Had a discussion with my Prof. yesterday

[Double Naught Spy]

Quote, "You should mention that if "the people" refers to the elite in one amendment it refers to the elite in all amendments. Inform her that she has just lost all her rights.

Um, nope. Apparently there are several history lessons missing from this comment. The professor has not just lost her right, but did not have rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Her rights and the rights of minorities have been restored by other amendments. There is no amendment that corrects the 2nd to reflect gun ownership by people other than white, landowning males. As noted by El Tejon, 'the people' has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean individuals.

The notion that 'the people' means the professor lost her rights is just silly. The comment made that she should be told that her rights have just been lost is meaningless. Hypothetically, she can be correct whether her rights have been lost or not.

 

[CAS700850]

This thread involves a very interesting point in Constitutional law, that being the context in which the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written. If we look at the documents as being ink on the paper, so to speak, and fixed moments in time, then your professor is likely correct. At the time the Constitution was written, "the people" truly did not mean all of the people in the country, it meant the "citizens" of the country, which in essence amounted to white males,often white male land owners.

However, as time has shown us, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not fixed douments, but rather are more organic in nature, and have been permitted to grow and evolve as time has passed. Look at the Sixteenth, Ninteenth, and Twety-Sixth Amendments, which guarantee the Right to Vote to all citizens, regardless of race, gender, or age (over 18) to all citizens of the United States. THis shows how the document has been permitted to grow and change to reflect the beliefs in society that all people are endowed with these rights, not just white males over 21.

At the same time, howevere, people use this same position in an attempt to justofy gun control. People often argue that the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights never imagined "assault weapons", and would not have written the Second Amendment in such a way had they known of such things. At the same time, the authors could not have imagined radio, television, and the internet, yet no one denies that the First Amendment protects speech in these areas.

Personally, my favorite argument is that the phrase "the people" in the First Amendment bestows individual righst, while the same phrase "the people" in the Second Amendment is a collective right.

A professor I had in law school questioned whether we would live to see a day when the Second Amendment, much like Prohibition, was removed from the Constitution, then indicated that this was highly unlikely given the rather sacred position occupied by the Bill of Rights. Of course, this same professor also said the Second Amendments guaranted the individual state's the right to have National Guard units...

 

[Calhoun]

El Tejon wrote: "Dear Professora Angry Sandal-Wearer:

"The People" means individuals.

XOXO,

The Supreme Court"


El T, that is the best of them all. Thanks for the first good laugh in a few days.


While I am all for education, some of the educators need to get out of school for a while. Quick story: When I was in college I took a 2 year break from school. During this time I worked in my field of study (Parks, Recreation and Tourism Mgt.). When I went back for my final 2 semesters I realized that I had more "Real World Experience" than one of the most senior professors in my department. Then I made the mistake of correcting her in class one day. She was not happy about it, but there was a certian amount of respect we had from each other after that.

Moral of the story: They are only human. They know what they know and might not realize that they don't know everything. Just like everyone else.

Peace out,
Calhoun

 

[gigmike]

The framers of the constitution were indeed aware of the less affluent. That's why they created the House of Representatives in addition to the Senate. I too think she's full of it...

 

[yy]

Another interpretation

I skimmed the posts but here's something to think about:

That professor may have a valid point *if*

Pro2A person argues that "we (present company) should refer to the intent of the founding fathers when interpreting the 2A." The general impressions (I) get from reading this forum is that the national guard argument is wrong *because* it conflicts with the founder's intent.

dissenter counters that "the founders were racists and elitists" and so we should not adhere strictly to their intent." This then leads to the conclusion that national guard argument/interpretaion is valid the same way 'separation of church and state' principle somehow became 'no religion in public schools'. So live with it. (thumbs nose)


The following is *not* a good thing to say to someone who gives you your grades, but sometimes the appropriate response is, "God-given right means only God can take away my guns. Are you coming to take them?" Because all the verbal posturing aside, the naked reason self-defense (of person and country) is an inalienable right is because jerks like me will protect it or die trying. and the first person to try to forcibly disarm said jerk gets a bullet. ---That promise of violence lies at the heart of the rights talk.



<soapbox>
... and so no amount of putdown on the founders will ever defeat the 2A because 2A is not defended by words. but by the blood of patriots and tyrants. End of debate.
<end soapbox>





---------
Never rely on scientific instruments or blind logic to help you understand by experience that all things are connected. "You are god and I am god" comes close. Hence compassion to folks, animals, trees, and all.

But dont let this cloud your judgement when it's time to kill or be killed. End it with compassion.

 

[mnrivrat]

"A free people ought not only to be armed and desciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition [which they may choose] to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -George Washington

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
-- Richard Henry Lee, 1787

''What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?'' - Thomas Jefferson

"The militia is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it. The great object is that every man be armed." ~Patrick Henry


And what does the above quotes say about their "intent" ? I'm not in the least bit convinced that they were elitists at a level that didn't include all free citizens in the meaning of word "people" .