What's something incorrect you were taught a class?

What university/what department?

UW Seattle, sociology. My major is history, and have heard so much shit outside of the history department.

I once took asian American history, the professor said the Chinese went to America twice before he Vikings.

Based CI

I remember when I was perhaps 10 or so in my Catholic elementary school, during our religion 'class' (60 minutes a week), our teacher was reading some passage about Jesus being the Lamb of God. After she asked if we had questions, to interpret the passage etc.

I asked "How can Jesus be a sheep?" which my teacher did NOT appreciate. Some kids giggled, but I really wasn't trying to be funny or blasphemous, I just really didn't understand (metaphor, etc.). I was 10.

She was pissed and yelled at me, then called the vice principal (over the PA) and made me go to his office. He was nice about it, explained matter-of-factly and nicely, and sent me back.

I honestly think that's the point where I stopped caring about religion, at least dogmatically.

She's probably used to hearing the question in much more mocking overtones. I've brought it up from time to time to needle Christians, although I focus on the inappropriateness of a lamb of of god being offered as a sin offering.

She was Polish, so probably pretty serious about it all. I'm not a fedora-tipper, but that was a turning point. At our Confirmation two or three years later (I had that same teacher two years in a row, so I forget which grade it was exactly), I distinctly recall not giving a shit.

Back on topic, one of my highschool history teachers always used to make shit up. He knew some stuff legit. Since he was Italian, mostly Roman/Italian history. His grandfather loved Il Duce and wouldn't accept any criticism of Mussolini. But he was also a "joker", and always kidding around about shit, so it was hard to know at that age if he was just making shit up for a laugh or being serious. I'm a mutt, but my name is Swedish and ends in -berg and he always used to tell me Jewish jokes and ask if my dad was an accountant and help him hide his taxes. He was obese as fuck and literally waddled everywhere. I kinda wonder if he's had a stroke yet.

>"the Second Amendment is fairly ambiguous..."
>*reads any of the Founding Fathers' works*
>ARM THE PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CAN KILL THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT
>"...yeah ok but like they have drones so that'll never happen it is outdated turn them in"

Argie here

>The Spaniards landed in America and killed without hesitation all the natives who had the misfortune to know them

>Catholicism stopped technological progress

>The British always ruled the seas

>Imperalism is a white concept

>Everyone thought that the world was flat before Columbus

>If you do not have blue eyes and blonde hair, the Nazis would have killed you

>The Soviets defeated the Nazis

>Africa was better before colonization than after

>The arab world did nuffing wrong

>the Falkland Islands are and always were Argentina

>The Second Amendment is ambiguous

Fuck this pisses me off so goddamned much. It literally states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but gun-grabbers pussyfoot around it and go 'no, see, it's ambiguous' because it doesn't immediately agree with their politics.

Going off of this

If I'm ever elected president, I will immediately send El Salvador style death squads after anyone who used the "living document" excuse in an effort to push through unconstitutional laws.

I will justify this action by explaining that the right to life is an outdated concept and the modern world is too dangerous to continue clinging to an ancient piece of paper.

Counterpoint: Article V

the absolute state of mutt education

So, you intend to roll back all the protections Incorporation Doctrine has created? Because the "living document" business is the basis for little things like all recognizable 1st amendment jurisprudence these days.

And kill everyone who advocates for it, yes.

I also maintain that Incorporation doctrine is the only right way to interpret the 14th amendment.

>MLK won black people the right to vote

>Africa was better before colonization than after
>implying this is wrong

It's always amazing and amusing how americans act like their constitution is the word of God, and pretend their "founding fathers" (this expression in itself is laughable) were infallible on matters of political doctrine like some sort of pope.

It is just another set of laws. You're not forced to change them if you consider them good, but you must not accept them without question.

I'm I don't think the constitution is infallible, nor do I think that the intent of the founding fathers should factor that heavily in the debate for gun control vs gun rights. There's better and more relevant arguments to make.

I just think it's amazing that people can look at a single sentence that says, clear as goddamned day, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and then say "It's ambiguous."

Well, the constitution is the law.

If you start an argument about, say, confiscating firearms by arguing that the constitution is old and doesn't need to be followed any more, then who's to say that the other rights in the constitution are any less negotiable?

Based

You are not wrong, but you're not posting the full sentence though.

>who's to say
Ideally the sovereign body of the citizens of the country.

>A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A quick google makes it clear that 'well-regulated', at the time of the BoR's drafting, was synonymous with 'in good working order' or 'properly equipped'. It has nothing to do with the modern notion of a regulation being a rule or law applied by a government or similar organization to limit and guide behavior.

It's also obvious that everything before 'the right of the people' serves as a kind of preamble, an explanation or justification for the statement which follows. That statement, beginning with 'the right of the people', is a complete thought and can stand on its own. Said statement literally says that 'the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS shall NOT be INFRINGED'. Even if you try conflating the idea of militia service being necessary to justify gun ownership, the 2A literally says it is the right of the people, i.e. citizenry, to own weapons.

I can understand that navigating the grammar might be a little confusing, but the wording is far from ambiguous.

As I understand it it means
>the right to bear arms shall not be infringed
so that
>a well regulated militia
can guarantee
>the security of the free state

The proposed policy is unambiguous.
The goals are clear too.

But if the policy doesn't in fact produce the effects that specifically require and justify it, then there's unambiguously a problem.
Which I guess is where ambiguity arise : what is presented as cause and effect are not so.

And so the law and the problem should be fixed.

And the opposite stance it seems to me can be summed up as "who cares if its not working, let's just follow the instructions as written and ignore the goals they were given for".

Israel won the 7 day war because they were so determined to keep their Promised Land.

No mention of the billions the US and UK provided them in weaponry.

If that's the case he's actualyl Austrian.

You raise entirely valid points. Though I firmly support gun rights, I find the history of the debate highly interesting because while the second amendment was enshrined for purposes no longer applicable to the modern day*, ownership of firearms by civilians has come to serve other, equally vital purposes in American culture.

*While I'm sure hunting, sport, and defense of home, property, and person were all ancillary benefits to civilian gun ownership during and immediately after the ratification of the Constitution, it's pretty damned clear that the 2A was drafted so that an armed citizenry could defend the state, while supporting documents from the framers of the constitution also have a common theme of laying the groundwork for another revolt against tyranny if it becomes necessary in the future.

The former notion refers to a duty now carried out by a standing military, and the latter notion seems an awful lot less romantic to the (majority) American populace, letalone their elected officials.

the Seljuk turks took Jerusalem from the Byzantines

I always wondered why despite all the talk about the constitution and this amendment, militias are not an institution in the US.

They are and they have terrible publicity.

Concerning a sub-Federal-level mode of defense, that's pretty much what the National Guard is for.

Civilian militias are a mixed bag, but they've been pretty effectively (and with debatable accuracy) painted by the MSM as far-right nutjobs with guns who are one meeting away from becoming domestic terrorists. They're viewed just about the same way 'doomsday' preppers are: paranoid, incompetent, a danger to themselves and others, etc. There's exceptions of course, and there's nothing stopping militias from playing a useful role as a communal support group in case of local emergencies.

Modern Americans love to dumbly compare their revolution with Vietnam, while in reality it was a pretty even conventional war between a strong rebel faction and medium european power with a shit tier army

Its shit either way

In 2nd grade, one of my religion teachers told us not to pray with our hands pointing downward. I assume now she said something like you want to focus toward god, not satan. The nuance got lost on me though, and one day after praying before lunch, I noticed my teacher had her hands folded downward. Thinking she must not realize, I raised my hand and when she called on me, I plainly said, "Mrs. Seiler, you were praying to the devil." She snapped and sent me to the principal's office.

The Constitution is our covenant. Procedure exists whereby it can be amended. People choose to ignore this because they don't find it expedient enough and instead attempt to invalidate the existing law through redefinition and propaganda. They deserve, at minimum, to be tried and stripped of their office for undermining the document they swore to uphold. They know what they are doing, the whole idea of a living constitution has always been a veneer.

You haven't had the privilege of attending a modern humanities course

World War One was caused by Germany attempting to grow an Empire. Teacher placed all the blame squarely on Germany itself and it's "bad ideas".

>As I understand it
Maybe learn basic grammar before presuming to prescribe constitutional law lmao

It is doing precisely what the founders intended it to do, which is arm the people.

Not exactly relevant, but in English we were given an assignment to define words and use them in a sentence.

For the word "circuitous", I used the sentence:
"Instead of taking a more circuitous route, Frodo and Sam should have flown the eagles to Mordor."
This was in grade school before I browsed /tv/.
Heh... meme

>specifically leaving out the all important part about the people

You're right, its just that the people have the right, so that they might be able to form into a militia and defend their freedom. Its been touched on many times and that has been repeatedly confirmed. Honestly, some of the the gun laws we have today are unconstitutional.

I hope your teacher flunked you for your blatant non-understanding of Lord of the Rings, you shitstain.

Nice work missing the first part, faggots. Don't worry, he's coming after your guns anyway.

The holocaust

xD le sieg heil 14/88

.t Schlomo Shekelburgerstein von Kikenkutkock

Arm the people in order to provide for the defense of the state. It doenst say that we should just arm for shits and giggles. The defense of the state is no longer in the hands of a militia, but those of a well-trained professional military. Therefore the basis for arming citizens starts to lose weight

fucking kekkkkkk

It may come to pass that someone with tyrannical ambitions controls all or part of the US Army in an attempt to overtake the government. I know it seems far fetched to think that that could happen to America, but if you look at history (like Rome) there have been many cases of such a thing happening to even the most powerful nations. There are even coups that crop up in mid-tier countries that have sufficiently advanced armies.

The ability to have 150 million armed men and women who can mobilize and combat an enemy force should not be sneezed at. To contrast that, the current standing US military has roughly 1.4 million people (and the majority of that number is just "a person with a gun"). And drones/planes/nukes can't really be used much anyways, because you don't want to destroy the nation that you are trying to overtake. For an aspiring tyrannical dictator, being able to say, "Yeah, I nuked New York...but," is a terrible position to hold and will likely get you assassinated quickly by someone who believes they can play the good guy role of your regime.

The only technology that would play a huge role in a US Army vs armed citizens is the tank, as most civilians outside of a few doomsday preppers are going to have absolutely no answer to a tank.

But yes, having almost every civilian armed for shits and giggles is actually a very good thing.

>you don't want to destroy the nation that you are trying to overtake.
Yea, nah. Look at Russia, Spain, the Balkans, Syria, etc.

Nukes obviously not, but if you don't think a power-mad army would bomb, shell or drone strike infrastructure, civilians, area-denial shit (Assad bombs bakeries, hospitals and marketplaces), and so on. then you are pretty naive.

That the americans were benevolent and genuinely cared for our sovereignity.
I want to join the mnlf or the npa everytime I meet a brainwashed dicksucker of the us.

That Hitler had brown eyes. Not that his eyecolor really matters but it says alot when you have to tell lies to make him look bad

I think the main one that was fucking bullshit was the fact that we skipped the entire 17th Century. Including the Peace of Westphalia. That said, for WW1, a particularly bad one was that it "was an European War".

We're you developmentally disabled at that age?

Fucking brown eye populations
Wish they were never born

>an European
That is bad.

Nope. Just not drinking the kool-aid, I guess. Even if I knew what metaphors were (not by concept under the name "metaphor"), I don't think it's self-evidently clear what lambs have to do with Jesus.

I mean, I get it nowadays, but I don't think bitching out and sending a little kid to the vice-principal over a pretty innocent question is appropriate. Especially since the class was to ask questions about religion.

The Civil War was fought over slavery