explain how you ended up at your asinine conclusion. Does McGuffey address Jefferson’s bible, or the religious clauses of the first amendment?

          • A nony mouse

            but those founding fathers came to and created this great country so that you could follow any belief you wanted without a different one being shoved down your throat with out you being able to think for yourself, so america has changed as it’s social compisition has, towards an america that is supposed to be more accepting of everyone.

        • 65snake

          *she :)

      • 65snake

        turdmonger is correct. I was referring to the push for teaching religious tenets/dogma as science.

  • Missy Moo

    Last year I became a US Citizen and like every other new Citizen I had to recite the “Oath of Allegiance” as follows:

    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

    If I am faithful to my oath, then, goddammit, I need a gun to practice with!

  • http://pipwelda.yolasite.com/ Francis White

    Get them all out!!! These communist marxist pigs should all be shot for treason! The whole lot of them. This country has been taken over by these corrupt individuals.

    • bob richard tom ryan

      wtf does Marxism or communism have to do with this? Capitalism has it’s share of corruption and then some.

      As a liberal socialist, I’d make this deal with any gun rights activist. I’ll tell the other progressives to lay off x-large drinks and guns if they tell their conservative buddies to stop bitching about abortion and marriage and take money from military spending for welfare programs.

      And maybe the NSA could be an issue?

      • Will

        Really? You want more welfare programs? So, what will happen when you run out of everybody else’s’ money?

      • Steve Merrette

        Abortion is murder…period. you lefty whackjobs all go screaming about Sandy Hook yet kill thousands of babies a year because it’s an inconvenience. And for the military, you can be thankful that they protect your right to spew your bullshit as you do. Pompous Hypocrite.

        • Anthony Zangarine

          Mr. Ryan…you sir should take your head out of your ass

        • richardwagener

          Good for you Steve. Liberals are about 52 cards short of a full deck. All they have are the jokers.

        • Kevin Merck

          About 1,300,000 child murders are performed a year in the U.S. alone.
          Abortion fanatics are little more than terrorists who use child murder as a weapon against the American people.

        • getreal

          Ummmm….could you tell me when the last time the us military did anything to protect my rights? The viet cong were no threat to me, nor were the nazis or hussein or the koreans or the people of grenada. if the military wanted to protect my rights, they should marh on washington.

          • Steve Merrette

            Getreal…Sadly you may have a valid point there…

  • unpundit

    The question asked of the little girl is not even properly a second amendment issue.
    This is a clear violation of the 4th and 5th amendments, regardless of the nature of the property confiscated.

  • Nathan

    Wow….this anti-gun movement is a bunch of bullshit.

  • Matthew

    Another classic example of the liberal brainwashing of kids in school today.

    • No

      I’m a Democrat Liberal, a combat veteran, and I own a mix of approximately a dozen and a half gus, rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Some of which fully automatic with the proper federal tax stamps. There’s a firearm in every room in my home, I shoot every day, and I’ve actually pulled the trigger on another man in anger. And I’m one of those “Liberals” you’re hating on and thinking are just ruining this country. Please don’t get me started on the atrocities and idiots of the GOP, because I could go on for days.

      You people who just point the finger and blanket ALL liberals as “anti-gun pussies” are doing nothing but furthering a current social problem. This situation just can’t be blamed on one certain group of people. It’s a nation-wide issue, and it’s not a cut and dry issue by far, nor is it an issue that can just be blamed on a certain group of people.

      Most of the problem is coming from idiots like Bloomberg who prior to 2001 ran as Democrat, then switched sides and ran as a Republican from 2001–2007, and now considers himself “Independent” as well as the far-far left Liberals, and even some Moderate Democrats and Republicans, mostly those out of large cities; like those out of California or very large cities who have never even owned a gun, and have no idea what in the hell a firearm is, use the media’s made up term of “Assault rifle” for a semi-auto firearm, and probably don’t know the dangerous end from the stock.

      So no, it’s not another “Classic example of the liberal brainwashing of kids in school today.” It’s the classic example of a certain school system, and more directly the teacher his/himself and not ” ‘dem damn librals”

      So please, grow a brain and stop being a sheep and going along with Faux News and blanketing an entire group of people for this new social problem.

      • K. F.

        It’s not a social problem, it’s a liberal agenda problem. Just another example of the liberal mentality that thinks they know what’s best for the rest of us.

        • manofredearth

          No, obviously you know what’s best for the rest of us, since you’re disregarding half of the population that you disagree with. You couldn’t just say, “I disagree”, you had to play the dictator card. How very “American” of you…

      • lmao

        Lol like anyone is going to believe you have a firearm in every room in your home.

        You’re fooling NOBODY!

      • Kevin Merck

        Most of the people who call themselves liberals and conservatives are little more than authoritarians. There isn’t much difference between Democrats and Republicans.
        Both sides of the aisle were behind the Patriot Act and NDAA and both sides are going to support door to door gun confiscation under the guise of keeping us safe.

      • Dick Jones

        You used a lot of words to really say nothing at all. I, too, am a combat veteran who owns firearms, though I don’t have a gun in every room of my house. The generalization that this philosophy is liberal is sound. Sometimes you have to wear the team’s colors when you join the team. Your advice is to “Grow a brain?” Well played, sir, well played.

        • manofredearth

          “I didn’t like what he said, so I’m going to disregard it and insist that he march in lockstep with the rest of us!”

          Well played, Dick. Well played.

      • Ron Allen

        Perhaps you should grow a brain and realize that your party has abandoned the blue collar unions, and the rural democrats in favor of a nanny state agenda that only favors large metropolitan “coastal” cities.

      • http://www.jonesfamily.us/ Ron Jones


        Not that I think it matters, or is relevant, but I too am a veteran, and might be a gun owner (though it is none of anyone’s business). But I am don’t drink anyone’s [red:blue] kook aid.

        it’s not “democrats” or “republicans.” It is the ‘progressives’ of both parties in washington’s government that are the problem. Voting, only legitimises their criminal empire.

        The ‘progressives’ (bad name for those who want to take us back to the feudal system), feel it is the purview of washington to take from some, and subsidize others. These progressives are violently opposed to individual liberty. They feel it is washington’s responsibility to care for its citizens from cradle to grave… Including:
        ~health care
        ~food subsidies
        ~corporate subsidies
        ~foreign aid
        ~etc, ad nauseum

        NO ONE, no corporation, no country, no individual… should get ANY money from washington’s government, for ANY reason.


        • Disgusted American

          I some what agree ~ I believe it is the ANTI-GOD COMMUNISTIC LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES that are trampling on our constitution and “progressing” our country right into a sewer system with no drain.

          • The Weeping Patriot

            Here is a little education that I hope is helpful to all.our system of Democrat and republican parties along with the Presidential office were designed to be a system of checks and balances to ensure no 1 party or person could control the country. But today the populous are like opposing fans of rival football teams. one pitted against the other based upon their side or political name that they feel the need to defend. The two party process is no longer about protecting the people but on the contrary is now been perverted into a way to pit Democrat Americans against Republican americans to keep the populous busy playing the Blame game with one another while the ” GOVT” gets away with whatever it wants to do in this country. Weather it be economically, Constitutionally or Spiritually, the ” GOVT” feels it is solely in power thru the efforts and Bankrolls of the wealthy elite who control them to do what they want when they want and the few remaining politicians that may or may not remain in the Govt, sit in impotence in their offices unable to overcome the political machine to enact any change for the good of the people. Don’t fall prey to the False embodiment of the two parties in hope that they can effect any good change. I tell you that these days are past, and the smokescreen that remains exists only to blind the public in a false war of two Americans demographics, the Republican and Democrat parties in an effort to keep the populous blind to the theft of Freedom and Liberty till one day they wake up to find all they have cherished done away with and no recourse but to fall in line with a carefully structured way of life not of their own making, or perish for the greater good of the new order of Elite over the world.
            Your Humble Servant, The Weeping Patriot.

          • manofredearth

            You didn’t actually mention anyone. I mean, you strung some words together, but they were nonsense. (Unless you’re a dirtbag liar, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re saying stupid stuff, not actually stupid yourself).

        • manofredearth

          Jesus Christ, it’s always “this group” or “that group” when the finger-pointing and blame-throwing comes out. You’re wrong, trying to be to cute and play with words like “progressives”. Know who wants to ban guns? People who want to ban guns. Know what political group or national social movement consists entirely of people who want to ban guns? NONE OF THEM. They’re all fractured, of course some more than others, and none of them carry a membership in complete agreement to ban guns. The only people who talk that way are people trying to make an easy enemy to whip their base into a frenzy. So, unless you’re a dirtbag liar, stop making boogeyman for empty political points and actually start figuring out the SPECIFIC people (or specialty groups) you oppose. Anything outside of that makes you a lying dirtbag, pain and simple.

          • http://www.jonesfamily.us/ Ron Jones

            Unless you have been living in a cave for the last 30 years, and missed quotes by Janet Reno, the Brady Center, Handguns inc, etc… you are either misinformed, or disingenuous.

            Then again, your ad hominem gives you away.

    • Undecider

      What are Republicans doing to stop this?

      • Kevin Merck


        • Virginia Torres


      • anonymous

        removing science from schools.

  • Megan

    people need to stop pointing finger, fighting about which party is responsible for such rhetoric. The fact is that who ever is behind this is clear anti consitution and has so much pull in the scheme of thing, as to change the consituation in our children’s history books to brain wash our kids into thinking this b.s. is correct. It is our duty to teach our children that this is wrong, and that no matter what, no matter if the teacher threatens to fail them, not to break down and let them tell our children’s that in any form is it ok for our 2nd amemdent rights to ever be taken from us, as American, NEVER!!!

    • Dazieblue

      It’s the elites from both parties, the “ruling class.”

  • Clay Autery

    Common core… the curriculum personally approved by Satan himself.

  • Neil

    Holder is a criminal under investigation for giving Rifles to drug dealers. He belongs in jail and not on TV.

  • Melody Warbington

    I understand the fear of backlash, especially when you have children in the school system, but at some point, people are going to have to make a choice. Stand up and be counted or take it.

  • Nthis

    The teacher should lose their job and not be allowed to work as a teacher ever again for intimidating this student into going against their right answer. Seriously, these leftist morons polluting public education need to be pushed out. Young people need real educators that will teach them how to think instead of what to think.

    • Disgusted American

      Obviously an UNEDUCATED (we won’t even mention liberally INDOCTRINATED) teacher. Yes, they should be fired.

    • manofredearth

      Glad you’re not a teacher. Your pretty bad at being intelligent. Admittedly, I only have this instance to go on, but you did an excellent job being ignorant with such limited resources.

  • SovereignMary

    Whoa – This was an all out attempt by a very ignoramus teacher to indoctrinate the students with the teachers thorough ignorance of the 2nd Amendment.

    • manofredearth

      Do you always make stuff up? Or only when it suits your selfish ignorance? You had nothing to go on but a website interpreting a scrap of paper, but somehow you miraculously stitched it into the while story. And how’d that turn out? Oh, that’s right, you were wrong.

  • aaronC

    It will not let you share this video on facebook. Says it has been reported as abusive material…

    • Kevin Merck

      Whether this infowars.com article is completely accurate or not is secondary to me as to why people want to participate in facebook.

      They’re reportedly censoring anyone who supports the second amendment. That should be enough to make any law abiding person stop using them.

      Just cancel your account. Also, use startpage for all your web searches if you care anything about your privacy.


      • aaronC

        Because it is a way to communicate with others. Information is the nature of the game and if people are on Facebook that’s where ill share the info.

  • adam

    posted on facebook with no prob aaronC try the share button instead of the fb button. might help

    • aaronC

      Thanks adam.

      • aaronC

        I tried to post the video only, the link for this page works fine.

  • James Degenhardt

    Here’s an interesting question: Do cops have the right to ignore the 4th Amendment, and confiscate any property at all.

    In Wisconsin, both the State Patrol and Capitol Police have the power, thanks to an executive order by the governor, to detain and question people at random, do random ID checks, and confiscate any money, weapons, or recording devices (cameras. cell phones, tape recorders) that they wish, with no warrant or cause needed.

    So, I ask you, does the Fourth Amendment mean anything anymore ?

  • doodls

    I want to know what the teacher said the answer should be for part C of this question. Because the answer to A should have been “No” and the relevant text cited on C should be “shall not be infringed.”

    • bob

      No, the answer should be no, the ammendment should be fourth and the relevant text should be unreasonable search or seizure

      • Donald Belcher

        EXACTLY!!! This question/answer is wrong on EVERY level…the correct answer is that the search itself was totally illegal and the citizen should have never even told police about the gun…and he should have SHOT them for trying to take it after he told them

        • manofredearth

          Nope. When presented with an unconstitutional situation, violent force isn’t the constitutionally approved recourse. You’re super ignorant for claiming to love the Constitution so much. Just be honest and say all you care about is shooting stuff.

          • Donald Belcher

            If you attempt to violate my rights, and violent recourse is my only option (as it is with law enforcement…they make up the rules as they go and will kill you just for looking at them wrong), then I’m within my rights to use said force.
            THOUSANDS of civilians are killed each year by cops, and many of them are completely innocent and are murdered while being “detained”…why should I be forced to accept that possibility? And, if I had the means to eliminate that possibility (with my own weapon), why wouldn’t I?

  • raynetherwood

    Ahhhh Sheeple, we’re so doomed. Back to the new blood & guts video game ……..

  • Mike Butler

    Thank you, Eric Hitler! We have become the Fourth Reich!

  • Richard Vickers

    are you guys ready to fight for our rights yet? they will not stop until we MAKE them.

    • manofredearth

      Oh, you’re SO persecuted! When will the injustice end?! Better shoot someone in their face to make a point… that’ll show everyone you’re serious.

  • Adam

    South Carolina should change their motto to “Birthplace of Lindsey Graham”

    • Davin Evans

      We are trying to vote him out.

  • leslie green

    He’s a traitor, end of story! Oust him, he’s a Communist P.O.S. and obviously doesn’t believe in the CONSTITUTION, our American way of life or liberty.

    • manofredearth

      Cite your sources.

      • leslie green

        You’ve got to be kidding?! Research it yourself, try Drudge or Infowars for a starter… too many to list here…

  • MD

    It really is kind of a 4th amendment sort of problem…….rather than 2nd amendment. Just sayin’………

    • smarterthanyou

      you need to read the 4th ammendment, apparently. evidence has nothing to do with a confiscation.

      • Patrick Terrill

        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and EFFECTS against unreasonable search search and SEIZURE shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.

  • Dave Speller

    the teacher should have clarified that the quiz referred to the “new improved, fair, tolerant, progressive constitution” that we’re now using.

    • Patriot from the nanny state

      IMPROVED,ARE THE RE-EDUCATION FEMA CAMPS FOR ANYONE WHO WHO DISAGREE W/ this. Gov’t a good idea? The constitution was put in place for our protection from big govt. And TYRANNY!

      • manofredearth

        WHAT?! uR NOt Even sayING anything CoHerent and typiN LIKE A damn fOOl.

        Tighten your tinfoil cap before proceeding.

  • John Aldridge


    • manofredearth

      Turn off caps lock and step away from the computer. Then get an education and stop writing idiotic things that don’t make sense. The constitution today is not the same as the one written 200 years ago. Get a grip.

  • DJ4060

    Anonymous my butt, If that was my kid it would be all over the news after I beat the crap out of that teacher.

    • manofredearth

      You’d illegally physically assault an individual because you believe they’re wrong? Leave the discussion to American adults with an understanding of law, ok? People spewing violent ignorance like what you wrote are a cancer in our society

      • DJ4060

        You are wrong moron, It’s pussies like you that are a cancer in our society. I don’t believe that teacher is wrong, I know it for a fact.
        If more people exercised zero tolerance when it comes to their children we would not have problems like the brain washing of our children. I don’t threaten I make promises. You mess with my kids and you are dead! It’s that simple.

  • Dave Phillips

    The penmanship of the answers do not seem to be grade school level.

    Notice the down-slope in the “Y” in yes and the “G” in daughter.

    Also, the cross-strokes of the 2nd Amendment answer are really consistent.. and oddly similar to the cross-strokes of the parent’s “T’s”.

    I love Ben. He is among the best investigative reporters around. I hope he runs for office someday.

    However, that part of the story is suspect, to me.

    That is all.

    • mshmsucks

      I just think you don’t remember how well girls in 8th grade can write, either that, or you and your school age peers had a terrible edumacatchun.

      • Dave Phillips

        Ben called the parents and now they are saying their child lied. I believe they lied… and fabricated that part of the story.

  • CreepyAssCracker

    Nice to see a proper retraction. If only the rest of the media would be so willing to admit when they put forth an incorrect story. I am glad this teacher and this school wasn’t teaching this.
    Thanks for the update.

  • Justin Hemp

    Oops! Now just focus on impeachment… All the papers and reasons have been drawn up here:

    • rednail64

      What a laugh. I bet this is like libertarian porn to you.

  • Redheaded Stepchild

    Good retraction, BenSwann! Thank you for clearing up this matter. Keep up the good work!

    • john

      Too bad he didn’t use more due diligence in his initial reporting. Like attempting to contact the other side before publishing such bold claims.

      • Michael Langley

        Look at the paper. There is no indication if it is marked wrong or right. it also could be that it involved illegal search and seizure, violating the fourth amendment, as well. It looks fishy to me. It could indicate the response of the instructors, being caught teaching information erroneously, then reneging, when caught! I would not be so quick to judge!

  • Avy Hutchins

    I’m currently a sophomore in high school in Texas and I dropped AP World History because of A.) I couldn’t handle it with all the PAP and AP, and B.) The absolute lies they were teaching. On the FIRST DAY OF CLASS, the teacher and I got into a debate over whether or not majority rules was a good way to rule a country. I said that it’s not good because of situations like in Muslim countries, where Christians are infringed upon because of that logic. She told me and I quote, “That’s how it works, and if you don’t like it, you just have to sit down and shut up.” She also told me that “Life isn’t fair” when I brought up constitutional rights. All the kids that were vocal took her side, and I was essentially shot down and bullied into submission. BY MY FREAKING TEACHER. What really got me was when she told me that if you’re having your rights infringed upon, you should “sit down and shut up.” So basically, when you challenge the teacher, even respectfully, you’re shot down. I wasn’t willing to listen to that crap.

    • John Ridgeway

      Our country is based on majority rules with respect for minorities rights.
      That is the way it works. The other countries that use that first half of the rule do not others rights. In fact, those other countries don’t give their citizens a bill of rights like our country does. They are designed from the Government down, not from the people up. Our Framers were very much aware of other countries laws and wrote our Constitution specifically to avoid that.

    • Amanda

      Amy if you can take a community college U. S. History and Texas History course. Sadly college is the first time I’d ever heard of the Articles of Confederation an that we are a republic. It depends on the state you are in because in some states it’s law that every child has to know their state constitution and the U. S. Constitution.

  • gadsdengurl

    I’m not sure I get the problem here. The school was still wrong to pose the question as it did in the first place!

  • Rob C

    How did we go from paper proof to “oh, the key on a website shows the truth”. No offense, but I call BS, big time. All the Superintendent and teacher needed was time, and it seems that they had enough of it to clean up/change the key in order to cover it all up. At this point, I would be trying to contact other parents of that class and getting more papers to really show what is going on.

    Also, I’ve seen kids flip flop on issues if they feel like they might get in trouble at all. Enough presence of a Superintendent could easily sway a kid’s opinion. I’m trying to understand why this child would lie to start with.

  • SomethingDoesNotAddUp

    If the answer is incorrect and the teacher said it was, why is not not marked incorrect on the quiz?

    • Michael Langley

      It would be better to see a picture of the entire quiz (minus the child’s name). Errors marked may be just outside the image presented, but cropped out. But, the parents did not get mad because the answer was “no” and the erroneous answer “yes” was not marked wrong on the paper. This sounds fishy. Was it a misunderstanding? Or, did the teacher retract for other reasons? (as in WRONG!)

  • Nicholas Sweeten

    So the parents wanted to remain anonymous despite sullying the reputation of an educator who was doing his job? Oh, but they “feel bad”, I forgot.