The 2nd Amendment in Massachusetts Schools

W

woodit

New member
Here's a posting from a pro-gun Massachusetts parent:

>"My older boy, age 13, is working through a school project >on the Constitution. They do reprint it in entirety, but >not without their side-by-side "interpretations" of the >various clauses. Here's what they have to say about the >2nd Amendment:

>"Amendment 2 guarantees that the federal government
>cannot deny states the right to enlist citizens in the >militia and to provide them with training in the use of >weapons.

>I guess that clears that up."


Now we know.
 
There needs to be another party in Boston harbor. This time there will not be any tea dumped. I really hate to think how bad these people would polute the water but it would be for a worthy cause and nature has a way of cleansing and rebuilding.
 
I don't think that interpretation would stand up to any kind of legal challenge. Precedents I've heard of indicate that most of the body of law agrees that the 2nd means what it means. Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. There are one or two extreme cases that the anti's cite often, but this interpretations seems even more extreme than the actual precedents. And there are many more normal rulings.
 
Believe it or not, this sort of historical mis-representation/misinterepretation is fairly common in school books. I don't recall where I read it, but there was a recently published article that pointed out mistakes not only in history texts, but also science and math books.
Sure gives ya faith in the public education system, eh?
 
>>I don't think that interpretation would stand up to any kind of legal challenge. Precedents I've heard of indicate that most of the body of law agrees that the 2nd means what it means. Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. There are one or two extreme cases that the anti's cite often, but this interpretations seems even more extreme than the actual precedents. And there are many more normal rulings.

The MA Supreme Judicial Court has ruled several times that the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution is void in Massachusetts. They have thrown the glove down and dared anyone to challenge them. To date, no one with money has had the balls to elevate it to the federal courts and see it through. That is OUR fault.
 
GDW, you beat me to it, i was just about to post that...

Dave, not only has that interperatation (no RKBA for citizens, only RKBMilitias for states) been upheld by the Massachusetts SC, IIRC it has also been held up by the US 1st District Courts, and would therefore not be allowed to continue to the SCOTUS.

Therefore, we in New England and Pueto Rico (odd isn't it...) have lost our 2nd Amendment Rights... that is until there are enough of us who are fed up enough to re-assert those rights...

I await, but my patience fades...

(Thanks Bluesman!)



[Edited by USP45 on 01-16-2001 at 04:45 PM]
 
Patience, USP45. Unless you are a doctor, you don't have any patients. Guess you proved your point about teachers. ;)

The corollary to gdw’s saying is: Those who can’t teach, teach teachers to teach. ;)

Don’t blame the books on the teachers. Most teachers are underpaid and overworked, unlike their brethren in the administration who choose the textbooks. If you don’t like a textbook take it up at the next school board meeting. Get to know your children’s teachers. My first-grader’s teacher leans as far to the right as I do. :) They’re not all government robots like they are often portrayed on these boards.
 
Well, that is pretty much the ultimate end game to the antis strategy. If they can't take away your rights because too many of you know about them, demand them, and fight for them; then they can start trying to teach children only the rights they want them to know about (if that).

When those children grow up, less of them will know about their rights or feel an obligation to protect them and eventually, the antis will get their way.

Think about it - when I grew up even people who didn't particularly care for guns believed the 2nd Amendment was so that people could have guns to protect themselves against the government (an idea that we were taught even in elementary school).

Now you tell kids that the 2nd Amendment is state militias and nothing more. Perhaps one or two children's parents are involved and correct this misinformation; but enough children grow up believing this that fewer and fewer people are around to stand up for their rights - and when the number that does stand up is small enough to be safely ignored - they'll take away those rights.
 
Actually, that interpretation is not incorrect, it is just incomplete. The 2A is there so that States can have a formal militia units and train those citizens. However, the history if the 2A is also clear that the Militia is comprised of the whole body of the People and the People at Large who make up the militia (that's all of us), shall have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Rick
Detecting errors of omission
 
RickD, I think historical documents are pretty clear that the Founders were not talking about formal militia units (what they called "special militias") when they wrote the Second Amendment. In fact, they considered special militias to be standing armies, something they were very leery of and wanted to avoid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top