Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Teaching the Second Amendment
SierraTimes.com ^ | July 13, 2006 | Jennifer Freeman

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2a; 2ndamendment; bang; banglist; culturewars; education; educrats; firearm; gun; homeschool; nea; rkba; school; schoolbias; teacher
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351 next last
To: Dead Corpse
I AM an anarchist.

Howl on.

"The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government. The contrary spirit is anarchy, which of necessity produces despotism." --Thomas Jefferson


151 posted on 07/22/2006 11:21:24 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Not only have I not fled, I will be here long after you are gone, n00B.

What rural areas have heinous gun control laws?

Cities and the urban metro areas are easy to pick with lousy environments for gunowners. Noo Yawk, San Francisco, L.A., Chicago, Washington D.C., etc., etc., etc., all have laws which make handgun ownership difficult, if not impossible (legally) for the rank and file.

Note the blue areas on the map of the last election. Think this is a coincidence?

If you can outnumber the populations of cities with gun control laws which are not conducive to individual handgun ownership with those which are, or if with rural areas, if you can prove to me that more rural folks live in areas hostile to individual gun ownership than areas which are gun owner 'friendly', go for it. Prove me wrong. Otherwise, my statement stands.

Now for a Windows lesson. Right click on the link I gave you. Select "properties", the number at the end of the link is the post number.

The link is to your post, not mine. You are the one who brought up the number of self defense actions, not me. I was talking about laws.

152 posted on 07/22/2006 11:27:14 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Cities and the urban metro areas are easy to pick with lousy environments for gunowners.

Keep sourcelessly begging that question.

153 posted on 07/22/2006 11:30:11 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
"Cities and the urban metro areas are easy to pick with lousy environments for gunowners." Sourcelessly? I gave you examples, I just rattled off a few of the high spots, and it was easy. I am the source of what is easy for me.

Your mileage may vary.

Do your own research. Or are you incapable of a web search?

Tell you what, I'll even point you in the right direction: NRA/ILA Gun laws page

154 posted on 07/23/2006 12:36:53 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
"I AM an anarchist.
I'm an American.

I am the walrus.

155 posted on 07/23/2006 5:06:34 AM PDT by robertpaulsen (Coo coo ca-choo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
I'll even point you in the right direction: NRA/ILA Gun laws page

Point? I posted that 2.5+ million Americans defend themselves with firearms according to the NRA/ILA, you pretended that only happens in rural areas.

Keep chasing your tail.

156 posted on 07/23/2006 7:23:20 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

157 posted on 07/23/2006 7:27:43 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
You are teh desopt here though Rosce. Wanting to enforce you random edicts at the point of a gun.

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376

158 posted on 07/23/2006 7:58:31 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I am the walrus.

That explains a few things.

159 posted on 07/23/2006 7:59:28 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Point? I posted that 2.5+ million Americans defend themselves with firearms according to the NRA/ILA, you pretended that only happens in rural areas.

Is that why you have been pestering me all this time? Because YOU MISREAD my post? Get a remedial reading course willya? What a maroon.

160 posted on 07/23/2006 8:03:14 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Wanting to enforce you random edicts at the point of a gun.

Constitutional government isn't random, anarchy is.

Shot yourself in the foot again, America-hater.

161 posted on 07/23/2006 1:11:11 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Oh, were you only pretending that 2.5+ million Americans defend themselves with firearms according to the NRA/ILA primarily in rural areas?

You have no source for that either.

162 posted on 07/23/2006 1:14:55 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson

Exactly, not a free individual, a free people. Plural, collective.

They established a representative form of governemnt, which you have announced your hatred for.

Dead Corpse, the self-proclaimed anti-constitutional anarchist who couldn't shoot (or think) straight.

163 posted on 07/23/2006 1:29:03 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Plural, collective.

Commie troll. Go back to DU Roscoe.

164 posted on 07/23/2006 5:14:06 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

Comment #165 Removed by Moderator

To: Mojave
City folks and idiots are under the impression that they can punch 911 in on their phone and get help befor they would get a pizza delivered if they called for that at the same time.

People who live where they don't even deliver pizzas have no such illusions. It is apparent to me that no matter what I write, you are DETERMINED TO MISINTERPRET IT for the sake of being argumentative. You argue like a liberal. Give it a rest, allready, ROSCOE.

AS for data, here:

In the United States, about 35-36% of households have a gun and 22% have a handgun. Long guns are more commonly owned than handguns: 14% of households have only long guns; 6% have only handguns and 16% have both long guns and handguns. Twenty-four percent of respondents surveyed personally own a gun and 15% personally own a handgun. Men are much more likely to own guns than women: 41.7% of men and 28.5% of women report having a gun in the household, and 39.2% of men, but only 10.2% of women, personally own a gun. Rural households are much more likely than urban ones to have guns (65.2% vs. 21.7%). Household gun ownership ranges from 26% in the Northeast to 44.2% in the South.source

With three times as many armed households in rural areas, who has the tools to defend themselves? Connect the dots, roscoe.

166 posted on 07/23/2006 5:28:46 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse; Mojave; robertpaulsen

Isn't it amazing... Just a dozen posts or so from roscoe/mojave, and the mods are involved.


>>>>>>>Crickets on #112, paulsen<<<<<<


167 posted on 07/23/2006 5:38:10 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Why don't the parents do it, then?


168 posted on 07/23/2006 5:54:22 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You hatred of our union will die with you. America will live on.

169 posted on 07/23/2006 6:58:11 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Connect the dots

You're begging the question.

170 posted on 07/23/2006 7:00:56 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Seen it before. It'll probably get worse before it gets better.


171 posted on 07/23/2006 7:03:28 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

It already did get 'worse'. He's back to his obsessive 'begging the question' bit again.


172 posted on 07/23/2006 7:08:53 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

He's like a chain-gun full of .22 bird shot.


173 posted on 07/23/2006 7:10:59 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

You spelled sh*t wrong.


174 posted on 07/23/2006 7:13:49 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

I know, but the Mods are already stirred up.


175 posted on 07/23/2006 7:15:43 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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.

You could make the same silly claim about the "press". Congress never envisioned anything more modern than a simple Gutenburg press. How dare the press expect protection for high speed paper presses, radio, television or the internet?

176 posted on 07/23/2006 7:22:09 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
The next time that someone brings up the "living constitution," ask them if they think that the Constitution is a legal document, like a contract or a bill of sale.

I was sitting at lunch with a flaming liberal at a restaurant. He was spewing the virtues of the Constitution as a "living document". I explained how critical it is that the document is not a "living document". It must be interpreted precisely as written. He screwed up his face at that concept. I made it easier. I picked up the menu and asked if that should be a living document? Is it OK to update the price of your meal to 10 times the cost when you ordered it? Should you be required to pay a higher price even though you ordered it at the originally printed price? That was concrete enough for him to comprehend.

177 posted on 07/23/2006 7:29:38 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
You're begging the question.

Run out of meaningful statements? Left with no argunment, you pursue cryptic nonsense. I have wasted far too much time and bandwidth on you already. Bye.

178 posted on 07/23/2006 7:39:27 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Left with no argunment

Presented with no argument to refute.

179 posted on 07/23/2006 7:51:06 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Hatred of your collectivst socialism and your advocacy of the destruction of the individual Rights of Man.

Run along now troll...

180 posted on 07/23/2006 9:25:12 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; tpaine; Roscoe
Yeah... sorry. That was my fault. I hit the button as I though Mojave/Roscoe still had two accounts. The Admin Mods were kind enough to inform me that said troll/user has had the Roscoe account pulled.

Roscoe, Mojave, same troll...

181 posted on 07/23/2006 9:33:20 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Curious though... Just went and checked Roscoe's account.

Still active.

182 posted on 07/23/2006 9:35:56 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Hatred of your collectivst socialism

The United States will outlive your meaningless life and impotent hatred of its Constitution.

183 posted on 07/24/2006 1:45:56 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Crickets on #112, paulsen"

You had a question?

184 posted on 07/24/2006 4:39:24 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Jonah Hex
The Bill of Rights is not a prioritization list i.e. one right is more important than another. The Second Amendment is equal in importance to the First Amendment is equal in importance to the Fifth Amendment, etc.

They are not listed in order of importance, and all are important.

But the most important Amendment is the one that has taken the biggest beating to the point where it almost doesn't exist. I refer, of course, to the 10th Amendment.

185 posted on 07/24/2006 4:43:58 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
I picked up the menu and asked if that should be a living document?

Great idea! Should the cook "interpret" the meaning of "ham and eggs?"

Mark

186 posted on 07/24/2006 5:11:27 AM PDT by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen


Sure, I was wondering why you scuttled off again after all of yours were answered. You giving it up?




Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1664835/replies?c=112


Are you admitting that:

THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

Address:http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm


187 posted on 07/24/2006 5:56:33 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Contrary to your idiot mouthbreathings, the Constitution is not a collectivist document.

Go peddle your commie trash elsewhere troll.

188 posted on 07/24/2006 6:37:15 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
I'd estimate it's tied evenly with the 9th Amendment, but I agree.

That, and at some point, I'd like Art 6 para 2 re-read to Congress in such a way that they come to understand it. Maybe if we explained it to them as one would with a child of 6. Complete with warnings of spankings or other dire consequences for ignoring it.

189 posted on 07/24/2006 6:40:25 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Are you admitting that: THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT"

The Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, under the Bush administration, put out a memo saying they believed the second amendment secures an individual right.

So?

Some future Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, under some liberal President can put out a memo saying it doesn't. The Attorney General enforces the law -- he doesn't make it or interpret it.

190 posted on 07/24/2006 6:41:47 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v47/dallas59/Post%20pics/KMA.gif

No. There wasn't anything to "belief" about it. The document clearly states that a review of history, original intent, and linguistic structure, all support the view that it protects an individual Right.

Of course, if you'd actually read it, you'd know that.

What would keep a future administration from coming up with their own documentation to the contrary would be the history, original intent, and linguistic structure of the Second Amendment and the supporting documentation.

191 posted on 07/24/2006 6:46:48 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
put out a memo saying they believed the second amendment secures an individual right.

No. There wasn't anything to "belief" about it. The document clearly states that a review of history, original intent, and linguistic structure, all support the view that it protects an individual Right.

Of course, if you'd actually read it, you'd know that.

What would keep a future adminstration from coming up with their own documentation to the contrary would be the history, original intent, and liguisticu structure of the Second Amendment and the supporting documentation.

192 posted on 07/24/2006 6:47:23 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"What would keep a future administration from coming up with their own documentation to the contrary would be the history, original intent, and linguistic structure of the Second Amendment and the supporting documentation."

All they'd have to do is simply copy the text from Judge Reinhardt's 70-page opinion in Silveira v. Lockyer.

193 posted on 07/24/2006 7:07:27 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Are you admitting that: "THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT"?

So?
Some future Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, under some liberal President can put out a memo saying it doesn't. The Attorney General enforces the law -- he doesn't make it or interpret it.
You ARE aware that some future liberal Presidency can have their Justice Department write their own interpretation. What then, tpaine?

Then bobbie, - depending on how you people ~act~ upon your "interpretations", it may be time [as Claire Wolfe put it] to straighten you collectivists out.

You're saying that you believe the Executive Branch of the federal government when they tell you what your rights are when it comes to arms?

Don't hype me bob. -- The facts noted in that report are valid, regardless of who 'tells' them.

You simply can not refute those facts, can you?

Two bits you ignore those facts, and run away from the issue again.
-- What ever happened to your big boast a few weeks ago to 'settle this once and for all'?

194 posted on 07/24/2006 7:41:27 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
All they'd have to do is simply copy the text from Judge Reinhardt's 70-page opinion in Silveira v. Lockyer.

Which, according to the DoJ's own research was incorrectly decided.

Nice try.

195 posted on 07/24/2006 8:20:07 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"Which, according to the DoJ's own research was incorrectly decided."

So the DOJ overturned the 9th Circuit?

196 posted on 07/24/2006 8:48:03 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: xzins
That's absolutely right. The meaning of the ammendment can be clearly understood if the emotional connotations are removed from the ammendment, and it presented as follows:

A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
Then ask the following questions:


197 posted on 07/24/2006 9:12:11 AM PDT by raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Constitution does that. Art 6. Para 2.

Please don't make me tell you again. You know the counter arguments as well as your own biased Brady Bunch nonsense.

198 posted on 07/24/2006 10:08:07 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"Constitution does that. Art 6. Para 2."

Hmmmmm. I seem to recall that decision of the 9th Circuit held.

But even if the second amendment protected an individual RKBA, it would still only apply to federal laws. Silveira v. Lockyer concerned a California law, not a federal one. The decision would stand.

Unless you don't believe in the concept of federalism.

199 posted on 07/24/2006 11:06:08 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
How can a California law over ride the US Constitution? Didn't California apply for entry into the Union? As such, aren't they subject to the Art 6, para 2, 2nd, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments? "Shall not be infringed" means by anyone at any level of government.

Or are you still pushing the same old BS that States aren't subject to Constitutional restrictions and could bring back slavery if the legislature voted to?

What you are pushing isn't Federalism. It's the old Confederation standard that proved unworkable as some States decided it would be fun to restrict the "unalienable Rights of Man" from certain classes of citizen.

200 posted on 07/24/2006 11:17:13 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson