More college idiots....need help

H

Hueco

New member
Doing some assigned reading for my English 101 class, I came across a great nugget of idiocy. Let me quote....

"The Court has held that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment is not an individual right, but a societal right, and only then if a "well-regulated militia" were deemed necessary. The National Guard has clearly replaced that need, but it's doubtful that such an interpretation will silence the National Rifle Association and other adament gun owners."

I will be given an opporunity to respond to some part of this piece that this is excerpted from. How exactly should I respond to it?


Hueco
 
A good slap to the head? Tell them their unintended use of the First Amendment is killing us. Seriously, some words of wisdom from the writers of the Constitution might help point out their idiocy. I thought the courts ruled it to be an individual right?
 
Hueco, others more knowledgeable than I will hopefully guide you to the data you seek.

My only reason for responding is to warn you: As odd as this may sound, the English departments at colleges today are the epicenter of left-wing advocacy.

I read some years ago of this and found it to be strange as one would think it would be the poli-sci departments. However, after paying attention since then, I've found it to be true.

Brace yourself as the example you give is just the beginning. You're going to be inundated with extreme anti-Americanism and anti-Western culture.

Regards
 
With references and quotes. Exactly what they didn't use, so it's hard to dispute their side. Use US vs. Miller, and the Congressional report to dispute their opinions. A few quotes from the founding fathers to back it up. In short, I would point out that the author is simply stating his opinion and using non-existant "facts" to support them.

BTW, it's "adamant" not "adament" - if it's their error & not just a typo, I would point that out, too.
 
I would respond, as Jeff Cooper has espoused, with "disconcerting alacrity".

1. What "Court" are they talking about? It is certainly NOT the U.S. Supreme Court. There has never been any direct ruling as to the individual/collective right from the high court.

Don't let them tell you that US v. Miller was the case that dropped the hammer. People who espouse such a belief either are illiterate or they are wilfully blind to the point of idiocy.

Miller held that "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less
than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." Cite to Miller, 307 U.S. at 178.

Clearly, the lynchpin in Miller was the character of the WEAPON (i.e., that it must have been a military weapon or be able to contribute to the common defense), not the PERSON (individual or collective) bearing said weapon. Yet the hacks at HCI and VPC continue to read Miller as turning upon the person(s) bearing weapons. I don't know how grown people can read the above text and come up with such kinderspiel.

2. I would also point out that the high Court has held numerous times in the last century that the Bill of Rights recognize individual rights (most recently in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, IIRC). Now unless the antis can't count, last I checked the Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. Ask them how they can reconcile THOSE court decisions with any such "holding" by any lower court that the Second Amendment is a collective right.

3. The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. Ask them how the hell the National Guard could have been contemplated by the Framers if the National Guard was not created until 1917???

4. I'd also say the only thing they've got right is that such an interpretation will silence the NRA and us "adement" [sic] gun owners. As the foregoing demonstrates, the "interpretation" has no foundation and is contradicted by express rulings of the high court of this land. Who in their right mind would be "silenced" by such kinderspiel?

Justin



------------------
Justin T. Huang, Esq.
late of Kennett Square, Pennsylvania
 
Copied verbatim from my copy of the Constitution:

Amendment II

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Amemdment II

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people t keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Amendment III

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Amendment IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Amendment X

"The powers not delegatd to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respecdtively, or to the people."

You might ask them what these Amendments have in common. The words "the people" are in all of them. How can it mean the National Guard in the Second and yet it means all citizens in the other Amendments?
 
I'll second the recommendation to check out http://www.guncite.com

This is a great resource for the Second Amendment and other gun-rights related issues; but about half of it is devoted to the 2nd Amendment specifically. After reading all the related articles there, you should be more than able to dissect any argument that the 2nd is a collective or societal right.
 
It's actually quite simple. All rights can only ever be individual rights. There is no such thing as a "collective right". A collective, a group or a society has no more or less rights than its individual members. You can't ever gain rights by joining a group. Powers vested into LEOs and executive branch personnel are not "rights", but temporarily conferred privileges. The right to keep and bear arms, just like the right to freedom of expression, is an individual right simply because it is just that, a right. Moreover, the Bill of Rights does not confer these rights, it merely recognizes them. You could scratch any of the amendments out of the BOR tomorrow, but that would not change the fact that an individual still has the right to free speech, or the right to self-defense.

Ask your history professor for one example where an individual gained a right by virtue of group membership, or when an individual can lose any of the rights listed in the BOR by leaving a group. Chances are they will only be able to point to items which are demonstrably a conferred privilege, such as the power to arrest and detain.

[This message has been edited by lendringser (edited August 22, 2000).]
 
In addition to Guncite, I would highly recommend an article within the Second Amendment Foundation's site at:
http://www.saf.org/MilitiaAndThePeople.html

The article has lots of useful links and arguments on the "individual rights" position.

You should be immediately suspicious of anyone who claims that the Supreme Court has held anything definitively with respect to the individual/collective rights issue. If such was the case there wouldn't be hundreds of law review articles by renowned law professors arguing the question. An erroneous conclusion such as the one you've quoted from your assigned reading is merely wishful thinking on the part of the author.

Educate yourself on the issue, be prepared for the possible counterarguments, be clear and succinct, and go get 'em.
 
Yeah, good luck.

Don't let them hippie loving, living off daddy so I have a political opinion freaks get you down.

You know the truth.

Give 'em both barrels.


And use multimedia :)

Or live examples of what they fear most. Take a huge Python or something.
(just kidding)
 
Good advice here, just Give 'Em Hell!

------------------
Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club
68-70
true story, a Union Gen. once said "Don't worry about those Rebs. They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..SPLAT.
 
I think you've got all the ammo you need. I'll just add that if you stand up, call bullsh*t, and back up the Second with facts that you may influence a couple fellow students to look closer. The professor and English majors are probably a lost cause, slap them upside the head as recommended by chadintex.

------------------
Dave

"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'...till you can find a rock".
Bumper Sticker
 
There have been many supreme court decisions surrounding the 2nd Amendment that can be taken out of context. It was said before in this string, but I don't know of any supreme court decision that stated that the "...right to keep and bear arms." was a "societal" right vs. an individual right. The Dissenting(losing) opinion may have been written and said that, but not a Majority opinion.

Also remember, most professors in most colleges today work in a left of center environment. Text books today are horrible in documenting historical facts.

Check out the NRA site for info too.
www.nra.org


Mike
 
I'm going in now...thanks for arming me to the teeth on this one guys! Yet another college class that will hear the Truth!


Hueco
 
Interesting that whoever made that statement has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. If they don't know the truth they made a mistake, if they do then in is a lie.

The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

The Amendment was introduced on the floor of Congress, considered by Committee, debated by the House of Representatives and the Senate, and submitted to the 13 States for approval. Throughout that entire process, no speaker or commentator, pro or con, referred to the term "the people" as a limitation. [494 U.S. 259, 290]

Here is the link to the 1990 Supreme Court decision: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=259
 
Man, good luck. Been there done that, and with the exception of one rogue professor (anthroplogy)I met, academia is about as liberal as it gets. However, if you should choose to calmly stand your ground (whatever you do, don't let 'em see you get defensive) you will certainly sway some people. There are a lot of people who are very bright in the school system and there are a hell of a lot more with just enough moxy to try and bait you so they can look good in a crowd that supports their ideas.
Check out The Second Ammendment Primer by the Palladium Press, nothing like something read out of a leather bound book to make 'em take notice.
 
Exactly Lendringser! This is exactly what I have been saying for a long time. The government has no rights, only privledges.


------------------
The Alcove

I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
Never had the opportunity to bring it up in class, but I do and will take the chance to discuss it heavily in a response paper on the essay that the quote in my original post came from.

And Jeff OTMG, I excpect it to go very well. I have no doubt in my mind that the prof will be contradicting in calling my view "narrow-minded" because I am not as tolerant as she is. I hope I will not get a grade downgrade because of my content. I will put forth the best in grammar, punctuation, and so forth so that she cannot critisize me on structure. She would then be forced to do so on content. If I feel that a poor grade has been given to me because of that content, it is a very easy thing to go abover her head for a grade-change. And having a technically good paper will make that possible.


Hueco
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top