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
But over turned the law as there was no provision for open carry. Can't have both as they violate RKBA. Bans on CC are fine as they fall under "regulation". But then you can't ban open carry.
Nor can the imposition of a number of fines to exercise a Right be considered legal either. Any number of poll taxes, preventing certain peoples from voting, have been shot down numerous times.
Are you saying that the 2nd Amendment would allow for a national concealed carry ban to be enacted by Congress?
Can you please verify your statement?
Produce Millers alleged claim that he was a member of a militia.
You believe a Congressional ban on concealed carry nationwide is permissable under the 2nd Amendment?
"... but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."
>>>Instead of reading Federalist Paper #46, the U.S. Supreme Court would have read The National Defense Act of 1916 which "transformed the militia from individual state forces into a Reserve Component of the U.S. Army - and made the term "National Guard" mandatory."<<<
But, since the National Guard was created under the power to raise armies, rather than the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, then the National Guard is not a militia, but a reserve component of the U. S. Army. In fact, National Guard officers are U.S. Army officers.
The true militia, according to original intent, and never altered by amendment, is comprised of every male capable of bearing arms. The fact that un-elected ideologes playing the role of 'justices' have usurped that power, or allowed it to be usurped, is another matter altogether. The same for the RKBA.
I don't recall the U.S. Supreme Court overturning those 9th Circuit decisions which stated that the second amendment protected a collective right.
Yes they do. And as an assembled group, they have rights they do not have as individuals. That makes it a collective right.
The Supreme Court doesn't address all lower court decisions.
And, once again, you are looking to support for your collectivist viewpoints to the most liberal federal circuit court. Which means, sir, that you are no conservative.
The Militia Act of 1792 actually read, "That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States..."
Now is the "original intent" militia you advocate all white and beyond the reach of the 14th Amendment?
bttt
And disarmed those who refused to take an oath loyalty to the government of the state of Pennsylvania.
Roscoe advocates disarming 'disloyal' citizens. What's next comrade, the gulag?
But state Constitutions, which these fellows would seemingly hold void, often provide protections for an individual RKBA.
Pretty ironic.
Bingo. There is no more state Militia (as originally defined).
"The true militia, according to original intent, and never altered by amendment, is comprised of every male capable of bearing arms."
The Militia, as defined by the Militia Act of 1792, is comprised of "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively ... enrolled in the militia".
You are not a member unless you are enrolled. You must be white. You must be a male. Certainly the RKBA is extended to others outside of this group, yes?
No, I merely stated that, save the 5th Circuit in one case, every other federal court, especially the 9th Circuit, has ruled the second amendment protects a collective right in every case they heard.
"Which means, sir, that you are no conservative."
Since when does stating a fact make one not a conservative? You don't like what you're hearing, you can't refute it, so you start calling names?
"-- as an assembled group, they [people] have rights they do not have as individuals. That makes it a collective right. -"
Yet more proof that paulsen is a democratic collectivist.
Have you no shame robbie? How can you claim to be a conservative?
>>>Produce Millers alleged claim that he was a member of a militia.<<<
He didn't directly state it or emphasize it in the demurrer. The demurrer included a claim that the NFA violated the 2nd Amendment. The lower court agreed. The supreme court understood Miller's claim to include him being a member of the militia, and ruled accordingly.
>>>Are you saying that the 2nd Amendment would allow for a national concealed carry ban to be enacted by Congress?<<<
You misunderstand me. Any infringement of the RKBA is usurpation of power.
The only thing ironic around here is you two democrats claiming to uphold an individuals RKBA's.
>>>The Militia Act of 1792 actually read, "That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States..." Now is the "original intent" militia you advocate all white and beyond the reach of the 14th Amendment?<<<
Mojave, it appears all you want is a pissing contest. Let's stick to the basic facts, which is: the true militia, according to original intent, and never altered by amendment, is comprised of every male capable of bearing arms".
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.