Posted on 10/14/2001 8:03:46 AM PDT by ZULU
The NJEA(new Jersey's Teacher's Union) is a far-left political action group and its minions use the classroom to promulgate their political views, offering no alternative opinions except from the perspective of attacking and ridiculing them.
Children indocrinated by these far left constitutional reconstructionalists will have their political views warped for life.
PLEASE, visit this site and FREEP this idiot's posting!!
I have seen also "the right of the INDIVIDUAL" many times in the quoating of the constitution.. Does anyone have information to post to educate the rest of us as to why there are two versions ? Either way I see it as the "not goverment" part of the country that has the right.
Perhaps someone is confusing the Second Amendment with some similar language in state constitutions? Illinois', for example, reads IIRC, "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Unfortunately, the "police power" seems to have been defined to include just about everything the government wants to do.
See, this is the major flaw in these goofballs' thinking - this country was established on the concept that all men are INNOCENT until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt!
This kind of rhetoric is unAmerican, unPatriotic, and unConstitutional!
Most people and most kids haven't the time or incliniation for an in depth analysis of this situation. They believe what is presented to them by CNN, and the mainstream leftist media, and thier leftist teachers.
Unless something is done about teachers propagandizing political viewpoints in the classroom, an entire generation of students will grow up thinking guns are bad, the Second Amendment refers to the National Guard, and people who keep or buy firearms are criminals or right-wing lunatics.
guns were required to protect oneself and one's property from hostile Native Americans and other intruders
What's changed?
hostile Native Americans How politically correct, what about pissed off indians?
Click here to see the list of all the tenth graders' papers posted on the website.
We did this sort of thing when I was in school. I remember studying Reagan's and Carter's positions in sixth grade in 1980 and writing about why I thought Reagan should be elected.
So this kid disagrees with you, me, and lot of other people on Free Republic about gun control. Big deal. If he'd reached the conclusion you like, then would his assignment have bothered you? I doubt it. I guess some people like free thought only when it agrees with them. At least they've got them doing research on both sides of the issues and trying to learn how to think about real issues of controversy. I don't want schools indoctrinating anybody, but I also don't want them discouraging independent thought about controversial issues. Do you?
Lie#1. I believe Mexico and Russia are democracies. Their murder rates are I believe double ours. Also, it doesn't matter if it is a firearm murder rate. I care about TOTAL murder rates.
But, if pressure was applied to all aspects of gun employment - production, ownership, and most importantly dealership - a majority of problems could be controlled.
How?
Since there are two sides to every debate, the antithesis of this position views gun control as unnecessary. This view is strongly held by the National Rifle Association, a very powerful organization, which has nearly 3 million members and an annual budget of 88 million dollars.
5 Million members now.
The NRA is highly effective in motivating thousands of gun owners into action against gun control legislation. Lobbying, advertisements, letter-writing campaigns, and contributions to political candidates who oppose gun control have been some of the establishment's most effective strategies in its fight against tighter firearms laws.
That is correct. It's called politics. On the other hand, all the anti-gun stuff comes from the top down through the Joyce, Tides, and Tsunami Foundations.
Most members of the NRA believe that restricting firearms to prevent gun-related deaths is ridiculous.
It is. It doesn't word. Washington DC is a perfect example.
The whole idea of restricting firearms can seem absurd when contrasted with information published by the National Rifle Association which states that in reality over 99.8 percent of firearms and 99.6 percent of handguns will never be involved in criminal activity. This means that gun control laws would restrict law-abiding citizens, while doing nothing to reduce crime (Aitkens 13-15).
The following twenty-seven words of the Second Amendment have caused quite a bit of confusion for the past two hundred years:
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 (Landau 44).
The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. But to whom does it guarantee the right? Everybody? Whom exactly did the people who wrote the amendment have in mind? Let's not forget, this was written over two hundred years ago when life was different.
So what? The PURPOSE hasn't changed one bit. Have you read Federalist 46? The second amendment is to protect the people from tyrannical governments, foreign or domestic. That was the words, not from a nut, but from James Madison.
At that time hunting was a major means of getting food and guns were required to protect oneself and one's property from hostile Native Americans and other intruders.
Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. And protection of property is still relavent today as much as before.
In other words, what a car is to an American today, a rifle was to an American back then - a bare necessity (Gottfried 26-31). Another problem about this Amendment is that there are many interpretations of what several of the words in the short text mean. For example, people , according to many, refers to all individual American citizens.
People means a group of persons. It's pretty simple.
Others believe that people is simply avoiding the use of the word militia again, but the two are used in the same sense. In other words, people , used here does not indicate a right of all individuals, but only of those selected few who belong to a militia (which at that time included almost all the males living in a colony).
Federalist 46 explains this again as well. Who is the militia? Look to the founders.
Afore mentioned NRA statistics seem overwhelming, and, perhaps, conclusive. However, they are rather meaningless since they do not manage to explain the damages caused by those mere 0.2 percent (for firearms) and 0.4 percent (for handguns). The following are some statistics gathered by Maggi Aitkens: The number of people murdered by firearms rose 160 percent between the years 1960 and 1980, comparing to an increase of 85 percent for people who were murdered by other means.
It's decreased since 1992.
Every day in the United States, 10 children ages 18 and under are killed by handguns, mainly by accident.
That's incorrect. It's mostly by SUICIDE, which is a choice. It's also not BY a gun, but WITH a gun.
Another 100 children are seriously injured.
A teenager intentionally takes his or her own life with the use of a handgun every three hours. In general, as the years go by, guns tend to outweigh all other methods of suicides, and this includes adults, as well. (pg. 6-7)
So what? It's a person's choice, although a sad one.
We're not calling for a total ban on firearms.
The actions of Handgun Control say otherwise.
We're calling for national laws that stop criminal access to handguns and ensure the appropriate use of firearms - the same way laws require people to use an automobile appropriately.
That's impossible. Criminal will always be able to get a gun. Again, Washington DC has among the highest murder rate in the world, and has a gun ban.
In a country where cars, dogs, and even bicycles must be registered in most areas, shouldn't we have at least similar laws for something as dangerous as firearms?" (Aitkens, 11-12)
Michigan has gun registration, and has one of the higher murder rates in the country.
According to Whitmore, no one from Handgun Control, a non-profit organization, believes gun control laws alone will stop all handgun violence. She goes on to say "We're not that naive. The fact is, gun control is only part of the answer - but it's a very important part. We believe it will make a significant dent in the number of needless handgun and other firearm deaths in this country."
Again, how?
Although both favor crime reduction, Handgun Control employs a strategy which addresses the problem of gun-related accidents, suicides, and crimes before they happen by requiring a background search. This background search is opposed by the NRA because they believe that the assumption of innocence makes this unnecessary.
The NRA is not opposed to background checks if they are INSTANT checks and the records are destroyed.
A constant complaint is that gun control works against people who obey the law. This is unfortunate, but people should learn to cope with this. Why is that? Some people simply have to lose or give up what they want for the sake of the majority. Since picking a criminal out of a crowd is impossible, it should be assumed that anyone and everyone could be a criminal.
That's the problem with the Anti-Self Defense lobby.
Laws of prohibition or control must be set up for everybody, including those individuals who would not present any problems. Criminals have easy access to guns, and the only way of stopping them from obtaining them, is by unfortunately restricting easy access of guns for everyone.
There isn't easy access to guns for law abiding citizens. Not legally.
A waiting period would prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.
How? That doesn't even make sense. Background checks take 3 minutes. I know. I bought a gun before.
Gun control is necessary in our violent society. Gun registration, permits to purchase, license to own, and license to carry are very important safety precautions.
It doesn't work in Michigan.
The documentation is very important as it monitors transfers between dealer and buyer. Documentation must be enforced to such a degree that it is either unavoidable, or a person simply cannot get a gun.
Documentation and Registration doesn't work and leads to confiscation, if the majority of politicians are those with views like Dianne Feinstein, Rod Blagojevich, Laura Baird, John Schwarz, and Howard Metzenbaum.
Although convincing statistics have been cited, they alone are not enough. It is public opinion that shapes the government. Numerous polls and surveys indicate the majority want enforcement of current legislature regarding guns and firearms.
However those that back the Anti Self-Defense lobby generally lose elections in many areas outside of Calfornia and New York. And also, why should Americans in places like Livingston County Michigan be punished with draconian laws, because LA 2500 miles away can't control their murder rate?
Since more gun related crimes are committed in the USA than any other country in the world,
Again, Mexico and Russia say otherwise.
the United States needs to improve its gun policies.
I agree. We have too many gun laws
Keeping people on record would allow strict control of guns. "People" are all involved; manufacturers, dealer, buyers, and most importantly, users.
And the crime would be rising afterwars as it is once again in California.
There is another thing not mentioned. Guns are used as many as 2.5 million times a year in self defense.(SOurce Gary Kleck). Also, states that allow conceal carry have lower crime rates than states that do not allowed concealed carry. You can also compare Macomb County with Wayne County in Michigan. Macomb County had right to carry. Wayne County did not. Macomb County had 10 murders and has a million people. Wayne County had 430 and 2 million people.
There is a big difference between THOUGHT and regurgitating media and educational propaqanda.
Based on what I know of the NJEA's track record of opposing things like the Second Amendment, Initiaive and Referendum, right to life issues, school vouchers, teacher tenure, the death sentence, etc, I stand by my statement of it being a left-wing, ultra-liberal political organ with Far too much power over the political processes in the state of New Jersey and far too much power in orchestrating propaganda directed at impressionable young minds.
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.