CT Public School Propaganda: No Individual Right to Bear Arms

I found a link to this site after a friend posted something to facebook.

www.ar15.com...

The following was posted on facebook with the image.

This was sent home with a CT student this week. This is an abomination of our school system and a blatant abuse of power. Call your kid's school to see what they are teaching on the 2nd Amendment!!! Call the superintendent!

Now I'm not even sure if this is real or a photoshop.
Or if was really sent out to kids and this is just a really good internet troll.
But if it is real. Then it's wrong on many levels. Not just academically but ethically as well.

And it also brings up the fact we are teaching our children lies.
There is case law supporting private gun ownership.






I am thoroughly disgusted by this.

That makes two of us. They have way overstepped their bounds on this one. Its time to revamp the education system and get it out of federal hands.

You are correct.
It is propaganda.
I don't care any more.
I will just be 'outside of the envelope' from here on out.

reply to post by grey580


Are we sure this is legit?

No source from the AR15 forum.

For now I'm calling bs.

If that is from a publication from before 2008, it is true. And, to me, it does look old.

Constitutional rights for individuals to bear arms is rather new to this nation. Prior to DC v Heller, the SCOTUS had ruled repeatedly that individuals didn't have the right.

This is exactly why I am thankful every day that we left Connecticut and moved to Georgia. Unfortunately, I still have friends that are stuck behind enemy lines.

reply to post by grey580


Well first of WOW and 2nd of all that is not a propper lock for a gun.... Shame on them... That's how people get shot.

reply to post by grey580

i sure hope it's a joke but if not, i really liked the answer that suggested stapling a copy of the McDonald v Chicago decision to the exercise and turn it in.

perhaps it is our teachers that our failing our students moreso than the politicians ?
afterall, it is they who present this rubbish and demand participation.

reply to post by NiteNGale2

don't suppose you could provide any SCOTUS decision that substantiates this statement ?

the SCOTUS had ruled repeatedly that individuals didn't have the right.

and who in their right mind thinks the 'militia' is the National Guard, anyway ?

reply to post by BritofTexas


No clue.
But the book series is instructional fair
maybe someone has a copy we can look at

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.

en.wikipedia.org...

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

This is social engineering, indoctrination, brain-washing bull-poop!

reply to post by grey580


Amazing how many collective public school issues have cropped up around here in the last couple of days.

Used to be a time when you told kids to stay in school. Now you tell them to get out before it's too late.

Fortunately for the bright children, they see through the collective/New World Order agenda.

The other kids....they were destined to be cogs in the collective/New World Order agenda, regardless.

reply to post by grey580


I Googled the book.

Seems it was published in 2001 or 2003? Can't view the inside on Amazon or Google.

The book itself seems legit. However it was published before Heller and it doesn't mean someones kid was sent home with it lately.

I'm still leaning towards thinking it is a scaremongering post in the AR15 forum.

reply to post by BritofTexas


www.guncite.com...

The Aymette opinion stated on the page cited above by the U.S. Supreme Court: "the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the (p.11)citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments on their rights, etc." 2 Hump. (21 Tenn.) 154, 158 (1840).

Referring to the militia clause of the Constitution, the Supreme Court stated that "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made." 307 U.S. at 178. The Court then noted that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Id. at 179 (emphasis added).

The Miller court noted that most states "have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms" but that differences in language meant variations in "the scope of the right guaranteed." 307 U.S. at 182. State precedents cited by the court are divided mainly over whether the respective state guarantees protect all arms or only militia-type arms.[2]

Miller also cites approvingly the commentaries of Joseph Story and Thomas M. Cooley. 307 U.S. at 182 n.3. Justice Story stated: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."[3] Judge Cooley stated:

Among the other safeguards to liberty should be mentioned the right of the people to keep and bear arms.... The alternative to a standing army is 'a well-regulated militia'; but this cannot exist unless the people are trained to bearing arms.[4]

Even in 1840 SCoTUS ruled that people could bear arms.

reply to post by grey580


At my sons school a 4th grade class was being thought about types of guns and what purpose one would use them for in a wartime situation so is the opposite (in Montana). Im assuming the teacher is also sharing about gun responsibility but its not my childs class so didnt ask. It was surprising to see actually. I think Obama has truly just made things worse by messing with this. Push on such issues people will push back harder and at least at congressional level that's what I am seeing.

Here is some info on the book.


books.google.com...

www.teachersparadise.com...

reply to post by grey580

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 07–290.

 

Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Legal Information Institute

reply to post by BritofTexas


Please read this site.

www.guncite.com...

There case law from the 1800's and more from the 1930's and 50's that also affirm the right to bear weapons from scotus.

The Aymette opinion stated on the page cited above by the U.S. Supreme Court: "the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the (p.11)citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments on their rights, etc." 2 Hump. (21 Tenn.) 154, 158 (1840).

This is also of interest.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is a federal provision. Each of the fifty states also has its own state constitution. Forty-four states have chosen to explicitly embody a right to bear arms into its state constitution.[74]

Approximately thirty-one states have explicitly chosen to include the right to arms for "individual right", "defense of self", "defense of home" or similarly worded reasons. Approximately thirteen states, as with the U.S. Constitution, did not choose to explicitly include "individual", "self" or "home" wording associated with a right to bear arms for their specific states.

Approximately twenty-eight states have explicitly chosen to include the right to bear arms for "security of a free state", "defense of state", "common defense" or similarly worded reasons, as with the U.S. Constitution. Approximately sixteen states did not choose to include explicitly "free state", "defense of state" or "common defense" wording for their specific state. Whether the inclusion of these kinds of wording in state constitutions has relevance to the issue of whether implicit "individual" rights exist, or whether such rights (if any) are implicitly protected by the states' constitutions or by the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, remains a matter of dispute.

Regarding the state interpretations of these state and the federal constitutional rights to bear arms, state courts have addressed the meaning of these specific rights in considerable detail. Two different models have emerged from state jurisprudence: an individual right and a collective right.

why would states explicitly include private gun ownership in their constitutions? Interesting no?

reply to post by grey580


This is the same BS arguing points that many Progressives are parroting.

What is to be expected? I am not surprised.

No wonder our country is going down the crapper.