CT Public School Propaganda: No Individual Right to Bear Arms

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mnemicrsl
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.


no proof of this being a school document, so it's a lie as far as i'm concerned.




posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
The view on the Second Amendment is one that is kind of confusing, as it fails to take into account, that yes it does apply to everyday people. If history serves as a lesson, that should be the answer, however as the instructor and the people who put out this stuff should review US history 101 again.

In short, back at the founding of the country, there was no standing army, or military, the militia's were either formed from units from the different states, or composed of the minute men, just average citizens called on to do their duty. As part of what was required, was to bring the rifle and ammunition. Now consider this, there was no standing federal army until 1796, and the Constitution was not written until 1787. about 9 years prior. So I think that yes it did mean everyday citizens.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


No it's a supplemental workbook.

However it's wrong.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
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 ?



The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER, dissent

It wasn't until the Heller case in 2008 that the government accepted the concept of the individual right to bear arms. Moreover, it wasn't accepted in the general public until the mid-1970's when the NRA became a fierce lobbying organization rather than a gun club.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


While SCotUS may not have weighed in on the matter until recently.

Many state courts agreed that private gun ownership was covered by the 2nd amendment. I think the first one was in the 1800's.
And many State Constitutions reinforce private gun ownership.

There has been case law for some time and State Constitution law that has clearly defined gun ownership for private citizens.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


I was under the belief the discussion was regarding the single national constitution and not the 50 seperate state constitutions.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
this is total bull

waste of time getting outraged over it

hoax



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234

Originally posted by Honor93
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 ?



The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER, dissent

It wasn't until the Heller case in 2008 that the government accepted the concept of the individual right to bear arms. Moreover, it wasn't accepted in the general public until the mid-1970's when the NRA became a fierce lobbying organization rather than a gun club.
/double facepalm
you might want to look a bit farther back, like 1840 or so, as you are mistaken, again

need a link ?
link

thanks for the link - grey580



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


No the discussion is about how wrong that supplemental homework is.
Saying that the courts haven't ruled on private ownership.

But when in fact courts have ruled in favor of private ownership.

And I included the fact that many state constitutions give us private gun ownership.

but I ramble. The real take away from this is that the stupid homework assignment is wrong on many levels and needs to be not used as a teaching tool.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 
I have two words in response to this abomination...... home school!

A lot of you will reject this piece of wisdom due to it's source, but that doesn't make it any less true. It's our responsibility to teach our children, not someone else's. If we leave the teaching to others, others will train up your child their way.

Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   
First of all, I think you all need to take a step off and a step down. I remember when I was a younger fellow, fifteen years of age, and being given something to do in GCSE English classes which was basically a modified form of English Comprehension testing. Essentially the testing or question being posed, makes a statement based on a block of text printed on the sheet. The idea of this, is that one should read the text, fill out the statement, and then comment on the accuracy of the statement, and the conclusion drawn from it, using ones own intellect, learning, and wisdom.

It is a measure of ones ability to see through propeganda that could be being measured by this piece of work. Now... if you are actually telling me that this veiw of your Constitution is actually being taught across the board, well that is an entirely different kettle of kippers.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


No, no, no. In 1777 the Pennsylvania and Vermount Declarations of Rights included the following wording;

the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state


The US constitution was written a decade later, in 1787. If the framers of the constitution had the intent to give individuals the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves they would have written it that way. They did not. They wrote it with the intent of having individuals arm themselves in defense of the state, not against the state. That's why it specifically mentions the militia in the text. For defense of the United States, the people should be armed.

If the the whole problem with the school project is the wording, which is correct to the extent the SCOTUS never applied the lower courts ruling, then...sorry?

The second amendment doesn't give an individual the right to bear arms, not the way I read it and not the way millions of other people read it.
edit on 13-4-2013 by links234 because: Bad coding.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join