Posted on 04/09/2013 7:07:53 AM PDT by massmike
The father of a Connecticut child is furious after discovering that his son’s school is teaching students that Americans don’t 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.”
Boibeaux’s 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 son’s 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 ...
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.
duh...
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.
You're just figuring that out now?
Earth to Mr. Boibeaux, public schools have been doing that for a hundred years. It was their principle purpose.
Sheesh.
People give up their freedom so easily.
The "Shot Heard Round the World" was fired outside Boston on April 19th, 1775. The regular army troops which carried out the fateful raid on Lexington and Concord were dispatched from an occupied city which was being punished by the monarchy for prior misbehaviors.
After the outbreak of open hostilities, the rebels, our Founders, found it necessary to send groups of militia to Fort Ticonderoga to take cannons by force from the government forces protecting the fort. These cannon were dragged through the countryside to Boston where they permitted the rebels to expel the King's forces from the city.
The Second Amendment could not possibly be intended to force future rebels to have to start hostilities against a tyrannical government from a position of weakness that would exist if the possession of cannons were denied to the people.
This teacher is wrong for so many reasons. One of them is above. The National Guard is an already organized part of the nation's army. It is not the militia.
So their teaching outright and verifiable lies?
Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Right to bear arms
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Quartering of soldiers
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Search and arrest
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Rights in criminal cases
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Right to a fair trial
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
Rights in civil cases
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Bail, fines, punishment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Rights retained by the People
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
States' rights
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
bump
Weapons training will involve 7 weapon systems
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.