[WAGCEVP]

any suggestions right off hand..............

==================
how do i respond?
by Beth

Today in my Economics class (i'm in high school)my teacher said that he didn't like the fact that President Bush was taking away his civil liberties. I told him that I didn't like the fact that President Clinton infringed upon my 2nd Amendment rights.
My teacher proceeded to ask me to show him where in the 2nd amendment it mentions the people. I recited the 2nd amendment and he yelled at me that I had no idea what I was talking about (we were discussing the placment of the commas) and that when i got a degree in political science we would talk. and to learn english.

how should I respond to him on monday?

~Beth

[morganm01]

Tell him he needs to take an English class.

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/06/11/greenslade.htm

Be sure to distinguish that the BOR does not grant rights, it restricts the power of the government to infringe on our rights.

[morganm01]

Tell him he needs to take an English class.

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/06/11/greenslade.htm

[StudentoftheGun]

There is an interesting tool that you can present to him. It outlines the intentions of our founding fathers in regard to the second amendment. The name of the book is "The Second Amendment" by David Barton. It is actually more of a pamplet as it is a soft cover. In it you will find a multitude of quotes as well as historical info that makes clear what our forfathers intended.

My copy happens to be signed by none other than Alan Keyes who is very much in support of the 2nd. Whatever folks may think of him his heart is right on that subject.

Keep in mind that in many colleges....if not the staggering majority, gun ownership is not thought to be an individual right. Keep in mind that this man probably went to a very liberal college. It is his feeling that since he has been privy to more education than you that his opinion is somehow better or more right than yours.....

Remember that he is a teacher. A four year degree in a liberal arts school does not make you an authority on life. If this teacher were in fact as intelligent as he THINKS he is he would be making his mark on corporate America rather than yelling at a high schooler.

I am finishing up my degree in Political Science. I can tell you that once you go to college the hippocracy of the liberal kabal only grows....Keep your chin up and never be afraid to stand up for what is right...no matter how unfashionable it appears to others

Studentofthegun

[JimJD]

It sounds like He was insulting you in a manner not befitting an educator.
I would bring this issue up with your parent(s), ultimately taking it up with the heads of your school if you feel so inclined.

You do not have to take that type of behaviour from anyone, especially someone who is in a position such as his.
Do not stoop to his level and make your arguement that much harder to defend.

Years and years ago in junior high school, I had a similar experience.
My math teacher at the time was a typical bleeding-heart ex-hippie who was very, very ignorant.
Good Luck! Keep fighting the good fight!

[MissileCop]

WAGCEVP,

Sent you an e-mail regarding "A Primer On The Constitutional Right To Keep And Bear Arms" by Nelson Lund, Ph.D, Virginia Institute for Public Policy.

Very lengthy, and covers much of what Greenslade wrote, but goes into much greater detail.

Hope this will help Beth stoke the fire to her advantage.

MC

[Standing Wolf]

JimJD's advice is what I'd have said.

When I was young, I had no idea I didn't need to be insulted and/or condescended to and/or belittled by adults.

[WAGCEVP]

Missilecop, I got your note, thanks! Thanks everybody, I'll see that she gets all

[King]

Think of it in terms of history at the time of our Delaration of Independance from England (1776) and the way the English treated it's subjects. Think of your fore fathers sitting down just 11 years later to carve out a form of government that would allow free people to govern themselves. It wasn't an easy task. In fact, it took two years (1789) to get it ratified. If you studied your history book closely, you'll recall that there were many concerns that the constitution, as written, could still allow for oppression and abuse of the citizens by their government. The result was the Bill of Rights in 1791. It was a another way to bridle the governement's potential control of a free people.

What did they care about that that they would define certain inalienable rights?

1) Free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press including the right to speak against the government.

2) Right of the people to keep and bear arms and that it not be infringed by the government. Why? Free people that are armed can push back against a government that would abuse it's power against it's citizens.

And the others....fair and speedy trial, to not have to self incriminate oneself, unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, not to be tried for a crime but once, and so on.

All of these reasons tie back to an oppressive ancestry and it's abusive government as well as other governments of that time.

In that context, it make perfect sense that our for fathers would state clearly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They knew what government could do to a helpless citizenry. Apparently your instructor isn't quite as sharp.

[ModIMark0]

Tell him the meaning of the word 'people' was clarified in the Supreme Court case United States v. Verdugo-Uriquidez (1990) as individuals, and not as a communal group, which is the word used in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, and in other parts of the Constitution, where it always refers to rights of individuals against government. There is also the case of Muscarello v. United States (1998) where both majority and dissenting opinions invoke the phrase "bear arms" to describe a situation in which an individual "carries" a firearm.

This information was quoted from Don Kates article 'Americans Right to Own Firearms: The Citizen Versus the State' in the OCtober 2003 edition of Chronicles pages 18-20.

[Don Gwinn]

I don't know that I'd seek out another confrontation. Even if he's the one who brings it up again, I might just defuse it. That's up to you, but if it's not really relevant to the class you're taking. . . . well, it's not your job to fight every battle out there by yourself.

If you insist on arguing with the great man, I would mention the other amendments that speak of "the People." You might ask him, for instance, why "the People" means one thing in the 2nd Amendment and the opposite in the 4th. It can't mean the people in one part of the document and "state governments" in the rest, can it?

If he really made the argument--in public--that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention the people, it is perhaps less than sporting to knock him on his egg-shaped noggin, no? :scrutiny:

[hillbilly]

Beth, your teacher is an arrogant jerk.

I say this as a college English instructor myself.

That said, you cannot, under any circumstances, call this loser by his real title, which is arrognt jerk.

Reminding him of the truth about himself would only make the situation much worse for you.

Good suggestions on the thread. Respond to his childish outburst with facts, documents, and reason.

Remember Beth.....when dealing with such emotional children as your teacher, you have to be the adult in the situation.

hillbilly

[DualBerettas]

the right to life is the right to exist...so the right to defend that very existence, even if deadly force is necessary is the highest moral I can think of...

Tell him this...gun control...Feds, govt., military, LE, are all exempt...right? (right)...criminals, by definition break the law so are they effected by gun control? (no point to England and how it's becoming one of the most violent countries in the world) so who is the only group of people left....the honest citizens...

DB

[Frohickey]

Hmm... you should ask him if only people with political science degrees are the only ones that can talk about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

If he says 'Yes', then by his definition, the Founding Fathers are not qualified to talk about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

:fire:

[WonderNine]

The Constitution says:

1st Amendment: "...the right of the people..."

2nd Amendment: "...the right of the people..."

4th Amendment: "...the right of the people..."

9th Amendment: "...retained by the people..."

10th Amendment: "...reserved...to the people..."

Notice the similarity and yet ONLY in the 2nd Amendment do some people claim that "the people" means a group and yet in all other uses of the term, it is undeniably an individual right. The Founders knew that words meant something and were VERY careful in the use and consistency in meaning of those words. The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right just as the right to speak freely is an individual right or an individual's right against illegal search and seizure.

[BowStreetRunner]

WAGCEVP, give it to him!
this guy is nobviously a windbag, but dont stoop to his level,
when he yells, tell him that there are 2 sides to every story and you have a right to your opinion.......and if he isnt interested in debate then he isnt a good teacher
try not to fail the class though :D

[cuchulainn]

Not only does his behavior sound abusive and unprofessional (as others have noted), he also may not be living up to his duties as a teacher. What's he doing spouting his poltical views? Not only does that take away from the time he ought to be teaching economics, it sounds like he might be creating a hostile learning enviroment for those who don't agree with him.

Yes, yes, yes, teachers should be allowed to express their views. Yes, yes, yes, we've got only one side (from an adolecent, no less, adolecents being notorious for one-sided coloring of disputes). Yes, yes, yes, not every second need be applied to the subject; little informal off-topic chats help build a relationship between the teacher and the class.

Nonetheless, that's how this one smells to me.

[WonderNine]

WAGCEVP, give it to him!
this guy is nobviously a windbag, but dont stoop to his level,
when he yells, tell him that there are 2 sides to every story and you have a right to your opinion.......

Point him toward this thread. Assuming he's smart enough to work a computer.

[LD]

Any suggestion or response depends on your desired outcome. Obviously you teacher is highly entrenched in his leftist ideals and world view. You will not be able to persuade him differently. Unfortunately, being a student subject to your teachers will and whim, this means that even if you present solid data, documentary evidence and legal precedence and technically "win" the argument, you will lose in one way or another by harsher grading, etc.

However if he wants to continue the tired linguistic argument of the meaning of "militia" or "the people" or the placement of commas there are a couple of suggestions I might make. First read and present him with a copy of "The Second Amendment: A Linguistic Ananysis" by Stephen P. Holbrook. Secondly, have him read the following cases which refer to the right to keep and bear arms and refer to the militia clause:

1820 - Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1
1939 - United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174
1972 - Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 149-50
1980 - Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65
1997 - Printz v. United States, 117 S. Ct. 2365, 2385-86

If you just want to twist his knickers I've found that the following works wonders with professors who are part of the anti-gun crowd.

Ask him: As an educator you're in favor of honoring cultural diversity right?

When he says "of course" simply state: Guns are part of our cultural heritage, please honor and respect our diversity!

[Norton]

Ironically, I've found that it's the students that I work with that are the liberals (well, compared to me anyway:D )

We have a group of about a half dozen to ten students who eat their lunch in our hall rather than subject themselves to the feeding time at the zoo in the cafeteria. With the founding of the Young Republican club at school, the banter in the hallway has become quite lively in the last few weeks to say the least.

As I related in another thread, the kids keep trying to bait me into joining the conversation on whatever the topic of the day is. I just smile and keep listening. If I say anything at all, it's usually in the form of a question....ah, the Socratic method at work!

WAGCEV: As a student dealing with an arrogant twit for a teacher, the best thing that you can do is duck and cover. Most teachers are so insecure with their lives (except me of course :p ) and their capabilities that they will look for any excuse to nail you in order to reinforce their own self-esteem.

While I'm all for "preaching the gospel" as it were, your convictions will do you no good if you fail the class and can't get out of HS and get that P.S. degree. Stand your ground based on your convictions, but avoid a verbal running gun battle with this person.

Or....you can transfer to my school and we'll work the students and teachers over from both sides.....:evil:

[ojibweindian]

Have Beth tell him that a poly sci degree pays squat and that she would rather earn a dregree that promises a REAL future in the REAL world.

[HankB]

. . . he yelled . . . that when i got a degree in political science we would talk. This was in Economics class? Does HE have a political science degree or an economic degree? Unless he has both, he's either a)unqualified to discuss politics, or b)unqualified to teach economics.

I remember a discussion that I got drawn into with a teacher in high school. After a few exchanges - which he clearly lost - he began SHOUTING.

I started to laugh. When he asked me what I thought was funny, I said it always amuses me when people with weak arguments think they can persuade people by substituting volume for substance.

I'd never seen someone's face actually turn purple before. ;)

[Penforhire]

Suck it up and get the degree. You will never change this guy's mind and you can only hurt your grade in his class. Learn what you can at school but remember the fundamental reason you're there is to get the degree that gets you your first job. At least in my life as an engineer (Jr, Sr., then manager), after that first job nobody cares about your education (degree or grades). Maybe other careers differ?

[tyme]

I agree arguing will probably not get you anywhere, but you could identify all the alternate theories and show why they're moronic:

1: state right theory (invalidated by Rawle's View of the Constitution's Chapter 10 comments, and because a federal guarantee of a state's right to regulate a militia simply doesn't make sense)

2: organized militia only (sorry, you have no right to serve in the military or national guard, so this can't be it).

3: It's a personal right, but guarantees military arms only. (Just about every weapon, if not used directly, has been incorporated into military weapon designs. What qualifies as a "different" weapon? Is a USP9 forbidden even though a USP45 and a p226 are both allowed?)

...

[simon]

Hillbilly,you said That said, you cannot, under any circumstances, call this loser by his real title, which is arrogant jerk.
I'm was just wondering why this is?
I mean call a duck a duck....

[Gordon Fink]

Forget linguistic and Constitutional arguments for a moment. Instead, consider the idea of inalienable sovereign rights.

One of the founding principles of the United Sates is “that all Men are created equal.…” This principle has been enshrined legally and is known as equal protection under the law. Philosophically and legally, therefore, no one should have special rights in the United States.

So what are sovereign rights? A sovereign individual is independent from other individuals, having complete authority over his own life. In other words, he owns himself and is free to determine his own destiny. By comparison, the United States of America, as a sovereign nation-state, own its own territory and is idependent from other states.

Historically, however, individuals were not always treated as sovereign beings. In fact, they were often divided into different ranks, classes, or castes. These groups did not have equal rights. The “commoners” had few, if any, rights, while the “nobles” enjoyed many rights and privileges.

One of these “noble” rights was the right to keep and bear arms. Outside of military service, which was usually conscripted at that, commoners were forbidden weapons. In fact, it was this monopoly on arms that allowed the nobles to maintain their control over the vastly more numerous commoners. Thus, by force of arms, the nobles could deny the commoners of any freedom at a whim—including freedoms we now consider sovereign human rights. Disarmed, the commoners lacked the means to resist tyranny, and therefore tyranny remained the normal state of human affairs for thousands of years.

When the United States of America was established, as the first democratic republic of the modern era, its founders took an unprecedented step. They declared “that all Men are created equal” and eliminated the legal distinction between “commoner” and “noble.” Americans would be equal before the law, enjoying equal rights and privileges.

Setting aside this history for a moment, though, let’s return to the idea of a sovereign nation-state. No one would deny that a nation-state has the right to defend itself and its interests through the use of armed force. However, if the state derives its authority from its sovereign citizens, its citizens must share this right. If we fail to recognize this fact, then we must also accept that our “freedom” is no more than a house of cards, as the state would have the power and, indeed, the legal authority to deny its subjects of any rights or privileges.

However, the Founders also provided us with a saving grace. They recognized that sovereign rights are inalienable. They can neither be surrendered nor taken away. We have these rights—among them, the right to arms—even when they are suppressed by a tyrannical regime. The only just way to suppress an individual citizen’s rights is through due process of law.

This brings us full circle, back to the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment to that document says: “No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In short, we have no special classes of citizen (equal protection), and persons may be deprived of their rights only on an individual basis (due process).

To declare that a broad category of citizens does not have a right to arms or to free expression or to privacy is to reject the idea of inalienable sovereign rights. It is to deny that humans are independent, self-governing beings. It is to accept that tyranny and all its potential abuses are morally and legally justified. It is to embrace slavery, discrimination, and genocide. It is to agree, finally, that might makes right.

In the end, rights are an all-or-nothing affair. If you allow even one to be infringed, you must accept that all will be diminished. Rights may be abused, but to prevent that abuse by suppressing the right is to invite the abuses of tyranny in its place. The right to keep and bear arms is especially important in this respect, because it is the one right that gives common citizens the effective means to resist tyranny, whether at the hand of the petty criminal or the despotic state.

~G. Fink

[hillbilly]

Here's why Beth can't call the "arrogant jerk" an "arrogant jerk."

Beth is a high school student. Arrogant jerk is her teacher.

If she calls the arrogant jerk an arrogant jerk, then the arrogant jerk will make her time in his class a living hell.

If this arrogant jerk is so insecure that he has to resort to shouting down high schoolers who don't toe his party line (think about that for a second) then he is so insecure that even pointing out his lack of reasoning will be to invite his childish wrath.

Beth should look him up after she graduates and call him an arrogant jerk to his face, if she likes. Maybe even leave a flaming bag full of doggie doo on his front porch.....Or, get him a subscription to a Swedish kiddie porn mag, but have it delivered to the door just down the street with his name on it.......not that I would ever advocate doing anything patently illegal........

But the simple, tactically sound truth is that while she is in his class, and her grade is under his control, she shouldn't take him on in open combat.

Use facts, reason, and be always polite. But don't call him an arrogant jerk.

hillbilly

[Ivanimal]

Skunk, that is simply childish, that would be like going down to the post office and filling out a change of address form and sending all his mail to afganistan, that would just be wrong.

[Roadkill]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

That's the firebrand Patrick Henry. He makes no mention of state governments, nor of standing armies (like the National Guard), which the Founding Fathers regarded with as much liking as for a snake in a bedroll.

The United States Code of Law narrows the definition somewhat, but not overly so:

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17
years of age..."

~~Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.

Note that the U.S.C. doesn't say "as maintained by state government" or any other nonsense—it's an unequivocal statement of all able-bodied males.

Oh, and one more thing about that pesky first phrase: "regulated" does not mean "beset by rules and laws". In 18th-century English, "regulated" meant "trained and equipped", in other words, ready for action. Hell, we've even lost that because of the abolition of the military draft.


Now for the next phrase of note, the "security of a free State" one. Note that security of a free State does not just mean of the country as a whole—but by using that other pesky word, "free",the Founders made it plain that the whole concept of a free state is that which requires security. It doesn't just mean a state free from Nazi tyranny, for example, but also a state inherently free,
from its own government if necessary.
How do I know they meant that? Let's roll the tape, Simon:
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no
recourse left but in the exertion of the original right of self-defense which is
paramount to all forms of positive government."

-- Alexander Hamilton.

Need another?

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the
people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Thomas Jefferson.

And one last one:

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the
defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."

-- John Adams.

Those phrases make the blood of government lackeys run cold, or rather, they should.

Now for the penultimate phrase: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Not just "the people who can afford to buy a gun license", or "only the police," or "only Mayor Daley's bodyguards"—it says, "the people" without qualification. Can't be much plainer than that really… except perhaps for the last phrase: "shall not be infringed." Note carefully that the Second does not say, "Congress shall not" or "government shall not" or "Mayor Daley shall not". The use of the passive voice is quite intentional: it is a clear, universal statement that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be circumscribed, by anyone or by any institution. It is, of course, no coincidence that the right to have guns is one of the earlier freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights. Without guns in the hands of the people, all the other freedoms are easily negated by the State. If you disagree with that statement, ask yourself if the Nazis could have gassed millions of Jews, had the Jews been armed with rifles and pistols—there weren't enough SS troops to do the job. Lest we forget, in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1944, a couple of hundred Jews armed with rifles and homemade explosive devices held off two fully-equipped German divisions (actually about 8,000 men) for nearly two months. Using the Germans during the First World War as another example, the thing that caused German officers and their troops most concern was the appearance of francs-tireurs: individual citizens who, from their homes and villages, shot at and killed German officers and soldiers as the Fourth Army made its way through Belgium. The Germans considered this form of fighting
to be completely at odds with the rules of warfare, and began to slaughter civilian hostages as reprisals. Why was the mighty Fourth Army (of some six million men) so afraid of a few irregular snipers? Because they knew that they could never defend against a million pinpricks—their morale would suffer, and they'd spend all their time policing the Belgian countryside, instead of
invading France and fighting the French Army.
I take my civic responsibility very seriously. I am the epitome of the franc-tireur: a man who would defend his country from invasion, who can use a gun, and who would not hesitate to risk his life in its use. I suspect that, if the chips were down, there may be another seven-odd million
men like myself in the United States.

This country will never be conquered militarily—and it has nothing to do with our Armed Forces, because they are just the first line of defense. The rest, the militia, are more than a match for any army, at any time—as long as we still have our guns.
And one last word on the subject: the next politician who assures me that he's not going to go after my hunting rifle with his latest "reasonable" gun law, is going to get a punch right in the face.

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting, buddy. Don't insult me by thinking I'll swallow that lie.

Perhaps the best statement I've heard about "government vs. citizens" with regard to the gun issue came from a politician, Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp of Texas, who said "How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."

Finally, I'm going to shut up and roll the credits, quotes of people who have said it, all far more eloquently than I, and who can explain the original intent of the Second, because they wrote it:

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison all understood the importance of private gun ownership in a free society.

Jefferson:
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy p. 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

Adams:
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the
defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
Hamilton:
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no
recourse left but in the exertion of the original right of self-defense which is
paramount to all forms of positive government."
And Hamilton again:
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be
properly armed."

Madison (in Federalist No. 46, predicting that encroachments by the federal government) said that these would provoke "plans of resistance" and an "appeal to the trial of force." Madison also said (still in Fed. No. 46):
"[T]he advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to
which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed,
forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than
any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the
military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried
as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
And Thomas Paine:
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other
hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in
awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance
would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike;
but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..."
Thoughts on Defensive War in 1775

While Tench Coxe said:

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other
terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The
unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state
government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the
people."

(Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

While we're about it, let's also quote again another of the great men, Patrick Henry,
commenting on the Second Amendment in 1788:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who
approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright
force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that
every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

And another from Mr. Henry:

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we
cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between
having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under
the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those
arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety
to us, as in our own hands?"

(3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia,
1836)

Even the British used to have the right idea (they don't nowadays):

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The
possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who
has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him,
whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own
master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself,
and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion."


James Burgh (Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects,
and Abuses) [London, 1774-1775]

Some more modern quotes:

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary
government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears
remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

-- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-MN)
rk

[Bobarino]

i think if it were me i would not continue the discussion in class as it takes up the time that is meant for Econ class. that is not entirely fair to the other students to take up their time with a personal debate not relating to the subject.

OR, poll the class to see if they would mind if you take a day of their calss to challenge the teacher to a debate in the class for a day. ask the class to vote at the end of the debate on who was more convincing. structure it into 5 minute segments between the two of you.

if that doesn't fly, do some research and use the excellent resources posted by others here on the board and write a report of sorts outlining Supreme Court decsions, collection of quotes from the founding fathers, her misunderstnding of teh word "People" and double standard of its use, and a personal argument at the end. lay it on her desk as you walk out of class one day. see what happens.

track down the reporters from your school newspaper and see if you can talk them into a story of teachers imposing their political views on their students instead of teaching critical thinking and decision making like they are supposed to.

talk to the princiapl and state that you do not go there to get insulted and belittled in front of the class.

just my opinions.

Bobby

[simon]

Hillbilly,understood, this is a prudent course of action,but I see that Bobarino has some good ideas too;

track down the reporters from your school newspaper and see if you can talk them into a story of teachers imposing their political views on their students instead of teaching critical thinking and decision making like they are supposed to.

maybe a visit to the school superintendant is in order

[Mgraff]

Beth-

Those who can do! Those who can't ..... teach!

While there are exceptions to this rule..it usually fits. Seems more fitting in college than anywhere else. College profs. are insulated from the real word and have NEVER had to produce anything but publications and grants. For a system that is supposed to educate and encourage thinking it really seems to piss em off when your thinking doesn't jive with the party line..so to speak. I had a similar problem with a Psyc. prof one semester, I aced every quiz, project, and test, as he was handing back our last project the week before finals, he said something to the effect... "I see you must have learned something in my class." My reply was something like "sir your right I did learn 1 thing in your class.....how to tolerate an arrogant old bastard. I only wrote a B on the final but still aced his class. Point being if nothing else you learn to work around people who have no vision, and can't begin to grasp what is REALLY going on.

Don't let the Bastards get ya down!

[singlestack9]

So, how did it go? Did you get anywhere with your teacher? Let us know how it went!

[marvl]

There has been a lot of twaddle bandied about in recent years that the prefatory words “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” somehow indicate that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is not an individual right, as in the First and Fourth Amendments, but a “collective” right. Nothing could be more false. As Roy Copperud, author of “American Usage and Style: The Consensus” and a member of the “American Heritage Dictionary” usage panel, has pointed out:

The words “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying “militia,” which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject “the right,” verb “shall”). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia… The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere by others than the people… The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

The Framers of the Constitution were highly educated men and masters of the English language; they knew exactly what they were saying.

-- G. Gordon Liddy, "When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country"

[WAGCEVP]

THANK YOU
by Beth

THANK YOU TO ALL WHO HAVE HELPED ME WITH THIS.. I FEEL NOW THAT I AM ARMED TO SHOOT DOWN HIS ARGUEMENTS..


THANKS
BETH


========


I asked her to let usknow how it goes............ let you know if I hear anything...........

[BHPshooter]

Beth,

Sorry to hear about your situation. Anti professors are unbeleivably difficult to deal with, and even harder to sit through class with.

But let me give you a little advice: Don't bother trying to shoot down the teacher's arguments. IT WON'T GET YOU ANYWHERE. Most teachers don't live in the real world (or at least they don't work in it), and arguing about such a hot topic as gun rights will only inflame an already irritated situation.

My best suggestion for now is to grit your teeth, just say, "I disagree," and let it ride. It will be much more beneficial for your grades.

I know it's tough to deal with. I've sure had more than my share of idiot teachers. Be strong!

Wes

[Zackmeister]

I feel for you. I have an anti professor as well, but he at least has the decency to respect different opinions other than his own. I am constantly amazed how the political leanings of professors seems to be so one sided.

Its obvious this guy is not using reason. You could rub his nose in the fact that he's wrong, but his mind probably wouldn't be changed and your grade might take a turn for the worse.

That said, if he yells at you again I think an administrator should be informed that he is harrassing students.

Good Luck!

[Jeff OTMG]

If he insists that it is only for the 'militia' and he thinks that the militia is the National Guard, remind him that the NG was not formed for more than 100 years after the ratification of the 2nd. Also include the real definition of the militia:

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 >
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

[Elmer Snerd]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=10863

[KC]

"...when i got a degree in political science we would talk."

I've got one. History, too. Having a piece(s) of paper doesn't change the issue or (necessarily) the quality of an arguement, merely the sources cited in the course of an arguement. Reliance on these mere bits of paper and not the alleged learning behind them for the substance of a discussion is an indicator that the party in question is undeserving of theirs.

So far as your teacher goes, he is exhibiting conduct unbecoming of a professional in any category, nevermind his profession, and his behavior is undoubtedly inappropriate for a classroom enviroment. As to the veracity of your teachers position, that has been well answered.

[Sunray]

Here ya go. "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."