Student needs help with anti 2a prof.....

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[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]

Suggestions................

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 )

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 ) 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.....

 

[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....