Skip to comments.School: Americans Donít Have Right to Bear Arms
Posted on 04/09/2013 7:07:53 AM PDT by massmike
The father of a Connecticut child is furious after discovering that his sons school is teaching students that Americans dont have a Second Amendment right to bear arms.
I am appalled, said Steven Boibeaux, of Bristol. It sounds to me like they are trying to indoctrinate our kids.
Boibeauxs son is an eighth grader at Northeast Middle School. On Monday his social studies teacher gave students a worksheet titled, The Second Amendment Today.
The courts have consistently determined that the Second Amendment does not ensure each individual the right to bear arms, the worksheet states. The courts have never found a law regulating the private ownership of weapons unconstitutional.
The worksheet, published by Instructional Fair, goes on to say that the Second Amendment is not incorporated against the states.
This means that the rights of this amendment are not extended to the individual citizens of the states, the worksheet reads. So a person has no right to complain about a Second Amendment violation by state laws.
According to the document, the Second Amendment only provides the right of a state to keep an armed National Guard.
His sons teacher also told the students that the Constitution is a living document. As noted in the worksheet provided to students that means the interpretation changes to meet the needs of the times.
The judges and courts of each generation provide the interpretation of the document, the worksheet states.
School officials did not return calls seeking comment.
(Excerpt) Read more at radio.foxnews.com ...
If none of the Constitutional protections are guaranteed then we are all SLAVES to the State.
We seems to have been alienated from our inalienable rights.
Now I suspect the teacher is pretty pleased about it, whereas I am depressed and angry. But the point is: the teacher has a point.
My 9th grader’s science teacher is still showing Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth.”
We butted heads six years ago when my 21 year old was showing this movie in his classroom.
Is there a right to speech? Can the government require you to get a speech licence and ban certain types of speech?
Our public schools are in such sad shape. The teachers are clueless. The Bill of Rights was written for the people not the government. The Founding Fathers couldn’t shive a git if the state had a National Guard. Teachers on drugs.
It sounds to me like they are trying to indoctrinate our kids.
Bingo. That is exactly what they are doing.
And we all just sit on the sideline, complaining.
My 9th graders science teacher is still showing Al Gores Inconvenient Truth.
We butted heads six years ago when my NOW 21 year old was in his classroom.
In the article it said:
I was at a friend’s house during the 2000 presidential campaign and my friend’s 8 year old came home and told her dad that he should vote for Al Gore because George Bush would fire all the teachers.
My friend went ballistic.
Sounds like this guy is a graduate of the failed education system and can’t read. He should have someone actually read at least the second amendment to him.
10: liberals are slime
20: public schools are worthless
30: go to 10
Learn it, live it.
Progress will not occur until we totally eliminate “progressives”.
Alas, the repetitive chant of “private school” or “home school” is not going to help us anymore. For those that do, it will ensure your child is being taught the correct history, but the problem is unless we take back our public school system the 80% (and I am just guessing at the number) of kids that are in public school will be the voting block of the next generation. I am really starting to fear there is no turning back without an armed conflict of some sort and division of the union.
From the wikipedia article:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states, which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
“I am really starting to fear there is no turning back without an armed conflict of some sort and division of the union.”
Sadly I agree.
Secondly, Scalia and others have already stated that 'rights' are not unlimited. DC vs. Heller.
Education is the U.S. is the indoctrination arm of the Communist Party. Of course, it doesn’t believe in the Constitution or Bill of Rights...or even our freedom.
This is WAY off topic for this thread, but where is Michelle Obama’s wedding ring in that picture???
Maybe she wasn’t joking when she said recently that she was a single mother.
“progressives” are not going to be eliminated.
They are humanists, politically expressing their religion as “progressivism”.
Humanism is the “religion” that Satan offered as an alternative in Gen 3, and it will not be eliminated until he is flung into the Pit forever.
I have to say, I don't think I've ever been more proud of him. I did send a letter back warning her to expect much more of the same since I teach my kids to study both sides of every coin.
Keep it courteous, but let him know how you feel.
Thanks for waking up Mr. Boibeaux. Now maybe you'll really get your stuff together, remove your child from the government indoctrination center and start home schooling.
"Welcome to the party, Pal!"
Ummm....the Supreme Court did. And wasn't that Heller v. DC?
Both of these statements are false. The author of these statements is either ignorant of, or has willfully chosen to conceal the US Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. From this we may conclude that the author is either incompetent to be writing instructional material, or the author is a liar.
Logically, an unlimited right would entail an unlimited responsibility since rights are always connected to responsibilities. I am satisfied that the second amendment does not allow me to buy a tactical nuke or a battle ship or some other weapon of mass destruction. I do think I should be able to be as well armed as the typical infantryman but I’m ahead of the courts on that one.
Some innocuous event, seemingly detached from the larger picture, could turn the cold war hot.
A “living” Constitution is “no” Constitution.
Without a stake in the ground, you’ll be adrift to the whims of the powers that be and the political zeitgeist,
and this is exactly opposite what the founders created and the states ratified.
Now, in order for it to be different today, some amendment had to occur to change from a fixed to a “living” constitution.
Now, teach... where is that amendment?
Having those weapons does not harm anyone, nor should Gov't take away ones rights on the pretext of future harm or potential danger.
Ah, gov’t deciding what the chains placed upon THEM ‘truly’ mean(t).
It is WE THE PEOPLE whom are final arbiters. We allowed them certain powers, WE can take it all back
The Communist Teachers Union is just following the orders of the Commie Obama Regime.
BTW, if the DNC audits B. Hussein, they will find that all of his political stunts are aimed at generating donations for Obamas RETIREMENT SLUSH FUND.
Nah, most of the points quoted in the article are exactly the opposite of reality. The courts have affirmed the right is an individual one, they have incorporated the 2nd amendment against the states, they have struck down prohibitions as unconstitutional, etc.
Why was your 21 year old showing in in his classroom?.......;^)
Revolt is coming.
They got it wrong in so many different ways, makes you think it was on purpose.
Since there is a clause on Letters of Marque, the Constitution assumes private citizens and companies would own war ships.
I only assume WMDs, Nuclear, Chemical and Biological, are not covered. Local Militias owned their own cannon and mortars.
The teachers are not clueless. Stop thinking of them being stupid.
They are doing this on purpose. They are following an agenda.
“Take back?” We never had it. The entire concept is socialist. At best, we can switch to vouchers. Fighting over wording in textbooks to fix our centrally planned school system is like treating skin cancer with Oil of Olay.
Rights are not unlimited, by definition. Every right defines a relationship between two or more people. My right to speak is limited by the rights of others, for example, to be left alone on their private property. So if I’m doing door to door political speech or religious persuasion, my right to speak or exercise my faith does not empower me to trespass uninvited on another’s property, or to use a megaphone at 3am just below someone’s bedroom window.
So there are some restrictions, and they can be necessary to the preservation of rights for every party in a relationship. Scalia’s reference to this principle for guns is not surprising in a constitutional setting, even for a fundamental right.
However, I think the gun grabbers are reading way too much into it. It’s clear from Heller that there is some definable central purpose of the right that would allow some regulation that does not infringe on the right itself. For example, in free speech law we have time, place, and manner limitations. Yes, they can and do go too far at times. But more often there is a balance to them that tries to preserve everyone’s rights as well as possible. But at the end of the day we do not prohibit speech based on viewpoint, etc.
The analogy isn’t perfect, though, and that in part is what the gun grabbers are tripping over. The right to speak freely is important, but arguably the right of the innocent to physical preservation must be honored or none of the others can be honored. Armed self defense comes in at that deeper bedrock, and no regulations can create a de facto ban on that basic capability without denying the right itself.
That’s why I believe the Heller court would throw down, for example, the so-called high capacity magazine ban. It’s not something that can be regulated without interfering materially with one’s ability to stay alive in a variety of conflict scenarios. It is further protected by the common use principle of Heller. If the Heller court can remain in tact for a few more years, I think it will solidify 2A jurisprudence favorably to the preservation of the right.
The difference between the left & right’s view on guns comes down to basic assumptions.
We, like the founders, are inherently suspicious of government power, and see the need for defending ourselves from it.
They, being humanists, see no inherent danger in government. Quite to the contrary, they believe getting the “right people” in power and not limiting that power is the road to utopia. It never works out that way, because their basic assumptions about the nature of man are wrong.