Posted on 04/03/2019 3:01:09 AM PDT by PigRigger
I would be extremely suspicious of any teacher making this kind of an assignment.
The right of life and liberty with the ability to defend that right, is a natural right given to us by God, not handed to us by the grace of the writers of the Constitution or to be taken from us by some legislator. The fact that we have tolerated the restrictions foisted upon us by all three branches of government does not diminish that right; it simply shows how little elected and appointed officials honestly care about the rights of it's citizens.
There was Bach's 'The Well Tempered Clavier'. Best example of interpretations of words' meanings over the years would be the word 'gay'.
“More Liberty Not Less, Never Less.”
Gun Control KILLS.
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of individual persons to keep and bear arms.
— The Bill of Rights are not negative rights, that is Communist propaganda.
— Rights are PROHIBITIONS against the State, against the Congress, against the Government.
>
Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to derogate or diminish the inalienable rights, liberties and privileges secured by this second amendment, of the People and Militia to possess and bear arms and carry them.
>
R-I-G-H-T. ‘Cuz “...shall not be infringed.” wasn’t clear\concise enough /s
>
Well regulated meant then - and now, well trained. Not regulated in today’s sense of the phrase. Numerous sources discuss this.
>
IMO, ‘regulate’ = ‘to make regular’; not so much ‘well trained’. In as much as I love to confound the ignorant, stupid a/o Leftist (I repeat myself):
“Regulate” has the SAME meaning in the 2nd as it does in the “interstate commerce” clause (which they ALL love). Hard to have ‘(govt) control’ [today’s def. of the word] when the 2nd specifically states “shall not be infringed”. IOW, it would be in opposition to itself.
A "well-regulated militia," in 18th Century terms, is a militia which has already been drilling and practicing on its own. That implies that they already possess weapons and know how to use them.
I am nearly finished reading Joyce Lee Malcolm’s book “To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo American Right”. It is a very interesting study of how this right came to be written into the 1689 English Bill of Rights (after the Glorious Revolution which overthrew James II) and it discusses how and why this heritage greatly influenced the American Founding Fathers who sought to have this right even more so explicitly written into the United States Constitution.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Not to mention that it's nonsense to have an Amendment in the "Bill of Rights" guaranteeing the government the "right" to arm its own troops.
The militia is regulated by those who bear arms, the citizen.
Countless comments by the Founders to that effect exist
There is a civic duty implied, such as local service as a militia, but just like a fireman can be a volunteer, his acting as a fireman does not allow him into homes without proper supervising authority and control from the local population.
A fireman cannot just enter your property just because, it is a militia regulated by the home dweller who is armed.
The militia only acts on probable causes and due process of law to extinguish a fire or react to a threat such as invasions at the border.
Government is restrained and must follow the law. Whereas Magna Carta emphasized that the law applied to both the rules and therule, with no special rule for therule, the US constitution went further in restricting the existence of rules except for those restraining government exclusively to its role of servant.
The Militia has no rights whatsoever, and participating in one does not give special extra rights others do not have. Or else the right to bear arms would be oxymoronic from a lingusitic point of view, as it would mean it is a privilege and no more a right, watering down and changing the real meaning of right.
:)
Have a Blessed day.
*
Government is restrained and must follow the law. Whereas Magna Carta emphasized that the law applied to both the RULED and the RULER, with no special rule for the RULER, the US constitution went further in restricting the existence of rules except for those restraining government exclusively to its role of servant
Your teacher is a Leftist Communist. Communists are losers. They teach Fake News propaganda trash.
Rights protect the individual person againt the privileges of any group.
The teacher supports the group privilege of the teacher union or the group of the military, to violate the freedom right of the individual person.
“A well regulated Militia” was a reason given in the Constitution for people to keep and bear arms. However, it DID NOT state that was the ONLY reason!
“(if I hear one more idiot say in a smug tone of voice “the milita, in other words the NATIONAL GUARD” I’ll have a brain aneurysm)”
Try this: Respond with a question, a favorite tactic of their own...
“Are you a Trump supporter?”
Then, after the obvious answer,
“Do you fear that he is a threat to rights, such as gays and abortion?”
Again, wait for the answer.
“Then certainly you would be opposed to his using the power of the government to suppress you and take away those rights, correct?”
(this will work better if they’re a minority, race, gender or otherwise)
After the obligatory answer,
“How, exactly, do you plan to stop him putting you and all other liberals on a train and placing you in a gas chamber?”
Here’s your daughter’s paper in one sentence:
Passing a constitutional amendment stating that an army must be armed is prima facie stupid.
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery”—Thomas Jefferson.
OH WAIT! He is no longer valid on University campuses. Bring on the shackles!
Here is a link to the highly suppressed Report to Congress on the 2nd Amendment. Read it and you will see why it is suppressed. Bet you cannot find a complete copy on line. I have a paper copy published in 1982, the year the report came out.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf
“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the secondamendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner”
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.