Posted on 07/13/2006 12:51:11 AM PDT by neverdem
The public education system has tremendous influence in shaping the views of millions of young Americans. In many cases, the public school system is the only exposure that many children have to the Bill of the Rights. It is imperative, therefore, to ensure that our nation's teachers are enlightening our young people and teaching them correctly about our rights and the meaning behind them. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of educators in the United States appear to promote an anti-gun agenda or, at the very least, prefer not to teach the Second Amendment in its true light. We base this opinion, in part, on the fact that the United States Parent-Teacher Association and the National Education Association are both openly anti-gun organizations. We further base our opinion on the fact that the public education system at large seems aligned with the left-leaning socialist agenda that also dominates the dinosaur media and the Democractic Party. These are organizations and individuals who side with the enemy during wartime, attack Christian expression while simultaneously supporting public, other-than-Christian religious expression, and support the licensing and registration of guns while secretly conniving to confiscate every one of them.
These are the same people who try to deny that the Second Amendment applies to you and me, but applies to the National Guard instead. These are the same people who conjured up the term, "assault rifle" in an effort to ban semi-automatic rifles. They claim that when the Constitution was written, the Founding Fathers never intended it to apply to the types of firearm technology available today.
Any red-blooded, patriotic American who understands the true meaning of the Second Amendment is closer in spirit to our Founding Fathers than the sniveling, whiners who call themselves intellectuals. As such, we know that the right to keep and bear arms applies to the American people and is not restricted to muskets. We can further prove the intent of the Founding Fathers by observing how they lived and by reading many of the supporting articles and letters that outline their philosophy on the symbiotic relationship between an armed populace and a government that serves its people.
It is time to demand that our nation's education system duly recognize our Bill of Rights and teach the Second Amendment according to its true intent. You can start by talking to your child and asking them if they are learning about the Constitution in school. If so, take a look at their textbook and see if the Second Amendment is accurately reported. If there is a problem with the textbook or if the Second Amendment is not being taught at all, you may want to talk to your child's principal. You may also want to team up with other parents who share the same views. Teachers have a responsibility to our children and we have a responsibility to see that our nation's teachers are doing their jobs properly.
Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.
http://www.libertybelles.org
jennifer@libertybelles.org
Citing a source that doesn't support you makes makes no more sense, even for a self-professed anarchist.
Squeek for me again Roscoe. I like having a pet troll that squeeks on command.
Sadly, the second amendment is pretty much useless. Without question, a big part of the reason for the second amendment was to prevent and protect against a government gone wild.
So I don't think some dude on his back porch with a .22 and 500 rounds is gonna do a whole lotta damage against a group that has full auto weapons, stun grenades, gas, night vision technology, etc, etc, etc.
Anybody who does think so is smokin somethin...
BTW... I also own a good gillie suit, Gen II NVG's, and several other perfectly legal "toys".
I'm certainly not unarmed myself. But I think you have to admit that if they were standing outside with bullhorns telling you to come out unarmed OR ELSE, it would be suicide to resist.
Yes, you might take a couple of them with you. But your chances of ever seeing daylight again are pretty slim.
In those cases, knowing when to get out of dodge BEFORE the gendarmes show up is the trick. If a blanket prohibition goes into effect, it's time to bug out.
I post this link because it would take too much time to actually write myself (I'm lazy tonight). I also suspect, reading from some of the weaseling you've provided in other posts, that you will ignore the article. Read it or don't. I don't care. But there might be others on this thread that would read it and see the militia BS you're posting for what it is. There are several other scholarly works on that same website which also bolster the arguments made by Halbrook in the above work.
However, a well placed shot gets you the full auto weapon, stun grendaes, gas, night vision technology, etc. of the former warm body carrying them.
Ever hear of the 'Liberator' pistol? It was crude, fired one bullet at a time, and the Allies originally intended to drop them all over occupied territory. The idea was simple: " Kill the soldier with the automatic weapon. Now you have his automatic weapon. "
Also, there is also the Battle of Athens, Tennessee to consider. The JPFO has it on their website.
It's not just a corny Hollywood plot device from some E-ticket barbarian movie.
It is the WILL to use a weapon that makes a weapon dangerous. Without the strength of mind, it's just a useless lump of steel. Proper application of this philosophy is what you describe here.
I read it. I note with interest that when discussing the Virginia debate, the author left out Thomas Jefferson -- a prominent Virginian, yes?
Jefferson proposed that the 1776 Virginia state constitution contain the (oft-quoted) phrase, "no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." That's pretty clear as to the intent, yes? I'd say that makes your point, correct?
What is not oft-quoted is that his proposed amendment was defeated. Instead, the Virginia state delegation opted for:
"SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
I have stated time and again the the individual RKBA is protected by each state's constitution. Any quotes you have from proposals for early state constitutions regarding the RKBA do indeed support this. I have no problems with that.
But to say that some prominent individual proposed some amendment to a STATE constitution saying that individuals had the RKBA in no way supports the same for an amendment to the FEDERAL constitution. For example: Certainly the Founding Fathers supported the police power of each state to protect the health and safety of its citizens -- but to take those words of support and then apply them to, say, the General Welfare Clause of the U.S. Constitution thereby giving the same police power to the federal government would be disingenuous at best. Apples and oranges.
The founders supported the individual right to keep and bear arms. That right was defined and protected by the state constitution. It was enforced by state law, subject to challenges to the state supreme court. Period.
The second amendment protects the integrity of a state Militia. Your cite mentions two extremely weak cases, one of which is a fourth amendment case referencing the second amendment in passing. I can cite two dozen very strong second amendment lower federal court cases saying that the second amendment does not protect an individual right. That doesn't mean I like it, contrary to your insinuations. It just means what is, is.
The Militia of the U.S. Constitution (and second amendment) no longer exists. The National Guard has taken its place. To say that able-bodied citizens constitute the "reserve militia" is all well and good, but the second amendment refers to a well-regulated Militia with officers appointed by the state which this "reserve militia" is not.
The U.S. Supreme Court, of course, will be the final arbiter. I would consider it to be unwise, given previous rulings, to demand that the USSC define the second amendment for every citizen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.