IMG_3258

The test was based on a book called History Alive, America’s Past. I’m going to have to have a word with her [Austin, Texas] school about this. I’ll keep you posted.

Recommended For You

141 Responses to Incendiary Image of the Day: My Daughter’s Social Studies Test Edition

    • Exactly. Tried to buy an SBR? or a Silenced weapon? Or something auto….

      Dead on accurate (in the today’s world) Completely offensive to our founding fathers.

    • RandallOfLegend hit the proverbial nail on the head.

      While that isn’t the original meaning of the Second Amendment, it reflects the current situation of unconstitutional infringements.

    • The reality is that not only does the 2A NOT make any restrictions on type of guns people may own, it says nothing about guns at all! We, meaning I guess the American public, have tunnel vision on the 2A and think it’s just about firearms. This isn’t true. “Arms” means significantly more than guns. In my humble opinion, “arms” means anything that can be used as a weapon that is single-man-portable and single-man-usable and is capable of targeting a single, specific target. The single target thing rules out stuff like basically any explosive ordnance or anything that otherwise cannot be “aimed” and/or is indiscriminate and/or is likely to injure multiple people in a single function/use (grenades, mines, etc etc).

      I’ve posted this quote on TTAG a few times before, but I think it drives home the point that the 2A protects “arms” and not only “guns,” although it certainly does protect the right to firearms also:

      “The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising. Therefore, the heads of provinces, official agents, and deputies are ordered to collect all the weapons mentioned above and turn them over to the government.”
      — Toyotomi Hideyoshi
      (1536-1598) Japanese Chancellor of the Realm

      • Even the single target thing is reading too much between the lines. Many participants in the war for independence supplied their own private artillery.

        • Yea, interesting that the Founding Fathers made no provisions for a standing army when creating the constitution, but ensured that arms and militias could not be infringed… But the president has now authorized military action against US citizens and campaigns for civilian disarmament while militias are considered “potential domestic terrorists”… Hmmmm

      • I would say that arms, at least as originally intended by the 2nd amendment, goes even farther. At the time it would have, at very least, included cannon (artillery) and armed ships.

        Fast-forwarding to now, it SHOULD include tanks, fighters, bombers, destroyers, etc. Most of these are priced well outside the normal means of the vast majority of people, however ownership of them in and of itself, would seem to be protected by the 2nd amendment. In fact, if we assume (as is strongly implied by the documents surrounding the 2nd amendment at its writing) that the primary purpose of the amendment is to defend the people/individual states against both foreign powers and a tyrannical central government, then these things in fact MUST be protected as they are not now.

        • This is incredibly shortsighted. An interpretation of 2A rights to include any and all arms is an invitation to disaster. There was a discussion here about owning a mobile Russian anti-aircraft platform that was just as ridiculous. The potential for public harm from private ownership of weapons of such destruction far outweighs an individuals perceived right to own such weapons. It gets even more farcical when extended to things like bio-weapons or nuclear arms. They are, in most cases, indeed outside the financial reach of most people, but that distinction is academic. They are within the financial reach of some people, and the vast majority of Americans don’t want to live in a country where particularly wealthy corporations or individuals can freely cultivate anthrax spores or purchase nuclear bombs. People like to make the argument that weapons of arbitrary strength are necessary to protect against government tyranny. Fine, lets look at it through that lens. Find me a competent, respectable military man or economist who can convincingly argue that the marginal utility of a tiny quantity such weapons (such as would reasonably be available based on financial limitations) to an armed uprising outweighs the risk to the public of private citizens with unknown motivations and goals possessing them in peacetime and I’ll give you a cookie. I might even change my mind. I’m willing to bet no such person could be found because the idea is, at first glance, completely asinine. My gut feeling is also that people arguing that any arbitrary weapons are necessary to defend against government tyranny aren’t coming from a well reasoned or rational baseline. Please, someone try to change my mind.

        • The potential for public harm from private ownership of weapons of such destruction far outweighs an individuals perceived right to own such weapons.

          And laws that prohibit ownership of such weapons only constrain the law-abiding. Criminals who wish to acquire such weapons are not similarly constrained.

          Public harm exists because criminals and scofflaws exist.

          Find me a competent, respectable military man or economist…

          Appeals to authority are logical fallacy.

          …who can convincingly argue that the marginal utility of a tiny quantity such weapons (such as would reasonably be available based on financial limitations) to an armed uprising outweighs the risk to the public of private citizens with unknown motivations and goals possessing them in peacetime and I’ll give you a cookie.

          The unknown motivations and goals of private citizens do not pose a risk to the public. Criminals pose a risk to the public. If every single one of the 100,000,000 law-abiding gun owners suddenly came into possession of a Russian anti-aircraft platform, the public risk posed by that ownership would be statistically equal to zero.

          My gut feeling is also that people arguing that any arbitrary weapons are necessary to defend against government tyranny aren’t coming from a well reasoned or rational baseline.

          What are the odds that the government of Switzerland would ever attempt to disarm private citizens, or otherwise invoke tyranny?

        • OK, I’ll give it a shot.
          All of these things are available already, right now today, except for the NBCs. Tanks, cannon, belt feed MGs, multibarrel electric drive miniguns and vulcans, HE, armed and armored vessels, etc., all are available if you just have the money and fill out the proper forms. And yet so far that has created no problems at all. Legal full auto and tank owners simply do not misuse these tools. EXAMPLE: there are over one MILLION legally owned full auto firearms, and since 1934 I am only aware of TWO deaths due to same. That was a crime of passion wherein the guilty party gave himself up afterward, and would have been just as deadly for the pair he killed, had he used any other firearm.
          1 death every 40 years hardly seems worth even mentioning, yes? That is a rate on par with the number of persons killed by falling meteorites. Since the rate of misuse is so low, why shouldn’t those who choose to be allowed these items?

        • @Pseudo: Not an argument but more of something to consider… If the government was not keeping a large standing army when we aren’t in a congress declared state of war, such arms would have to be in private hands so that they could be maintained and ready for when the nation needed to borrow them.

      • Gee when I was a big a## bodybuilder in my younger days I had 20″ guns. And now I see they were constitutional. Seriously home school people…don’t leave your kiddies indoctrination to the state.

    • I know you’re trying to be clever but while the wording irritates me, as others have said, the way the amendment is described is a fact.

      It shouldn’t be, but it is.

  1. Austin. Keep’in it weird…

    Look on the bright side, RF. At least it was phrased “protects people’s rights”, and not “grants people’s rights”.

    • What college, and how’d you navigate that selection process, transitioning from home schooling to college? We’re deeply concerned about that same looming hand off to higher education with ours, though it’s some years away.

      • The easiest way is to send them to regular skool the senior year. Only the last attended gets named. Also, a GED works. If they can’t get into a good enough skool that way, use the ged to get into a community college, and then upgrade to a better skool later. The last skool rule still works.

        • +1

          This strategy has worked for most all of the homeschooling families I’ve known. That was our game plan too. No problems except that the time at public school is an obvious step down in education.

      • All three of my kids were home schooled, none had any trouble getting into college. One went to a military school in New Mexico, two went to the local community college and then to the (admittedly second-tier) state college in the next town over. All followed the normal admittance procedure. I did have to convince some gal in the New Mex school’s registrar’s office that a “home school” in Texas is the same as any other private school. When they insisted on a diploma with a seal, we printed one up and I signed it as the “Headmaster”.

      • I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear. I’m not concerned about their getting into college. We plan on using two years of community college as the last two years of high school, anyway.

        I meant, how’d you find a four year college that wouldn’t turn around and undo years of home school education by filling their heads with crap, and how’d you work that out with your child, who may want to go certain colleges?

        • Have you considered trade schools? You children might not get a fancy degree in a scholarly field of study, but they’re more likely to find jobs that pay well. A lot of skilled trades make serious money. My cousin has a chemical engineering degree and makes about 60k a year. My wife’s cousin went to welding school and makes about the same amount, without the student loan debt.

        • Good training up front is a big help there. A solid background in logic, philosophy and apologetics is a good inoculation against the academian agenda

        • Scientist, Engineer and subject matter expert in cardiac devices by day. Christian apologetics, conservative blogger and sci-fi podcaster by night. For every one of those, the critical thinking skills and my skill in writing are the most valuable pieces of knowledge I have.

        • Hey Jonathan, Hillsdale College in Michigan is one of the best answers. I didn’t go there, run of the mill state business school for me, but my wife’s best friend went there and received an excellent education that has helped her to fight the good fight defeating the derp of public education as a middle school social studies teacher in Pasadena ISD. It’s a normal priced private college, but they do not accept any federal student aid, so they are as independent as possible in the current post-secondary environment.

        • I guess we kind of lucked out–the state university just down the road (that would be Stephen F. Austin) gets mostly local students, and mostly reflects the local culture, which is mostly conservative. Of course, it’s still a university, so it will have a certain amount of overeducated idiots in positions of authority, but it’s nothing like sending your kid to Oberlin. I took a couple of grad courses there, one of the professors was a flaming liberal who, I think I can fairly say, did a little discriminating against me because I got a little outspoken in class on political issues–but I still wound up with a “B”. Maybe look for a smaller school in a culturally conservative area that has close ties to the local populace?

    • All the girls I knew in college who were home schooled (or went to all-girls school) were the biggest hos on campus.

      Food for thought.

  2. I’ve seen worse, as in “protects a person’s right to own firearms as long as they are registered with the government”. Public schools are as much for indoctrination as they are for education, have been since they were founded.

      • I think you just won the TTAG no-prize for that comment. I think you just summed up in one simple sentence the problem with not just that picture but the whole system responsible for it.

      • Not trying to derail the conversation here but let’s be honest with ourselves. The first amendment is no less under attack than the second (see ‘decency’ laws, speech codes, ‘free speech zones’, attacks on politically unpopular religions, mass arrests of peaceful protestors, etc) and, while we’re at it, the ‘war on terror’ has pretty effectively eliminated the 4th, 5th and 6th.

  3. Yeah, certain types… the types that shoot projectiles.

    Until directed energy weapons become available.

    I hope you’re also going to ask what happened to 3, 7,9, 10?

      • Actually, it says the “right to keep and bear arms” which would actually include more than just guns. Swords and daggers were common sidearms in the 1770s.

    • The only amendment the Left hates more than the 2nd is the 10th. Any powers not expressly enumerated herein are reserved for the States. 90% of the federal government’s creep into our lives should have already been nixed by this pesky little 10th Amendment.

      • Lincoln killed the tenth amendment. Any concept of state sovereignty was stamped into the mud when his administration conquered their southern kin for trying to get out of the club.

        • States cannot ignore or violate the constitutional rights of their residents. When that happens the higher power, the feds, has the right to over rule the state. The states in question had very bad rights violations ongoing at the time they attempted to leave.

          Sorta like a bank robber trying to leave the scene of the crime with a hostage.

        • The constitution actually allows for exceptions to Habeas Corpus, specifically during a rebellion (look out for that if the shit ever does hit the fan) and during an invasion.

        • Can’t agree with you there, JWM, at least, not as of the outbreak of the Civil War.

          States voluntarily entered into the union, so they have the right to leave it. After all, the United States itself dissolved the political ties that bound it to England. Why can’t the Confederate States do likewise? They’re free to leave and treat their residents or citizens howsoever they choose.

          More to the point, at the time of the Civil War, the Bill of Rights did no apply to the states, just to the federal government. Shocking in a 21st century context, I know, but true. James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”, didn’t even want a Bill of Rights at all, let alone a Bill that would apply to the states. The Bill of Rights was initially left out altogether. Later, as a Congressman, Madison changed his mind and championed the Bill of Rights. At that time, he did argue for it to apply to the states. Madison proposed:

          “Fifthly, that in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit: ‘No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.’”

          Although the Constitution was ultimately amended to include the Bill of Rights, the Senate rejected Madison’s attempt to bind the states to it, as the federal government was. And such was life in America for the next century, though some people argued otherwise. A number of cases were brought before the courts, arguing various Bill of Rights protections against state laws, but to no avail. Two big cases went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government:

          Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the SC ruled that the 5th Amendment’s takings clause didn’t apply to either Baltimore or Maryland: “…the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states.”

          Pervear v. Massachusetts (1866), the SC rejected the defense’s attempt to invoke the 8th Amendment’s protection against excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment: “Of this proposition it is enough to say that the article of the Constitution relied upon in support of it does not apply to State but to National legislation.”

          It wasn’t until ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, after the Civil War, that the Bill of Rights began to be incorporated, that is, applied to the States, by way of Due Process and Equal Protection. Incorporation wasn’t immediate then and even to this day isn’t complete. The First Amendment wasn’t incorporated until 1925’s Gitlow v. N.Y., which was also the year that “selective incorporation” became a doctrine with Twining v. N.J. and the Eighth Amendment. Hell, the Second Amendment was only incorporated about five minutes ago with McDonald v. Chicago (2010)! From my readings (not a lawyer), the Third and Seventh Amendments, and the grand jury clause of the Fifth Amendment, are still unincorporated as of 2015.

          So the U.S. definitely didn’t have a legal basis, on Bill of Rights grounds, to wage the Civil War in protection of Southern residents. The federal government itself didn’t even make that claim, not issuing the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863. Even then, it didn’t actually outlaw slavery and didn’t even apply to the slave states that were not in rebellion (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri). If the North wanted to invade someone for treating blacks poorly, they could have started much closer to home.

        • Hey, JWM, which army’s commander still [legally, “Constitutionally”] owned slaves after the war ended? That’s right, the commander of the Union Army, Ulysses Grant! The Civil War wasn’t over slavery per se : Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky, all stayed with the Union as slave states–and if I’m not mistaken, it was legal to own slaves in DC as of the time the war started. Furthermore, after the [extra-legal] Emancipation Proclamation, slavery in areas of the South under Union occupation, like Louisiana, was still legal and practiced–under federal supervision, as it were.

        • The Emancipation Proclamation did not preclude the war. It wasn’t drafted as a result of the war. It was a political move on the part of Lincoln when he was losing support for the war and he feared European countries would get involved on the side of the Confederates. The Union blockade hurt Europe because they needed the cotton to run the textile mills. Slavery was only made illegal in the Confederate States.

        • And on top of all that, the confederacy had already seceding, so it had no legal effect at all. It was only applicable to the state that were no longer under the iron fist of Washington DC. A completely political stunt. The fact that it fooled enough people to succeed is not legally relevant.

        • Then it sounds to me as if a major hurdle for the South’s victory in that war could have been overcome by freeing their slaves before they fired on the union troops. It would have freed up help from europeans that were squemish on the fact that the confederacy had slavery.

          Pointing out that the war wasn’t fought over slavery is really a small point. If slavery wasn’t a major issue why didn’t the southern states simply free the slaves? They would have been doing right and taken the moral high ground, what there was, from the Union.

          Seems to me that the real issue was poor decision making and leadership in the south. Either way, the union was preserved(a good thing) and slavery ended(also a good thing).

        • The reason why the South did not free the slaves was because they were fighting a war for the RIGHT to make that choice for themselves, without force or coercion from the North. And the fact that, at the time, there was not the available machinery to take the place of the slaves, thus the North was demanding that all the plantation owners put themselves out of business. When you do that, push-back is the natural result. Seems obvious to me. Attempt to take away a rich persons(or anybody else, too, really) means of support and he will often get violent.

        • Ken. Congrats on the most effed up statement of support for slavery I’ve ever heard. It would have bankrupted ol massa to free the slaves so naturally he fought against it.

          The south fired the first shots. They could have taken a few minutes to free the slaves first and then fired. It would have given their fight for freedom and liberty from tyranny a little more believeability.

          Or was the deadliest war in American history fought just so ol massa didn’t have to pick his own cotton or paid for the work to be done?

        • Your historical accuracy leaves a bit to be desired. Just who fired the first shots at Ft Sumter is still under dispute and will probably never be known. I know what they taught you in skool, I learned that also. The fact that they never informed us about the dispute is simply because the winner always writes the history books the way they want them written. What we can know for sure is that Ft Sumter commanded Charleston Harbor, in a way that no sovereign nation on earth could allow, it was well within the definition of Carolina territory, And South Carolina ordered the troops there(who were there WITHOUT orders from Washington, but on the commander’s authority) to leave. None of this is in dispute. When a resupply convoy, escorted by warships from the North attempted to cross the blockade line(again, CLEARLY in violation of SC territory), SOMEBODY… either the naval vessels or the cadets, fired, and the other returned said fire. That is not what the North writes in their history books, but that is the way of it if you bother to dig through the facts a little.

        • Either way, the union was preserved(a good thing) and slavery ended(also a good thing).

          At a very high cost to state sovereignty and making what was once a voluntary agreement (Union) into a seemingly involuntary one (strengthened federal government). IMHO, it hindered race relations in this country more than was necessary. Slavery was a peculiar institution whose days were numbered in the South and most politicians of the time seemed to know it. Under the guise of freeing slaves, the War of Northern Aggression made slaves of all to some degree or another.

  4. If they plugged “certain” into each Amendment then the text would be more accurate to the current state of rights in the grand ol USmeh and less agenda-ey.

  5. I did their tutorial/practice quiz on their website, same question, but when you answer it, this is the result:

    Question 10

    2nd is the correct answer!

    The Second Amendment protects people’s right to “keep and bear arms.”

    Either way, we need to stay proactive with kids. They get nothing but propaganda when it comes to U.S. History and of course, the 2nd Amendment. They are trying to make firearm ownership evil. From as early as possible. Remember, even a pastry in the shape of an “L” got a kid in trouble with a school. I certainly see how schools brainwash kids about rights and history as a huge attack on our future rights.

  6. I had to go to my sons school last year and set his so-called “History” teacher straight on the exact same subject. Schools are indoctrination centers.

  7. I just want to say one thing: I realize that this is not what anyone here wants to hear, but IT COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WORSE!

    • We’ve all seen, right here on this site, tests like this that say something like, “The Amendment that allows members of a militia to own guns.”

    • +1.No question about it.
      And we should keep educators/schools etc responsible and honest with what they teach if it is incorrect or just plain propaganda.
      But absolutely, parents are the key. Imagine the uproar from the country as a whole if a question was worded like this..
      “What Amendment protects the peoples freedom to practice certain religions?”

      Certainly parents need to be aware, and address their concerns with the schools. Right after they explain to their children the issue and why it is wrong.

      • I don’t like federally mandates re the details of education, however I would approve of one: Require that for every year of public school after students have learned to diagram sentences students have to diagram the 2nd amendment.

    • Sorry to be nit-picking, but the principal is your pal, not the principle. But you point is well taken.

  8. I’ll be watching for this as my granddaughter gets older.
    There are a couple of my kids teachers there who will remember what I was like when I helped them change their “policies”.

  9. Technically, this is a true and informed paraphrase of the right as stated and interpreted by the Court: the amendment (according to the majority in Heller) protects the right to keep and bear arms that are in “common use”.

    This is progress: I bet the old version of this test read “This amendment protects the rights of militias to bear arms”

    • But define common use: Common use by the public in the US? (which is self-defeating if states have limited/banned weapons that should have been legal) or in common use by infantry around the world?

      That question came up in orals before SCOTUS because of the way the lower court ruled, and the fact it talked about a modern semi-auto pistol being the lineal descendant of the colonial pistol. Solicitor general expressed that even though he was arguing for the ban, he would have a hard time under the lower court ruling of banning machine guns. Particularly given that the lower court associated the right with defense from government tyranny.

      “To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
      protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right
      existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
      Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for
      activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being
      understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
      depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from
      abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the
      important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the
      citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient
      for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to
      placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right
      facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be
      barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth
      for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
      Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects
      are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s
      enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
      intermittent enrollment in the militia.”

  10. This is the kind of sh!t that keeps me up at night. It’s downright terrifying, because it really is a youth brainwashing campaign. As well as how it’s frequency is shockingly rising across the nation.

    • This is why, IMHO, we will lose an incremental battle to restore the exercise of rights. Government can afford to play the long game whereas the individual cannot.

  11. Neocon Scalia rejoices! No “dangerous or unusual” guns. Well all guns can be dangerous. Unusual? Well, just make it illegal or almost impossible to buy like full auto’s! Presto! And we thought Heller would save us. An anti gun kourt can still have enough plausible deniabilitu to do whatever they want. So yes, the social studies homework is correct.

    • If you think there will ever be a Court whose interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is looser than Scalia’s, you are delusional.

      What you or I or Michael Bloomberg think the 2nd Amendment means is immaterial. There are 9 people in the country whose opinion on this matters, and they’ve spoken. We should be praying that they *don’t* take the opportunity to speak on it again, because I am certain the results will be worse.

      • “We should be praying that they *don’t* take the opportunity to speak on it again, because I am certain the results will be worse.”

        Sure…bow to our ‘betters,’ right?

        (1) Judicial review is itself ex-Constitutional.

        (2) They have spoken…for NOW. There WILL be other 2A cases before the court. No court ruling can be taken as ‘permanent,’ either liberty affirming OR liberty attacking.

        Acting like Heller is some sort of transcendental truth in American Law is extraordinarily short sighted. Heller is only “good” until the next ruling. The next ruling could be better, or it could be worse.

      • Yep.

        If Scalia, the oracle of Textualism, the scourge of Judicial Activists, and the man who literally wrote the book on how to read (interpret) law, finds that the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right of citizens to own any type of firearm what-so-ever, then the chances of finding 5 federal judges who disagree — and getting them nominated to the Supreme Court — is about the same as finding a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range at Cabela’s.

    • I know it’s a typo, but when I got to “deniabilitu” I read it as suppressing vomit mid-sentence.

  12. Public school teachers are like motor vehicle employees. They are generally useless people who have situational power during the work day and tend to abuse it to a fare-thee-well.

    Still, since the Austin school system seems to recognize that there is a Second Amendment and there is a right to own guns — any guns — we must be winning. But I do note the clever way that the teacher further modified the Amendment, from “keep and bear” to “own.”

    The bottom third of the class rears its empty head. Again.

  13. Stop sending your children to those indoctrination camps.

    What else would you expect from Public Schooling that has been Federalized?

  14. I’m surprised they’re teaching that the constitution exists at all. I never had a U.S. history class in any of my schools. I had to piece it together myself, mostly from sugar packets.

  15. Like I’ve said many times – is there any service that government can provide that private industry can’t provide better?

        • You’ve managed to construct a bizarre definition of ‘private’ that includes anything you want it to. Nice try though.

        • I didn’t construct a definition at all. I just made an observation that all the men and materiel in a navy originate from private sources. Who is to say a private source could not run the whole thing? I did think about it a bit, and figured that only a government with taxing powers likely could accumulate the capital to “put it all together” as it were. Maybe you could show me exactly where my observation is false?

    • “Like I’ve said many times – is there any service that government can provide that private industry can’t provide better?”

      There is one thing.

      It’s not perfect, but the US Government is arguably the best in the world at it.

      The Air Traffic Control System.

  16. “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”

  17. This is actually very common. Modern text books are crafted by organizations with a directive that is focused on subjugation rather than education. It’s been that way for maybe 100 years or more. My AP US History book had 2 sentences on the creation of the Federal Reserve yet that is one of the most important turning points in US history.

  18. This is nothing. I work in the print room of a local school, and have several times come across materials that said 2A “allowed people to own guns while serving in a militia”.

    • I feel bad for you on so many levels. From some one who was trapped in NY for 4 years, I hope you get to leave. It really is like a totally different country. I hated it years ago and back then you could still own guns at least. I can’t imagine what kind of hell it must be now, esspecially tax wise.

  19. A good local friend recently showed me a page from her daughter’s high school history book. I’m not sure if I can embed a photo here (I’ll try). But, here is the text, VERBATIM:

    Right to Bear Arms
    The people may 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 [i.e. for military purposes] shall not be infringed.

    http://i1042.photobucket.com/albums/b425/racer88_bucket/other%20stuff/2A–history-fallacy_zpsoaio4ztj.jpg

  20. Well the test appears to be correct. It’s not like the Supreme Court has ever seemed to be eager to overturn the NFA or anything

  21. “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” Ingsoc from the Ministry of Truth.

  22. It could’ve been worse by being even more descriptive of present day application of the 2nd. “This amendment protects certain people’s right to keep certain kinds of guns.”

  23. If my daughter had crossed out the “certain kinds” part of the question and turned it in, she would have got a pony.

    • A pony will crap all over the house. The ground floor at least, until she trains it to use the stairs…

      And they aren’t cheap to feed…

  24. You misunderstand them – they will fight to the last ditch to preserve your right to own and bear flintlock muskets and fowling pieces. (But no lead shot).

  25. If the 2nd only applies to certain kind of guns, then the 1st only applies to certain kinds of religions and presses (as in actual, 18th century presses. You know, since the Founders could’ve never envisioned the mass-producing kind we have today).

  26. It gets worse.

    Wait until she gets to 9th grade AP Human Geography.

    I knew from the course name it was going to be bad but I had no real clue.

  27. I am more concerned about the 8th Amendment only protecting against cruel and unusual punishment if you actually commit a crime. I thought it applied to people who were accused or (wrongly) convicted of committing a crime.

  28. I have heard heard about the text book in the past because of how their “simplified” versions of the bill of rights were worded.

  29. not it really doesn’t guys. there is NO GUN you can not own if you are willing to pay what it takes to get it, and i mean legally. I can not think of any hand held firearm that can not be purchased with enough money and FFL3 forms. Do you guys?

  30. I used to think if the day ever came that I were to be attacked by elements of my government that they would find themselves firing on a home under which flew the American flag. After Waco I knew that wasn’t gonna matter to the hard left.

    But to any of those who might someday come to my door to do me harm ” You will be firing on a home where Old Glory fly’s as well as the flag of the US Marine Corps, a home where the words of the Constitution still matter and the bill of rights is the true Law of of the Land, if that does not deter you then come on lets dance because the country I served, the country my father died for is lost and my only hope is that I might take a bunch of you bastards with me.
    As the Viet Minh officer said at the start of ” We were Soldiers” If we kill all they send they will stop coming. Words to live and maybe die with but freedom isn’t free.

    And I’m an old fart so it don’t matter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *