Teaching the Second Amendment
SierraTimes.com ^ | July 13, 2006 | Jennifer Freeman
The public education system has tremendous influence in shaping the views of millions of young Americans. In many cases, the public school system is the only exposure that many children have to the Bill of the Rights. It is imperative, therefore, to ensure that our nation's teachers are enlightening our young people and teaching them correctly about our rights and the meaning behind them. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of educators in the United States appear to promote an anti-gun agenda or, at the very least, prefer not to teach the Second Amendment in its true light. We base this opinion, in part, on the fact that the United States Parent-Teacher Association and the National Education Association are both openly anti-gun organizations. We further base our opinion on the fact that the public education system at large seems aligned with the left-leaning socialist agenda that also dominates the dinosaur media and the Democractic Party. These are organizations and individuals who side with the enemy during wartime, attack Christian _expression while simultaneously supporting public, other-than-Christian religious _expression, and support the licensing and registration of guns while secretly conniving to confiscate every one of them.
These are the same people who try to deny that the Second Amendment applies to you and me, but applies to the National Guard instead. These are the same people who conjured up the term, "assault rifle" in an effort to ban semi-automatic rifles. They claim that when the Constitution was written, the Founding Fathers never intended it to apply to the types of firearm technology available today.
Any red-blooded, patriotic American who understands the true meaning of the Second Amendment is closer in spirit to our Founding Fathers than the sniveling, whiners who call themselves intellectuals. As such, we know that the right to keep and bear arms applies to the American people and is not restricted to muskets. We can further prove the intent of the Founding Fathers by observing how they lived and by reading many of the supporting articles and letters that outline their philosophy on the symbiotic relationship between an armed populace and a government that serves its people.
It is time to demand that our nation's education system duly recognize our Bill of Rights and teach the Second Amendment according to its true intent. You can start by talking to your child and asking them if they are learning about the Constitution in school. If so, take a look at their textbook and see if the Second Amendment is accurately reported. If there is a problem with the textbook or if the Second Amendment is not being taught at all, you may want to talk to your child's principal. You may also want to team up with other parents who share the same views. Teachers have a responsibility to our children and we have a responsibility to see that our nation's teachers are doing their jobs properly.
Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.
With many liberal instructors in today's schools, if a student opposes their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment they are at risk to fail in some cases. I have taught both of my boys to talk the talk and walk the walk when it comes to the progun movement regardless of who they offend. Fortunately, their teachers have respected their views on the subject. Craig
Return to Current Events Category Menu
"With many liberal instructors in today's schools, if a student opposes their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment they are at risk to fail in some cases." That is your opinion, and I will challenge you to cite "some cases" where students were failed because they disagreed with a teacher's interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment.
Furthermore; "We further base our opinion on the fact that the public education system at large seems aligned with the left-leaning socialist agenda that also dominates the dinosaur media and the Democractic Party." Basing an opinion on a "fact" that "seems" to be accurate? What kind of twisted logic is THAT? As with all issues, the voice of extremists seems to be the loudest and most frequent. On one extreme there are those who want ALL guns outlawed. I really can't NAME such an extremist group, but surely they exist. The PTA and the NTA are NOT against all gun ownership as you claim. Then there are those extremists that want NO gun control. Would that describe the NRA? They sound like they approve of ownership of anything that propels a projectile from a barrel via the combustion of any propellant. Correct me if I am mistaken here. Name ONE firearm that the NRA supports the regulation/control/registration/unlawful ownership of. I am working on the hypothesis that there is none...not one. If that is accurate then the conclusion is obvious.
The biggest threat to the bill of rights is this administration and the lackies that follow it in the congress and the senate.
G.W. and his croanies suspended the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights? After all it's just a piece of paper. I think that's how he put it.Could be wrong.
You bash the only organization that puts its money where its mouth is regarding your 2nd amendment rights. Jim, the reason that the NRA opposes these legislations against various firearms is for the simple fact that these gun control advocates ambiguously word ALL of their legislation in order to leave room for interpretation by liberal minded judges to include firearms that supposedly weren't targeted by said legislation when it was pimped by its advocates. Furthermore, any fool knows that when you give these people a foothold, they continue to nibble away at our rights far beyond their originally stated intentions. And in case you haven't noticed, there are more than enough firearms laws on the books that aren't enforced by these liberal judges, which helps explain why our streets are full of dangerous criminals who already have serious crimes on their resumes, yet have never done any serious time. Your argument is full of holes, as is your political philosophy.
Jim, your argument would carry a lot more weight if you didn't do exactly what you're accusing Craig of.
All of your statements are your opinions based on your suppositions. You say there are groups against any gun control, but don't know who they are, you're just sure they must be out there. You suppose that maybe the NRA is one but you don't know.
I didn't see any claim from Craig's post that the PTA and NEA are against "all gun ownership". If they are not "openly anti-gun" - prove it. A minimal amount of research could benefit your stance.
Why not give the "extremist" thing a rest? You're looking pretty extreme yourself when your rants carry so little substance.
Cecil: You've convinced me sir! Thanks for turning the lights on. :)
My wife is a teacher...she lives in this swill. You can't even talk guns at a teacher get together because it is not PC. As far as citing cases...I could do that but what does it matter, your opinion would not change either.
The NRA isn't what you think it is. You are slightly confused about the organization. But they do take a very conservative approach to this issue so I can see why you and Cecil would be offended by their stance. I suggest you get a 1st Freedom magazine and read an issue. If you don't believe what it says then go turn your guns into the nearest police station because you will never need them anyway.
I do not agree totally with you Cecil on the political thing but you are certainly one of a kind when it comes to political views. Representation is what it is. If you never let your reps know what your views are on any particular subject they do what they feel is best based on party affiliation or whichever way seems to garner votes for the next election. The squeeky wheel gets the grease. How many times a year do you write your reps and let YOUR VOICE BE HEARD? Education is critical in politics. Those people don't know a lot about some of these issues and it is our responsibility to make sure they understand the complexities of their initiatives and how it actually affects the law-abiding citizen, while most times having no direct bearing on the criminal.
Jim's M.O. IS twisting truth and then calling kettles black. I don't think Cecil or the others know any better and if they do they would never admit it.
Of 1934, entitled the National Firearms Act.
This is the legislation that banned automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns, etc.
Today the NRA's stance is firmly against any NEW restrictions. They are also for 100% prosecution of anyone using a gun in the commision of a crime.
I didn't get an answer to either question I asked, now did I? I'll correct myself because I meant NEA not NTA. I think bringng up the extreme positions is a valid point of issue. I still have two unanswered questions out there, and make this the third one. What LIBERAL DEMOCRAT..person or group...is so COMPLETELY anti-gun that they promote outlawing ALL shotguns and rifles commonly used in small and big game hunting? We hear the accusation "THEY WANT TO TAKE ALL OF OUR GUNS" from the conservative right. I don't believe that for one second. "THEY" surely do want to control or outlaw certain firearms, but to scream that "THEY want to outlaw all guns" is just fear mongering. If for no other reason than money, guns and hunting pump millions of millions into the nation's economy. I own a gun cabinet over-full of hunting rifles and shotguns like most of us. Let's keep this issue in context. No twisted logic here. Just opinions based on observations...AND those 3 unanswered questions. Actually Craig I'm not confused about the NRA one bit. I was a member for many years. I asked a simple question about the NRA Nathan. That hardly qualifies as "bashing." In my opinion, we don't have to be all or nothing on gun control and I certainly am not.
You haven't traveled the world much have you? "It could never happen here!" You seem so smart and so very sad.
Here's a few names; Schumer, Boxer and Feinstein
I checked those 3 names. Diane Feinstein;1) Supports background checks to buy firearms. 2) Supported banning assault rifles. 3) Sponsored the ban(private ownership) on 50 cal sniper rifles used in armed services. 4) Suppoorted the ban on the (private) sale of shoulder mounted missles and grenaade launchers.
Barbara Boxer; 1) Supported required child-proof trigger locks on guns. 2) Sponsored a national ID card system for all gun owners. 3) supported the right of cities to sue gun dealers and makers if a gun they sold/made was used in a crime. Chuck Schumer; 1) Colllaborated with Feinstein to ban assault type rifles. 2) supported background checks before buying firearms..."NICS"= National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
There is NOTHING in ANY of their records or agendas that deals with taking/outlawing "ALL shotguns and rifles commonly used in small and big game hunting." So I repeat my same question;"What LIBERAL DEMOCRAT..person or group...is so COMPLETELY anti-gun that they promote outlawing ALL shotguns and rifles commonly used in small and big game hunting?"
I think some of the legislation these senators have promoted/passed is unnecessary and ineffective, but it has NOTHING to do with the hunting guns we use.
"You haven't traveled the world much have you? "It could never happen here!" You seem so smart and so very sad." We're discussing gun control here marsicko. Go back and read some scripture.
Gun control in most of the world is a very real thing. You call names and then spin and whine when someone else does, it says a lot about you. Heres a few facts for you, 1: There is a God. 2: America is the greatest country on earth and in history. 3: Liberal socialism has been tried and failed. 4: Feinstien, Boxer,and Schumer are liberal socialists and THANK GOD most of this country sees them and people like you for what they are. Go back to your porn site.
I've read over every post carefully.
The only person here who claims that there is a group that wants to outlaw all guns is you. You don't know who they are but you said you're sure they are out there. No one else here has expressed any agreement with you on that point. If you want that question answered, look it up yourself.
Your question about the NRA was answered. Look at the link and you can read what guns they were part and parcel of outlawing.
It's difficult to keep a discussion in context when you keep changing the context.
Your constant complaining about extremists makes it somewhat surprising for you to now claim that it's valid to look for the extremes. Let's bring it back to center.
You can not deny that liberals are generally for more gun control, and conservatives are against it. Neither can you deny any longer that you are a liberal. So your discomfort is with your own people and party; you should direct your rancor against them.
Or, maybe you can deny anything and everything. I beginning to wonder if you care what the truth is at all.
"No answers...just spin" ? You might have a small shred of credibility left, but believe me brother; you're very close to being added to the list of "the universally ignored".
Lets bring them on down and put them on a lie detector and ask them if they would ban citizens right to bear arms if they could .(what do you think would happen?)Certianly they will not come out and admit the truth (or mabe they would)who cars:but they would put so many controls and regulations on gun ownership that many would consider it not worth the trouble.You let them have thier way and the only thing you will be mounting will be a paper target from some gun club.And you may not be doing too many fish either :when the animal rights side of the Democratic party gets its way (after all we're all just animals) and you may not even get to do much hiking when the green side of the party gets its way (we can't have those nasty humans disturbing the ecosystem).
Anyone that doesn't think that the nea. and the teachers unions don't have a left leaning agenda is just out of it .(not all teachers thank goodness).
Jim just a couple of weeks ago on here you agreed that the liberals had control of the Media and the school system.
Yes I know someone that received a D for writing a paper that was anti abortion .Whats more the teacher held it up before the class and said " I can't belive anyone in my class can even think like this."
Just last week I herd on the radio about a kid that wrote a paper on how he wanted to be a Marine when he grew up .The teacher gave him an A for composition but at the bottom of the paper she had a little smiley face with a note beside it saying " of course you know that our soldiers are killing innocent women and children in Irac. Wheather the statement is true or not has no bearing ,no teacher should be telling a kid something like that .
I agree with Steve ,Jim ,your rants are all the same: no matter what the issue someone is always slandering the poor liberals .
Jim you cliam to be moderate ,but every issue you defend is socialist in nature I think you should move to China they have all the institutions you seem to crave.
Now, as far as the NRA wanting NO GUN CONTROL...
That statement is an undereducated one. I really can't believe, as a former member of the NRA, that you even believe it.
The NRA supports law enforcement. They do not support confiscation orders from the leaders of such groups without due cause. Their lawsuit in New Orleans proved they will stand their ground to defend these Rights.
The NRA supports the laws that are already on the books. For anyone to break these laws subjects themselves to possible or should I say eminent prosecution with today's liberal judges. If nothing else we become at great risk for losing our right to bear arms because of breaking these laws as many carry FELONY charges. That's what the liberal gun grabbers do, Jim. They force this crap down our throats by making penalties so great you would be an idiot to break the law considering what you would lose as a result. That's how gun control works my friend. They might not agree with many of the inane laws on the books concerning gun control but once passed they stand by them and expect the law-abiding gun owner to also. That is why they lobby so diligently to inform its members and the politicians that support their cause to do the right thing. Gun control laws do NOTHING for the safety of this nation or its citizens. What these laws do is disarm the law-abiding while the criminals simply disregard these laws, and do as they please, in many cases applying the upper hand to disarmed citizens. If guns were outlawed I will become the outlaw. That's exactly what these politicians want, but then again our Founding Fathers were all outlaws too.
The NRA supports Eddie Eagle and suggests and promotes its teachings in schools across this nation. With many schools ZERO TOLERANCE policies pertaining to firearms many administrations choose not to apply such a program in their schools, even though it has been proven to save children's lives. That's a form of gun control in itself for if our children are taught that guns are bad the next generation is that much more apt to think no one needs them making more gun control laws eminent.
The NRA believes violent criminals should be locked up and taken out of a society where they have proven they are not worthy to live in freely and of their own accord. They support victims of crime and protection of society by taking this stance. They also feel any law-abiding citizen who wants to carry a gun for self-defense should be allowed to do so. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE CRIMINALS WITH A RECORD. They believe guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens saves lives and deters criminal activity. This has been proven in Great Britain and Australia where the crime rates have risen since the gun confiscations or voluntary surrender of their guns for fear of becoming criminals themselves by keeping them. Again, you become a criminal when you don't comply with these laws even though by doing so you are now placing yourself at a higher risk of becoming a victim of crime. That's how gun control works and why criminals love it so much.
The NRA believes in tough judges that are willing to send these criminals away for good long sentences, which in turn keeps us in a free society safer. Too bad the liberal judges want to do just the opposite and the liberal politicians would rather institute some "liberal get your life back in order program) sponsored by the taxpayer even when it is proven these criminals have a great tendency to revert to that criminal mentality very quickly. Think of the rat and the maze theory.
So unlike what you say, Jim, about the NRA believing in NO GUN CONTROL you are sadly mistaken. What they understand is these politicians want all of our guns and they have figured out a way to whittle away at our Right, little by little. When the politicians couldn't do it nationally they figured out a way to do it in-state and many liberal judges won't even hear a 2A case, let alone make a proper judgment on it. See, Jim, all these approaches are rather conservative...not radical, and not baseless. If you don't agree that's too bad because that semiauto deer rifle you own would already be gone if it weren't for the NRA. I can remember one state, I think it was Michigan or one in that area of the US, that wanted to outlaw everything for hunting accept single-shot implements. After all, don't most hunting and sporting associations promote one-shot kills now? And military weapons...be careful of that description because many snipers use singe-shot hunting rifles as their tool of the trade. Assault weapons bans, what an oxymoron. Can't all guns be used for assault. Unfortunately the criminals are the ones that use these in this way. Most guns owned and carried by law-abiding citizens are used in a defensive manner against those assaults. Can't baseball bats, tire irons, knives, possibly a simply 2x4, all be used as an assault weapon.
I believe in the old adage, "Give someone an inch and they will take a mile.) That's the approach the gun grabbers take.
As for the question of the politicians not wanting ALL of our guns check this link out and open your eyes whne you are reading some of these quotes, Jim.
I sure hope I answered some of your questions here.
What these laws do is disarm the law-abiding while the criminals simply disregard these laws, and do as they please, in many cases applying their upper hand to disarmed citizens.
You greatly expanded on what I wamted to say. Sadly, all the facts in the world mean nothing to so called "orogressives".
A quick check of the archives will show that, while are liberals on this site claimto be tolerant, the truth is they depise anyone who does not fall in line with their warped stupidity. Liberals in this country are so arrogant that they want to change 230 years of tradition in this country because they claim to know exactly what our fore fathers "really" meant when the wrote the Constitution.
Steve, you can go back in the archives and find the basic accusation "They want to take[all of] our guns." more than a few times.
Listen to what Nate just wrote; "You let them have thier way and the only thing you will be mounting will be a paper target from some gun club." The implicatiton is obvious and is a common thought amongst angry conservatives. I certainly did read the link provided. Do you think positions and policies of the NRA in existence 72 years ago are indicative of those in 2006? I don't. The NRA has probably lost more than a few members because of it's radical views against ANY new gun control procedures.
Asking questions shouldn't be fuel for anger, but it obviously is because the questions I ask challenge some commonly held conservative beliefs. "Bring it back to center" is a great point. "In my opinion, we don't have to be all or nothing on gun control and I certainly am not." We agree on that Steve, and my questions were a challenge to extremist views. "ALL" and "NOTHING" are both positions I reject, and I think you do too. "You can not deny that liberals are generally for more gun control, and conservatives are against it." I never did deny that. "Neither can you deny any longer that you are a liberal." Oh yes I can. Liberal on gun control? Wrong Steve. I support gun use and private gun ownership(with exceptions!) and am for fewer, if any, new regulations. I think "give and take" is a reasonable approach to this, and other, issues.
Nate, your reply is what I would expect from a very angry conservative The gun control measures of all 3 senators is a matter of public record, you STILL choose to believe that they are liars who need to take a lie detector test...and then "who cares?" about the results! This is the kind of closed-mindedness that stifles ANY discussion that leads to a "give and take" compromise on gun control.
We've got a lot in common on conservative issues like gun control. I just reject the fequently heard charge that "THEY want to take our guns." until I see documentation that it is accurate. And that brings us full circle dosn't it? OH...marsicko(AKA "one of us"). daveyBOY and you might get a discount if you go to anger management counseling as a twosome.
"A rose by any other name is still a rose" You Jim are a liberal extremist by any other name. I have no anger and you just keep proving what and who you really are with every written word. Be proud of that! Why twist, spin and hide and name call? What are you afraid of? Besides yourself!
And I dont' want to see a gun come into the school because some dumb *** parent didn't have sense enough to keep them locked away from his children.
I'll bite. Tell me of one good gun control law that saves lives other than one that truly assists law enforcement. And let's not forget most of those laws were passed because government made certain things illegal already. Let's start with the pistol permit laws and how they keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals. Use Alaska and Vermont as an example since they don't have laws such as these. Then we can go on with the laws that restrict where you can and can't legally carry a pistol, even with a legal CCP, and how it does nothing to save lives. I live in NY, Jim. I belong to an organization called SCOPE, www.scopeny.com and while I am pretty adamant about people being able to own just about any kid of firearm that they want in this country there are some laws that assist law enforcement in keeping the guns out of the hands of the criminal element that actually can be useful tools and therefore I am not opposed to them. Are they the end all to gun crime? Absolutely not!
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
Senator Dianne Feinstein: CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995 Sam Donaldson:
By the way, I don't believe you are a handgun owner. I used to believe some gun control laws were good until I applied for and received my CCP. When I realized all the usless restrictions that are placed on me and every other handgun owner in my state I began to realize what the word infringement meant. And those restrictions continue to pour out of our democrat majority state Assembly. Lucky for us we still sort of control the state Senate. (We meaning progun people not either party affiliates). All I can say is, "Criminals love gun control and I know why."
So what is your point in what Nate stated? If you have to store your firearms at a controlled facility and can only shoot them on that controlled facility it kinda makes wanting to own a gun a little less exhilerating. That's another way gun control works. People like you agree that it's ok for that because we still have the right to bear arms. If you call that kind of ownership a Right than you should go live in Great Britain and resign your citizenship here in the US. The more people that don't feel the need to own guns, the less interest there is in certain kinds of firearms, the less people there are fighting this progun fight, and the easier it is for our politicians to pass laws to outlaw them. Thanks for being a traitor to the cause.
I am glad the argument switched to other, more vulnerable, people though. Must be I got my point across, lol.
"We further base our opinion on the fact that the public education system at large seems aligned with the left-leaning socialist agenda that also dominates the dinosaur media and the Democratic Party."
Bingo. It does seem that way.
If you throw a daffodil (I was going to say fire an assault rifle, but my left-wing liberal roots got the better of me) into a group of public educators, it's reasonable to assume that you're going to hit a liberal. Chances are pretty good.
Craig's post declared that liberal public education people don't teach the 2nd amendment the way it was written and intended. I went to public school and know this was true in my experience. I believe the post to be factually correct.
I also know from experience that the gut level need to know what's real and what isn't is in every person. When I see or talk to a young liberal, I'm glad for the fact that I'm likely talking to a future conservative; if they will let the truth of unchangeable human realities soak in, and not get side-tracked by selfish motivations, plain stubborness, or gossamer fantasies.
The change often happens when we have a family to protect. But, for some, it never happens. Like Craig, I want my kids to know the truth.
Everybody wants to be respectfully heard. As a conservative, I welcome the full glaring light of scrutiny and debate on every issue. I also welcome every liberal who wants the same scrutiny, even if they are kicking and screaming. Epiphany is just around the corner.
from happening, Cecil? Metal detectors and armed guards don't even keep weapons out of schools. You're more uninformed than I thought when it comes to this subject. I would much prefer that teachers that choose to be armed be allowed to do so, and if that's their choice to do so extremely low key. Citizens with CCPs should also be able to carry in schools or anywhere else for that matter, without restriction. Remember, we aren't the enemy here. They don't even let the cops wear their sidearms in my wife's school. What does that represent to the kids, our future generation of a few possible progun advocates? Schools are GUN FREE ZONES. Criminals know it, and the kids do too.
I agree that our firearms should be locked up in most city settings but one or two should always be available for self-defense if that's what you so choose. What good is an unloaded gun if you can't get to the ammo because it is locked in a seperate cabinet. All my handguns are loaded ready for bear and a few of my rifles are leaning against the walls locked and loaded. I live in a country setting where a rabid fox or coyote could appear at any time to threaten my animals. My boys know how to use each one of my guns in a safe and responsible manner. If they had the need to act in self-defense against an intruder with a weapon they would know what steps to take. That is what I did for society to make this a safer place. I taught my children responsiblity.
I think more to the point is a parent that owns a firearm that is so displaced from his children that he doesn't know when there are important issues that need to be discussed. I'm not sure whether or not you have children, Cecil, because I have never heard you mention them if you do, but child rearing isn't rocket science. Apparently, according to you, owning a gun is though.
As far as the school shootings are concerned, the killers could count on one thing: their victims, and the teachers and staff, would be unarmed. The killers knew they would face no resistance -- because of "gun control" laws. What should be obvious is that if peaceful citizens are armed, then criminals will be deterred. Schools attract killers because the government has posted a big legal notice that says in effect: "Attention: this is a gun-free zone. We guarantee that all adults and children in this school are unarmed." Attempts to outlaw guns from schools, no matter how well meaning, have backfired. Instead of making schools safe for children, we have made them safe for those intent on harming our children.
As anyone with an ounce of sense could have predicted, the debate following the Columbine High School shootings centered on gun control.
Those of you who listened might have caught a short interview with John Lott Jr, author of "More Guns, Less Crime." He brought up two very interesting facts concerning the affect of making it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.
First --- some additional research Lott has done shows that there is an 81 percent decrease in shootings with multiple victims when people are allowed to carry concealed weapons.
Another interesting fact. Two of the school shootings that happened in recent years were stopped by civilians with guns - not by the police. In one of these cases an Assistant Principal of the school had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. He kept that weapon in his car while at school and parked his car off school property so that he would not violate laws concerning guns on school grounds. When the shooting started he ran a quarter-mile to his car to get the gun, ran back to the school and held the shooter for the cops. In another case a passer-by heard the gunshots in the school. He grabbed the gun he kept in his car, ran into the school, and stopped the gun kid before he could shoot anyone else.
Study after study after study has shown that crime rates go down, murders go down, aggravated assaults go down ...when law abiding citizens are allowed to carry guns for protection. In spite of the facts we still have the left screaming for more gun control.
Remember --- when these liberals start talking about gun control, they're only talking about keeping guns out of the hands of people who obey the law. Ask them what their plan is to get the guns away from the criminals and they'll return a blank stare.
Gun bans don't work. Where has gun control worked? Washington, D.C.? Chicago? New York City? In the public schools of this country? Congress has enacted a nation-wide gun ban in every school and yet young thugs still violate that ban.
Gun control actually endangers the lives of innocent people. If teachers and school principles were allowed to possess firearms in their briefcases or in their purses-- or to conceal them under their jackets-- it would strike fear into the hearts of these juvenile Rambo's. Unfortunately, the nationwide gun ban ensures that these would-be-Rambo's are the only ones with guns at school. Decent teachers are forced to break the law to defend their students.
Guns save lives-- even in schools. Just look at the nation of Israel. Editorialist Vin Suprynowicz of the Las Vegas Review Journal stated this week that, "In Israel, teachers and parents who serve as school aides go armed at all times on school grounds, with semi-automatic weapons. Since this policy was put into effect, terrorist attacks in Israeli schools have dropped to zero. The only recent exception was the tragic case of a group of schoolchildren who were murdered by an Arab gunman as they visited the 'Zone of Peace' on the Jordanian border. The Jordanians specifically requested that the Israeli teachers and chaperones leave their weapons behind ... which they did. American schools are, on the other hand, 'gun free zones.'"
Wow, a lot of reading in this one. One thing you might want to consider is that many people who own, carry, hunt with, or otherwise use guns, do not discuss the topic in schools, it being so far out of the mainstream. Those who do will rarely report any bias against their use of guns. However, even the playing of a gun type scenario--aliens against humans was one game played by a group of grade school children who were suspended for playing this in their schoolyard on recess (isn't recess your own time to do with what you would?--caused suspension of grade schoolers. Is that not the same as holding them back? Would they be inclined to even mention guns again, let alone say "boo," or "bang," as the case may be, in school ever again?
No one has yet given exhibits to prove the bias:
This ought to do it:
if not content with that:
just a few years back, the NRA won a suit against the Albemarle, VA, school district which prohibited a student from wearing an NRA shirt. Said student was told he must turn it inside out, or go home. He refused to turn it inside out. The student was sent home. The NRA in coordination with the students parents sued the school district. The NRA, the boy, and American freedom won. The Albemarle SD amended its code of conduct to include shirts which referenced, or had pictures of guns, or violence. Plain white tees only in Albemarle. Right might be seen as a symbol of blood. Black as a syumbol of black liberation, etc.
A college student called the Rush Limbaugh show and stated that he wanted absolution for becoming PC to get a 4.0. Prior to his going PC, he had contradicted the professors arguments in a paper she asked to have written by the students. The student in question got a much lower grade on this first paper. After that, he diligently followed the course outline, submitted papers which only expounded the feminst viewpoint that men are bad, that women are held down by them. He ended up with a 4.o for the class. Hmmmmm...bias in education...in the United States?
I agree with almost all of what you say. Enforcement of existing gun laws pretty well eliminates the need for more. Criminals don't obey the laws we have so why have more laws that will only encumber lawful gun owners? The possession of firearms for self defense is, and should be, a right of every law-abiding citizen. I own a pistol and only use it for shooting some kinds of animals I trap. It aggravates me to have to spend the money and time to get a concealed weapons permit. I think a lot of this kind of stuff is as much to get more money as it is to trace weapons.
The issue of the role of schools in dealing with the 2nd ammendment is another story. That's just not an issue for me . All I know is from experience at local levels, and I am in a rural area. Hunting is such a big thing here that there is no school the first day of firearm deer season, and for the whole first week there is a high absentee rate(LOL). That includes TEACHERS. I just haven't seen or heard this "liberal conspiracy" to "take our guns" in my neck of the woods. I suppose it does exist in the big urban areas where the most popular outdoor activity for kids is "hanging out."
Some just haven't realized it yet. The call to arms will come to your part of the woods soon enough. Some of us deal with this BS every day and it makes me sick that either the politicians don't understand it or they simply want to take our Rights away, be it all at once or ever so slowly in the way that it is currently happening. I should have asked where you were from at the beginning of my rant but neglected to do so. Had I known you were from a state from rural America I might have handled this differently, but probably NOT. After all, President Bush is from Texas and he has some pretty twisted thoughts on gun control. You came at me with an argument from the liberal left about this subject and I'm actually surprised more liberals didn't come to your defense. I would like to thank all those that understand our fight and and posted their thoughts and also wish you all well as it is an everyday battle we are dealing with. I fear it will never end and what compromise does is show our weakness and willingness to bend against our basic principles. That bending will someday soon break us whether we realize it or not. So my stance is very pro-gun with no compromise. I believe the 2A means exactly what it states, nothing different.