Jesus christ. "There's no check of your bags" as if hotels are to blame? The **** is wrong with American 'news'?
I've been wondering, not having grown up in America, what is taught about their constitution, is it just this is what the constitution says or are Americans taught about the context surrounding the penning of it and why certain rights where written down. In other words are they taught why things like the 2nd amendment exists and why the founding fathers felt a need to include it?
I was taught about it in the 'Internation School' in Houston, TX when I was 6/7/8. I remember vividly being told that "Guns are a Texans God Given Right, and only God can take them away" - And that was it, if you said anything against it, you were going against the will of God, and they could turf you out for it..
I'm not sure it's a school thing across the entire country. And Texas is a definitely 'special' case. I was schooled in the US until the age of 11 and whilst the constitution was covered, I don't recall much emphasis on it and certainly no added emphasis on the 2nd amendment. I'm sure there's more depth in later years of education, but for it to be so ingrained as it seems to be with many Americans, I think it starts earlier at home. I have a cousin that collects guns, but he seems to be one of the rational ones. He grew up in the sticks in Alaska where most schoolchildren are packing, for actual protection (moose), so was introduced to them and comfortable with them at a young age. Now he collects them not because he wants to defend his family or property, but because they're cool. Even as an avid firearm collector, he's not "pro gun" per se, and believes in a need for a greater gun control. Out of the rest of my extended family and friends in the US, none of them are vehemently pro-gun, and generally anti-gun, even if some of them do have a little handbag pistol stashed away in a safe in a cupboard that hasn't seen the light of day for 15 years. Maybe it's a class thing, or a regional thing, or something else, but in my many years in the US, I've only come across a handful of "guns are my god given right and they can try to pry them from my cold dead hands" sorts of people.
My brother was 4 years above, and IIRC they did the Constitution as part of History, when they cover the entire top of how America came to be - you aren't taught the 'Constitution' per se, you're taught about how and why the document came to be, not its content.
It's always the vocal minority, innit? And I'd very much consider myself a part of the "guns are cool" club, but I reckon that even if I lived in the USA I wouldn't own one because I also recognise how deadly they are and I don't think I'd feel comfortable or be able to justify ownership. Granted, gun safety is a "thang" and it's possible never to have any mishaps or otherwise unpleasant gun-related experiences, but to me the thought of wielding that kind of power is just frightening.
So i take it there's no stipulation on what must be taught in different states like how we have a national curriculum, federal government doesn't get involved in education? If so that's odd to me as I would've thought teaching people how modern day America came to be would've been rather important, it's like willfully ignoring the history of a country you're probably going to be spending your entire life in.
IIRC it does, with stuff like Common Core. But even then the involvement is minimal in the wider scheme and even the then individual state, school boards and parents bitch endlessly about it...
I did a year and a bit in American schooling - Howard Elementary in Dearborn, Michigan - and guns never really cropped up. Our history lessons were very much American history with little looks at world history when it involved some jingoism about how America saved the day. I assume, hope, that this was due to the fact it was elementary school. Still, I was often in trouble for refusing to go along with the pledge of allegiance (On the basis that I'm English, and not interested in pledging allegiance to 'Murica). It wasn't biblethumping-redneck-ville, but there was a definite "America is right about everything, don't be stupid" mentality.
You'd think if people were going to use a constitution to defend their position that they'd actually understand what the relevant section meant, you'd think they'd understand why.... Was written into the constitution, once America established a standing army it became largely irrelevant as for one reason or another they, like us, put in place structures to prevent the government from using that standing army to suppress the people so there was no longer a need for people to be trained in warfare and called upon when needed.
And oddly enough I can't see some hillbillies with assault rifles taking on the "greatest military in the world. MURICA!!!" so it makes no sense. Like good luck with that AK against an fighter jet or drone
Wow. Derailed much? Maybe leave the discussion on whether nukes are "worth it" or not to another day/thread.
Could we find a wandering moderator to split the thread? I think this discussion is worthwhile, though completely OT.
That always did tickle me. It's basically "Hey guys, we don't have much of a military, and y'all need to watch out for yourselves" and and given how it's being used by gun nuts, they're presumably looking to either protect themselves as individuals from the world's largest standing military, or to pitch in if somehow said military needs an extra hand against a foreign attack and a few more assault rifles is going to turn the tables. Even as an American I don't understand why the constitution is so sacred as compared to any other set of laws that are changed to stay appropriate and relevant.
It's always a bit weird when you get people taking the tack that the Constitution is set in stone and cannot be changed... There have been 27 amendments so far.
The 2nd Amendment was designed to protect people from the State, them being mindful of having just freed themselves from control by Britain. So it is not the presence of a standing army that removes the need for this amendment, but actually the functioning, still-independent Judiciary, as has been demonstrated this year in their response to Trump's excesses. And at this stage, the right to bear arms is not the problem. Even if you accept that people should be allowed guns for self-defence/sport/hunting, there are many steps you could still take to improve the situation. As others have noted, other countries allow ownership of weapons without have to deal the carnage that is so routine in the US. The differences are that these countries generally... Require weapons to be licensed... ...in limited numbers Require regular checks/reviews Don't allow nutters & criminals licences Restrict the type of firearms and ammo Require cooling down periods for purchases Don't allow carrying in public, concealed or otherwise Require storage in gun safes Etc, etc Americans need to stop wanking over guns and realise that they are dangerous tools and should be controlled accordingly.
You can amend the constitution and no "strict constitutionalist" would claim that amendments have any less value that the original text. What you can't do is disregard it, without passing that amendment and that's just a matter of sticking to the rule of law.
