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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351 next last

1 posted on 07/13/2006 12:51:14 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I hear it is a teacher's first amendment right to deny that the second amendment even exists... /sarc


2 posted on 07/13/2006 1:01:17 AM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000

The second amendment should be taught to our children in a proper and positive light. However, this editorial offers no evidence that it hasn't been...


3 posted on 07/13/2006 1:05:28 AM PDT by ivyleaguebrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This is a very good article.

It's a cliche but it's true: Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

The 2nd Amendment is there for a reason. It's not some antiquated passage. People should be taught to respect it.



4 posted on 07/13/2006 1:07:27 AM PDT by blogblogblogging
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blogblogblogging

Someone who's name I can't remember once said.


"if guns causes people to be shot then pencils cause misspelled words."


I use that quote every single time someone brings up the second amendment as a negative.

Its very effective.


5 posted on 07/13/2006 1:15:20 AM PDT by Ainast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ivyleaguebrat

I well remember my "publik skul edumacation".

I wasted my youth attending several different schools, due to our family moving frequently.

The one thing they all seemed to have in common was the view that the second amendment was an obsolete collective right, that does not apply to common citizens.

Many schools simply passed over it, those that did not claimed it to be a "collective right", an "obsolete remnant", "meaningless" due to our "Living constitution", which is subject to "reinterpretation" to suit "modern conditions".

Every truly useful thing I know I learned AFTER I escaped the socialist indoctrination centers that masquerade as "School"!

Considering that I attended school in the mid 60's to early 70's, and that I am about the same age as many of those in politics and running government agencies today, it is no surprise that the second amendment is still under constant attack by the very people who have sworn to defend it (as it is an integral part of the Constitution and B.O.R.).

They have no problem with an abridged B.O.R., they learned that portions of it are irrelevant, from their "teachers".


6 posted on 07/13/2006 1:30:15 AM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

They should be teaching the children exactly what Law Enforcement really is and what their jobs really are.

It is not to protect citizens from harm. Law Enforcement has no obligation to keep its citizens safe from harm.

If anyone does not believe this just check the many cases where citizens sued because they were not protected from criminals by the local Law Enforcement.


7 posted on 07/13/2006 2:26:53 AM PDT by SR 50 (Larry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I have 2 daughters (now 14 & 16) who go to public school in Maryland. While they were in elementary school I would read everything they brought home with a hypersensitive eye and then proceed to correct what was being pounded into their mushy little heads in a very long winded way. So much so that they became very obverse to showing me anything the school would give them.

When they got to learning about the Constitution (4th grade I think) they were given a ditto, for homework, "synopsizing" the first 10 amendments that they had to match up with the corresponding number. Being in Maryland, I was highly suspect when I began to perused this assignment. When I got a little way down the list I saw words that simply said "the right to own guns". To say I was pleasantly surprised is the understatement of the decade.

They also had Rep. Bob Ehrlich (now our Governor) in to talk to the kids and he handed every child a complete copy of the Constitution, that we still have and use today. From that point on I have been less suspicious of the public school system.

8 posted on 07/13/2006 2:52:14 AM PDT by Gumption ("Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad", "Sherpa, Sherpa, Bakala")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The best way to teach the 2nd amendment, and to subvert the intent of the liberal social studies teachers, is to actually teach the kids reading and grammar.

With those, they can learn anything else on their own.


9 posted on 07/13/2006 2:52:32 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It. Supporting our Troops Means Praying for them to Win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

A good read, but it isn't strong enough. I have communicated with way too many youngetser graduating from high school whose concepts of the Constitution stop at "It's some government thing". The vast majority have received no education on ANY of the Amendments or the true structure of our government and how it functions.

There is dumbing down and there is CRIMINAL dumbing down. IMO, what the NEA has done meets the criteria for the latter. The liberal/leftist agenda MUST be eradicated from the school system and the kids need to be introduced to a politically-neutral presentation of the Constitution and all of its Amendments and allow the kids to decide which party they want to follow.


10 posted on 07/13/2006 2:53:56 AM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

bump for later


11 posted on 07/13/2006 2:57:27 AM PDT by Badray (CFR my ass. There's not too much money in politics. There's too much money in government hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA
"meaningless" due to our "Living constitution",

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... You might need mention that the Constitution is considered to be the supreme law of the land, if they don't understand the concept of a legal document. Then, aks them if they'd ever sign a legal document whos meaning can be reinterpreted at the whim of people who are interpreting it.

Would they buy a house if they thought that after the closing, the terms, or even the amount the house sold for could possibly change?

The simple fact is if a legal document has a meaning that can change over time, then that legal document has NO meaning whatsoever.

Mark

12 posted on 07/13/2006 3:00:37 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 6 | View Replies]

To: SR 50
They should be teaching the children exactly what Law Enforcement really is and what their jobs really are.

A valid point, but the Second Amendment exceeds the concept of just aiding Law Enforcement. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are about the balance of power. The Founding Fathers, some of the wisest, most thoughtful men who walked this earth (and, thank God, they were Americans!) knew that one of the best ways to counter the potential for an abusive federal government, was through an armed citizenry. They knew that, by authorizing an Army and a Navy to protect and defend the United States, the government would have all the weapons if they did bot balance the playing field by allowing the citizens to keep and bear arms. Liberals and leftists hate the thought that, because of this balance of power, the federal government cannot impose absolute power over the citizens and use the threat of armed force to back up their power. That concept is incorporated throughout the entire structure of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and it is the very reason that the liberals/leftists of the NEA don't want our kids to know this.
13 posted on 07/13/2006 3:05:37 AM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gumption
Nice story.

For me the main issue of the second amendment which is almost never brought up is the requirement of an armed citizenry to form militias that could potentially be the last line of defense against a tyrannous government.

Honestly I find those gentlemen who talk about their guns as if they were extensions of their manhood or love to talk about "from my cold dead hands" at best silly, and at worst counterproductive oafs.

The 2nd amendment is 2nd because it is the 2nd most important right to ensure an enduring democracy, even under the worst imaginable circumstances i.e. an invading army or the US government itself using the military to impose the will of tyrannous regime it may itself have become.

The 2nd amendment is not about hunting and it is not about protecting oneself from criminals. It is about national defense and the eternal vigilance required to preserve an inherently unstable balance required for representative democracy to endure.
14 posted on 07/13/2006 3:28:21 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit ("my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side" - Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | 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.

You have to give the Founding Fathers high marks for prescience. The National Guard wasn't established until the 20th Century.

The 1903 Dick Act, which replaced the old Militia Act of 1792, divided all male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 into the organized militia and the reserve militia.

The National Guard was formed in 1916 by the the National Defense Act. The new act provided increased federal support and regulation.

My own view is that the Constitution should be interpreted with the mindset of the Founders. The militia was an organization of neighbors, not a federally funded professional army.

The second thing to remember is that the militia was used to overthrow the government of King George.

The People have a right to keep and bear arms in order to form militias in order to defend themselves against an unjust government.

No wonder government works so hard to disarm the People.
15 posted on 07/13/2006 4:09:24 AM PDT by Beckwith (The dhimmicrats and liberal media have chosen sides and they've sided with the Jihadists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gumption

So they got something right ONE TIME and you have been less suspicious??
Silly person!


16 posted on 07/13/2006 4:14:40 AM PDT by Shimmer128 (If chocolate fudge cake could sing, it would sound like Barry White.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

If you want your child to understand your view of the Second Amendment, not some liberal teachers view, then I suggest you teach them yourself!


17 posted on 07/13/2006 4:16:10 AM PDT by Shimmer128 (If chocolate fudge cake could sing, it would sound like Barry White.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Todays teachers would have students learn how to surrender rather than fight for their freedom and live in an opressive society , and the first amendment , well that we'll surrender to the state run press and the propaganda spin miesters .


18 posted on 07/13/2006 4:30:05 AM PDT by lionheart 247365 (( I.S.L.A.M. stands for - Islams Spiritual Leaders Advocate Murder .. .. .. ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Todays teachers would have students learn how to surrender rather than fight for their freedom and live in an opressive society , and the first amendment , well that we'll surrender to the state run press and the propaganda spin miesters .


19 posted on 07/13/2006 4:30:08 AM PDT by lionheart 247365 (( I.S.L.A.M. stands for - Islams Spiritual Leaders Advocate Murder .. .. .. ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit; Congressman Billybob
One comment: 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.

In other words, the Bill of Rights should not be confused with Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics...

I'll defer to our resident Constitutional scholar on that point. :-)

20 posted on 07/13/2006 4:52:30 AM PDT by Jonah Hex ("How'd you get that scar, mister?" "Nicked myself shaving.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jonah Hex

You are probably right and naturally before the law, the amendments are all equal. But, I would contest that 1 and 2 were at least strategically placed by the Founders to make sure people remembered them.

They do seem to be more fundamental to preserving representative democracy than the others.

Moreover, the modern American economy is built on breaking the 10th commandment. I figure the owners of business and their advertisers who promote and "aspirational lifestyle" figured God probably didn't even mean the whole coveting of the house thing, otherwise he wouldn't have put it last. He was probably just trying to come up with something to get a round figure.


21 posted on 07/13/2006 5:28:16 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit ("my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side" - Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Shimmer128
I disagree with you that the school getting something right should have made me more suspicious.

I also disagree that I'm a silly person. It's not like I said "what do you do with an Elephant with 3 balls? You walk him a pitch to the Rhino."

22 posted on 07/13/2006 5:50:23 AM PDT by Gumption ("Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad", "Sherpa, Sherpa, Bakala")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
I agree with everything you said. And you said it very well I might add. I did/do explain all of that to my children at every opportunity. But of all the short ways the teacher could have described the 2nd Amendment "the right to own guns" is as right as I could have expected.
23 posted on 07/13/2006 5:58:59 AM PDT by Gumption ("Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad", "Sherpa, Sherpa, Bakala")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

house contract is a good illustration. but people who believe in a living, breathing constitution would support the emminent domain decisions- at least until it came to their house.


24 posted on 07/13/2006 6:06:26 AM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | 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."

Actually, every lower federal court in every second amendment case (save one court in one case) has ruled that the second amendment protects a collective right -- ie., the federal government shall not infringe on a state's ability to form a Militia.

Now, it could very well be that all these lower federal courts are wrong, and that one day the U.S. Supreme Court will set them straight. But, given that the U.S. Supreme Court USES these lower court decisions to make their decision, I wouldn't count on it.

25 posted on 07/13/2006 7:21:38 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"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."

If you understand anything about the Founding Fathers it was that they trusted their state to protect their rights. Back then, as is now, your state defines and protects your individual RKBA -- not the federal government and not the second amendment.

26 posted on 07/13/2006 7:25:59 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I was actually impressed with the materials given to my daughter on the entire BOR, including the Second, in the public system here in Gilbert, AZ. How they approached the subject in classroom discussion, I don't know.


27 posted on 07/13/2006 7:33:31 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gumption

That's funny. I like it.


28 posted on 07/13/2006 7:40:12 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
paulsen backs big bro:

Actually, every lower federal court in every second amendment case (save one court in one case) has ruled that the second amendment protects a collective right -- ie., the federal government shall not infringe on a state's ability to form a Militia.

Ignoring that the 2nd clearly says it is the "-- right of the people --" which shall not be infringed --.
Nice spin paulsen.

Now, it could very well be that all these lower federal courts are wrong, and that one day the U.S. Supreme Court will set them straight. But, given that the U.S. Supreme Court USES these lower court decisions to make their decision, I wouldn't count on it.

Robbie me boyo, we are all well aware by now that you wouldn't raise a finger to protect our RKBA's.

29 posted on 07/13/2006 7:50:38 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
paulsen erroneously claims:

"--If you understand anything about the Founding Fathers it was that they trusted their state to protect their rights. --"

Not so. In Article VI the founders specifically wrote that "-- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. --" This Constitution, "-- shall be the supreme Law of the Land; --"

Back then, as is now, your state defines and protects your individual RKBA -- not the federal government and not the second amendment.

Agit-prop, -- straight from the 'majority rule' [democratic] playbook. -- Because you also contend that State & local majorities can prohibit most any-thing, including guns.

Your state ~should~ define and protect your individual RKBA, but in most cases it does not.

30 posted on 07/13/2006 8:10:19 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

law professors have and continue to do this since the 1960's.


They believe the first nine amendments are about individual rights EXCEPT the second amendment which is a "collective right."


31 posted on 07/13/2006 8:13:14 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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.
This here is the key. Values and character are ultimately a parent's responsibility. People need to become more/stay involved.
32 posted on 07/13/2006 8:13:56 AM PDT by AnnaZ (I think so, Brain, but if we give peas a chance, won't the lima beans feel left out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

actually there are upper level cases which are controling that hold to the contrary.

The first act of the Bush Attorney General was to hold that the second amendment is an individuals right.

The lower cases are just judges who are anti gun.


33 posted on 07/13/2006 8:18:33 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
"The first act of the Bush Attorney General was to hold that the second amendment is an individuals right."

Yes, he did. His opinion and 10 cents will get you a cup of coffee.

What if Hillary is elected and her AG says it's not. What then? Will you then say this "upper case" opinion is the law of the land?

"The lower cases are just judges who are anti gun."

Perhaps. But it is these lower court opinions that the U.S. Supreme Court looks to when forming their opinion. If 99 cases are decided as a collective right and one case is an individual right, how do you think the USSC would vote. (Not how do you hope -- how do you think?)

34 posted on 07/13/2006 8:28:36 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ainast
Or, if guns kill people then a fork made Rosie O'Donnell fat.
35 posted on 07/13/2006 8:31:43 AM PDT by fish hawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

Republic. Not a democracy. Other than that, good post.


36 posted on 07/13/2006 8:37:54 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 14 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
...every lower federal court...

Bliss. Nunn. Cockrum. Chandler. Beard. Brown. Kramer. Emmerson.

Don't you ever get tired of spewing the same old lies?

37 posted on 07/13/2006 8:45:32 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 25 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Don't you ever get tired of spewing the same old lies?

Your affirmative answer will come shortly, even if he ignores your actual question.

38 posted on 07/13/2006 9:01:52 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

I know I shouldn't be wasting my time, but I just couldn't let such an egregious lie go without a response.


39 posted on 07/13/2006 9:36:42 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 38 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
I think the whole debate over the definition of "militia" is playing into the hands of the totalitarian leftists. The "milita" phrase is clearly an explanitory phrase meant to indicate the importance of the main restriction of the amendment. It isn't a phrase written to be a modifier.

In starting to teach national citizenship issues to 10 to 16 year olds, I always ask why they see this amendment as an important right. In the majority, having been taught to frame all questions with an individual rationalistic interpretation, they say, "Well, some people like to hunt and we should be able to hunt for food, etcetera, etcetera.

I then use the importance-explanitory clause to instill the historical necessity of the right protected by the amendment, thereby stearing them away from both the hunting weapon false utilitarian arguement and rationalistic trapping to their understanding in general.

To restate my point, what the militia was, is or should be, is not important except to explain the worth of an armed citizenry in general and from an historical perspective.

40 posted on 07/13/2006 9:48:12 AM PDT by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
In a sense, we're all wasting time responding..
He doesn't even bother to reply to a lot of posts anymore. - He just ignores anything tough, and posts one of his canned agit-prop bits to the easy pickings.

This type of spamming happened once before.. Remember the 'Ash Alerts'?
41 posted on 07/13/2006 9:50:39 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
When a second amendment case finally comes before them, the U.S. Supreme Court will examine lower federal circuit court opinions. The 5th Circuit Court's opinion in Emerson is the only one I'm aware of that stated an individual RKBA was protected under the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Bliss v. Commonwealth was an 1822 Kentucky State Supreme Court case rendering an opinion on state law under the state constitution.

In 1846 in Nunn v. State, the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that the second amendment PLUS the rights protected by the Georgia State Constitution allowed for open carry by individuals.

Cockrum v. State was an 1859 case decided by the Texas Supreme Court.

State v. Chandler was an 1850 case decided by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Beard v. United States was an 1895 U.S. Supreme Court case, but it had nothing to do with the second amendment.

Brown v. State was a 1901 case decided by the Supreme Court of Georgia. Or, if you were referring to People v. Brown, that was a 1931 case decided by the Michigan Supreme Court.

Shelly v. Kramer was a 1947 U.S. Supreme Court case, but it, too, had nothing to do with the second amendment.

What a complete waste of my time. These are state cases.

No federal court has ruled that the second amendment applies to the states -- for a state supreme court to comment on the definition of the second amendment is ludicrous. It has no meaning. It makes no difference what the state court thinks -- the second amendment doesn't apply.

Do you have any other lower federal circuit court decisions like Emerson? From the 1st circuit court, 2nd circuit court, 3rd circuit court, etc? If not, I rest my case.

42 posted on 07/13/2006 10:39:13 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
You SAID there was never a State case that ruled the Second was an individual Right. Given 15 seconds I came up with a few. Now you object BECAUSE they are State cases.

I'd ask you to make up your mind, but I know such is useless. Your mind is already made up and you MUST hold up your Brady Gun Control logic at all costs or you don't get your bonus this week.

We understand your position perfectly.

43 posted on 07/13/2006 10:52:59 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 42 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Further...

No federal court has ruled that the second amendment applies to the states --

Which other parts of the Constitution require a Federal Court to rule on them before they apply? Does a court need to rule on all new legislation passed by Congress before it applies to the States?

You jsut keep getting worse and worse over the years.

44 posted on 07/13/2006 10:55:31 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 42 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"You SAID there was never a State case that ruled the Second was an individual Right."

Baloney. Learn to read.

I said, "Actually, every lower federal court in every second amendment case (save one court in one case) has ruled that the second amendment protects a collective right."

45 posted on 07/13/2006 11:08:52 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"..actually teach the kids reading and grammar."

And logic, which is not taught even at the college level, or so it seems.

46 posted on 07/13/2006 11:10:57 AM PDT by Designer (Just a nit-pick'n and chagrin'n)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Have you read the Civil Rights cases of 1883? Interesting take on Federal and State power limits.

The first section of the fourteenth amendment,-which is the one relied on,-after declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, and of the several states, is prohibitory in its character, and prohibitory upon the states. It declares that [109 U.S. 3, 11] 'no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' It is state action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject- matter of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws. It not only does this, but, in order that the national will, thus declared, may not be a mere brutum fulmen, the last section of the amendment invests congress with power to enforce it by appropriate legislation. To enforce what? To enforce the prohibition. To adopt appropriate legislation for correcting the effects of such prohibited state law and state acts, and thus to render them effectually null, void, and innocuous. This is the legislative power conferred upon congress, and this is the whole of it. It does not invest congress with power to legislate upon subjects which are within the domain of state legislation; but to provide modes of relief against state legislation, or state action, of the kind referred to.

It would seem to me that the Courts reasoning would completely over turn every State level gun ban, CCW, and open carry restriction in the Nation.

Further, it also would over turn some 90% of the Federal laws including the NFA of '34 and the GCA of '68. Assuming, of course, that anyone in a position of "power" cared to do so. It isn't in their best interests to let go of this pilfered power.

That, and folks like our erstwhile Brady Troll would need to find other employment.

47 posted on 07/13/2006 11:12:24 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 41 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
-- for a state supreme court to comment on the definition of the second amendment is ludicrous. It has no meaning. It makes no difference what the state court thinks -- the second amendment doesn't apply.

Your opinion that a State court opinion is "ludicrous", is itself ludicrous. -- They have meaning, but solely as opinions.. "-- Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, [to support the 2nd] any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"

Do you have any other lower federal circuit court decisions like Emerson?

None are necessary, - as the Constitution itself is clear on the subject. --- Court decisions do not supersede our supreme Law of the Land.

48 posted on 07/13/2006 11:23:54 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"Which other parts of the Constitution require a Federal Court to rule on them before they apply? Does a court need to rule on all new legislation passed by Congress before it applies to the States?"

Federal law applies immediately. If that federal law is challenged, as with Emerson, then the lower federal circuit court hears the case first.

I'm saying Emerson was the only case heard at the federal circuit court level that said the second amendment protects an individual right.

Every other federal court, especially the 9th circuit, has ruled it protects a collective right in every case they heard.

49 posted on 07/13/2006 11:26:51 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
The 1903 Dick Act, which replaced the old Militia Act of 1792, divided all male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 into the organized militia and the reserve militia.

The 1903 Dick Act, which replaced the old Militia Act of 1792, divided all male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 into the organized militia, i.e. the reserve components including the National Guard who will eventually draw federal pensions if they qualify, and the reserve unorganized militia, i.e. the rest of us who are fit enough, all other things being equal. I'll let everyone know when I'm too old to fight, NOT!

50 posted on 07/13/2006 11:28:05 AM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 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