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
I'm not so sure that was the reason given. It is the Militia wording which gives it a collective meaning. It could have been that inserting "for the common defence" would have merely been redundant and unnecessary.
"Note also the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is the first clause"
It was. Not any more.
All my post said was that, based on lower federal court decisions, it is unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court would rule it to be an individual right.
Yes it is. Note also, "With regard to those acknowledged rights and privileges of the citizen, ... it is the duty of the particular state of which he is a citizen to protect and enforce them ..."
It is up to the particular state to protect the citizen's RKBA, not the federal government. The particular state decides which rights, and to what extent those rights, will be protected.
"A reference was made to Dred Scott which had listed the rights of citizenship which African-americans would be entitled should they be considered citizens, including the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went"."
Yes, subject to the laws of each state. As with the freedom of speech.
"It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
The U.S. Supreme Court never got that far. I do concede that, properly interpreted, the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear a full-auto M-16 ... as a registered member of a state Militia (which no longer exists).
As to where the arms would be "kept" and when they may be "borne", would be a state issue.
The state cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their power to call forth the Militia. The state could insist that citizen's arms be kept in the state armory. The state could supply arms to be used in training.
Keep in mind that the federal government has the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia".
paulsen agrees, shooting himself in the foot once again:
Yes it is.
Retained rights are inalienable rights, -- same thing. --- Governments, as per the 10th, have no delegated powers to infringe on such rights. -- In fact officials are prohibited from doing so at every level, as is made clear by Article VI.
It is up to the particular state to protect the citizen's RKBA, not the federal government.
Thats a total fabrication paulsen. -- Both fed and state officials are bound by oath to support our 'Law of the Land". See Article VI.
The particular state decides which rights, and to what extent those rights, will be protected.
You've never been able to support that odd contention, and don't even try, --- because its straight out of the 'majority rule' democratic playbook.
Admit it paulsen, you're a democrat.
Historian Paul Johnson said:
"Beware of those who seek to win an argument at the expense of the language. For the fact that they do so is proof positive that their argument is false, and proof presumptive that they know it is. ...
Those who treasure the meaning of words, will treasure truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones. The correct and honorable use of words is the first and natural credential of civilized status."
Pesky for you, not I.
And even there federal action would be necessary. The nutjobs wouldn't be able to go to court in the name of Congress.
doink
You and your pesky quotes.
"It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Mohave boldly admits:
You and your pesky quotes.
Yep, in 1857, the Dred Scott decision clearly said that people could keep & carry arms "wherever they went", -- exactly as per the 2nd, and despite any State 'laws' to the Contrary.
That pesky quote destroys the idiotic majority rule position you boyos advocate.
>>>The U.S. Supreme Court never got that far. I do concede that, properly interpreted, the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear a full-auto M-16 ... as a registered member of a state Militia (which no longer exists).<<<
Read the opinion again. The court never questioned Miller's assertion that he was in the militia. They only questioned the validity of a sawed-off shotgun as a militia weapon.
Backwards. The decision doesn't contain or even reference an assertion by Jack Miller that "he was in the militia".
We said to our son, "Guns are tools." We explained that yes, a gun could hurt or kill someone. But, so can a hammer. If tools are used in the right way, you are keeping intact the right to own a gun and a hammer.
>>>I'm not so sure that was the reason given. It is the Militia wording which gives it a collective meaning. It could have been that inserting "for the common defence" would have merely been redundant and unnecessary.<<<
Certainly the Founding Fathers strived to avoid redundancy. For example, they did not mention this is a Christian Nation because that would have been redundant. But to believe a collective meaning for the 2nd, when our history (until the late 1960's) demonstrated virtually no infringement of the RKBA by either the federal or state governments, is analogous to believing the Tooth Fairy. Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy, Robert?
Pennsylvania passed its Test Act in 1777 which barred ownership of firearms by anyone who had not taken a loyalty oath to the state. That covered about 40% of the white male population.
Pesky old historical facts.
You gotta envy 'em. When they need a fact, they simply invent it.
The quote clearly says to the extent that a state offers it's own citizens.
As I said, the U.S. Supreme Court never got that far. The Miller decision agreed that only military type arms are constitutionally protected. They remanded the case back to the lower court to make the determination if this shotgun was or was not a weapon that a Militia would use.
Neither the Tooth Fairy nor PhilipFreneau.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 infringed just a little, wouldn't you say? Plus, numerous states and cities had laws against the carrying of concealed weapons in the 1800's.
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.