Had a discussion with my Prof. yesterday

[Stinkyshoe]

Okay so I was discussion a few issues with one of my professors yesterday. We got on the topic of guns, their role in America and who should own then. I quoted part of the 2nd Amendment "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed". At this, my professor promptly asked "who are the people". I answered that common folk like you and me should own guns for protection of ourselves, families, and country. My prof. then asked me how well I understood history. I answered honestly and said not very well(public schools suck). My prof. said that she understood history and knew that 'the people' they were talking about at the time, was refering to the societys elite, and that common folk weren't meant to own guns.

I realize my credibility in a discussion is damaged if I can't say that I know history. But whose version of history? Just because she claims to understand what the founders said, doesn't mean she really does.I think she is truly mistaken about what the founders intended. Even though I can't(at this time) substantiate my views with a solid argument, I believe the founders intended for common folk to have firearms. I guess the bottom line is that it doesn't matter maybe that I "win" in argument(although I need to get my facts straight), but it is sad to know that if some bad guy kicked in her door intending her harm, she won't be able to protect herself.

 

[cslinger]

I am not a historian but I do agree that most laws, docs and such from back in the day were written for The People. White, Male, Land Owning People.

I mean look at the Bill of Rights and then think about the ownership slaves. Doesn't quite jive does it.

I am just playing devil's advocate as I most assuredly agree in everybody's right to keep and bear arms, say what the hell they want, worship who they will etc. etc. whether they be black, white, yellow, green, man or woman.

Chris

 

[kfranz]

The fact that people make choices isn't sad. The fact that people make choices that impact the rights of others in a negative way IS sad.

 

[JL2152]

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.

 

[cslinger]

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.

Absolutely. That is what I was getting at in my post.

Good thing I am a white land owning male. All the guns and free speech I want yippiee!!!!

 

[DragonFire]

I had a few professors like what she sounds like. They understand history as THEIR professors understood it and necessarily have to reject other opinions of it since they don't know it well enough to adjust their understanding.

If the writers of the Constitution meant the 2nd amendment to apply only to the white male elite of the country, and that somehow affects who can own guns today, than wouldn't the same argument apply to the other amendments? So how many other rights is she ready to admit don't apply to her?


History is not an absolute thing. It is written (and rewritten) by the "winners", by the educated and usually by people for were not even "there" at the time it happened. A person who understood history in 1800, would have a different understanding of it than a person who understood it 1900, or today. Every person puts their own spin on things, whether intentional or not.

Too many people, especially politicians, think they know what is "right", and what 'is best" for everyone else. You know in all the arguments/discussions about the 2nd Amendment, I haven't heard too much about why it shouldn't be a right (even if it wasn't, which it is).

 

[Edmond]

The problem with that is that it seems like you're having a discussion with a pretty liberal professor who will interpret the Constitution her liberal way.

 

[Cacique500]

Ask her if she's read the Federalist Papers - anyone who reads those will have NO DOUBT in their mind as to what the framers intent was on the BOR, especially on the Second Amendment.


*I'm not a historian, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night

 

[jefnvk]

Look at the bright side. At least she didn't say it meant it only applies to the NG.

 

[Deathwind]

This is one of the issues inherent in pointing to the Second Amendment when talking about gun control, an anti will distract the entire discussion into a pissing contest of semantics and interpretation. Our RKBA is not predicated upon a piece of paper. Rights are not small and precious commodities, doled out to us by the grace of government as it sees fit, they are imbued, inalienable natural rights. This is exactly the kind of thing many feared when the Bill of Rights was first being written (see Alexander Hamilton), that specifically delineating them could be interpreted and perverted as being the only rights one had, thus constraining liberty instead of guaranteeing it.

 

[thatguy]

Every time the Constitution mentions "the people" it refers to the population as a whole. The only time this concept is ever questioned is by liberals who don't like the Second Amendment and claim that it refers to the National Guard or to state's rights. This is wrong and they know it.

Yes, early America was a racist and classed society. But this was corrected by the 14th Amendment providing equal peotection under the law. It is interesting that this Amendment was written specifically because of gun control laws being passed in Southern states to keep black people from owning firearms. So, your stupid prof. is right in that at the time the Bill of Rights was written it did not apply equally to all. However, that error has been corrected. Does she hold that free speech does not apply to all now because when the 1st Amendment was written only the rich were protected by this law? This whole notion that the Bill of Rights somehow doesn't count any longer because of changing demographics or technology (the Founding Fathers never intedned to protect AK47s!) is total crap. Call her on it.

 

[mhdishere]

The history of our Constitution is that as time goes on more classes of people are included in "people".

In 1776 a free, white, male could exercise the rights enumerated in the Constitution. Later slavery was outlawed, so former slaves were permitted to exercise those rights. Ditto women. The fact that the founding fathers may have been short-sighted in their definition of what constitutes "the people" doesn't mean that the rights they enumerated no longer pertain, if anything they pertain to a wider variety of "people". Jefferson and company, brilliant though they were, were still products of their times.

 

[roscoe]

She is pretty much incorrect if she limits 'the people' to some sort of ruling elite. In some cases they had in mind all land-owning white males, which included the 'yeoman farmer', of which there were quite a few at the time. However, you should note that this pretty much only is relevant to voting; everyone had a right to a trial by jury, right to free speech, etc., who was not a slave. But voting was subject to quite a few shenanigans, such as poll taxes, literacy tests, etc., for poor blacks in the south, for the next 175 years or so. All of that was ruled unconstitutional since they were, after all, citizens.

What she is not telling you is that, at the time, the US Constitution was the most inclusive document as far as defining the citizenry. The fact that it comes up short by modern standards is just her way of making you question the document.

You can be sure that quite a few Minutemen were not land-owners, but they were expected to have the right to own arms.

I have heard many challenges to the second amendment, but this is the weakest by far. The issue of who the constitution applies to has been pretty thoroughly hashed out by the Supreme Court, and the result is that it applies to all of us.

By the way - I highly recommend you start reading world and US history right now; there is no substitute for it if you want to be an informed citizen.

 

[triggertime]

How could the Second Amendment apply to societys 'elite' when the Constitution was
drafted soon after our forefathers fled a tyrant country whos ruler viewed its citizens as commoners and subjects? Why would our forefathers choose to carry over that mindset
when they've just taken up residence in another country and have laid the framework to
prevent tyranny from happening again? It doesn't jive.

It would be interesting to have a discussion with her on the Declaration Of Independence
and to have her expound on the statement "that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

Then you could discuss the Bill of Rights, but since she's obviously a liberal you'd just be
wasting your time.

 

[Dave R]

My prof. said that she understood history and knew that 'the people' they were talking about at the time, was refering to the societys elite, and that common folk weren't meant to own guns.

The main point is, the meaning of "the people" should be the same in all the Amendments of the Bill of Rights. They were all passed at the same time, by the same framers.

So "the people" who can exercise the right to bear arms, are "the people" who can exercise the right to free speech, free assembly, etc.

"The people" who can exercise the right to bear arms are the same people who are protected against unreasonable search and seizure.

They are the same people who are protected against self-incrimination by the 5th amendment.

They are the same people who have the right to a trial by jury.

Please ask your professor if those rights are currently enjoyed only by the elite or by all people.

Follow up question might be whether or why the meaning of "the people" would vary from one amendment in the Bill of Rights to another.

 

[Borachon]

It's laughable how many Professors consider themselves to be in the Elite. One of mine was talking about how important the role of professors are for the maintaining of society.

Being in my last term, and unafraid, I reminded her that before widespread college education, apprenticeships were more common. The company, in effect, would teach you everything it felt you needed to know. A situation that is often the case now after a graduate leaves college and begins his/her internship with a company. I then stated that I felt society could do away with professors entirely and return to an apprenticeship based learning system without suffering any loss of American business.

She immediately lost her temper and began ranting about the importance of professors. She kept insisting I apologize and admit my "error". Which I refused to do. Several days later, she told me to meet her in the Dean's office. I arrived at the time appointed, and was told that careful consideration was being given about whether I would be allowed to graduate. I nodded my head and then asked to use the Dean's phone. I called a number. I then said, "That thing we thought might come up...yeah, it did. Can you talk to him?" My Dean and my attorney both had a very enlightening conversation, and no more mention of my being kicked out of the program occured for the final two weeks of my program.

Professors, in my experience, are petty bullies and are incapable of operating outside of academia. They are addicted to titles, and form, but are very short on substance. Honor and dignity having been replaced by power and greed.

 

[Linux&Gun Guy]

Just tell her that because she is a woman she can't own guns but because your a guy and own land(do you?) you can have all the guns you want.

 

[CentralTexas]

Here is the info you need

http://www.guncite.com/

 

[El Tejon]

Dear Professora Angry Sandal-Wearer:

"The People" means individuals.

XOXO,

The Supreme Court

 

[Standing Wolf]

The fact that the founding fathers may have been short-sighted in their definition of what constitutes "the people" doesn't mean that the rights they enumerated no longer pertain, if anything they pertain to a wider variety of "people". Jefferson and company, brilliant though they were, were still products of their times.

Actually, the founding fathers may not have thought to include everyone, but did include far, far more people than anyone had ever thought to include. Abolishing English aristocracy and deliberately including ordinary land-owning males was a truly radical idea. They rose far above their times.

 

[SMLE]

Granted, the Constitution originally refered only to "Free White Males" BUT, it meant ALL free white males, rich or poor landlord or tenant, herdsman, husbandman, merchant, shop keeper and mechanc. And then there's the Militia Act that REQUIRED ALL of these free white makes to own a MILITARY long arm with a bayonet and to keep a good store of ammunition. The race and gender specific language had been amended out, so in fact, your perfessor could be required to go out and buy herself an M16/AR15 and 200 rounds of ammo and regularly practice with it. IF. of course, the law was enforced in the way the founders envisioned it.

Oleg did a very good poster on this, maybe you should show it to her.

 

[jrpeterman]

If you look back at the American Revolutionary War, most of the elite were officers in the Continental Army or State militia. The majority of the troops were common men such as frontiersmen, farmers, craftsman, etc. It was common practice up through WWI for a soldier to carry home their service rifle and side arms when returning home at the war's end. Many soldiers up to the Spanish-American War supplied or supplimented their own weapons. The Framers of the Constitution intended the civilian population to have the right to bear arms should they be called to arms for their nation's defense and security.

If you look at the preamble of the U.S. Constitution it begins with: "We the People". If you look at the Second Amendment , it states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I would argue that the people that the framers describe in the preamble are the same people referred to under the second amendment.

What's discouraging is that an educator of higher learning is not teaching the subject matter so the student is able to form their own opinion, but instead is using their own biased opinion to teach and formulate the student's opinion on the subject matter.

 

[mnrivrat]

Quote : "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams


Guess Sam was wrong huh ?

 

[Stinkyshoe]

Thank you gents for your replies to this thread. I realize my inability to defend my beliefs in spiritual, political and academic fields is directly related to my lack of study(which I am systematically working on). I certainly will use your thought and comments as places to start my search for substantial arguments.

I really don't wish for a discussion with someone like my prof. to turn into a arguement. Really it is easy to tell when you back her into a corner. She replies that the world is full of diverse opinions and I am certainly entitled to have these strong feelings for something obviously so important to my identity(blah patooie).

Perhaps one on the points brought up that really makes a lot of sense is her definition of 'people' in the 2nd Amend. being different than the definition in the first amend. But I suspect that I need to prepare myself with facts and substantial commentary to be able to key hole this one.

Individuals who deny others the most basic right of bearing arms do not recognize natural law(basically the imprinting of fundamental human 'morality') I believe she is to idealistic about peace in the world to realize that thinking the world to be a better place and being passive, only makes her a more likely target of rape or robbery. Most men(even the good guys) fear and respect an armed and trained woman(geez I know I do for sure, but respect should certainly exist anyway). I respect my prof's right to be wrong, but not to play victim.

 

[mnrivrat]

Qoute: "I realize my inability to defend my beliefs in spiritual, political and academic fields is directly related to my lack of study"

Only partly so . That is why society struggles with issues such as the right to keep and bear arms.

There are always those who will play with words and muck up sound facts, good reasoning, and sound logic with symantics . Or as Bill Clinton would say - it depends on what you mean by " is". (or something simular to that) .

I am a land owning white male - it would be interesting to know what your professor considers me . An elite, or a commoner ? Am I a "people" or a common folk not protected by the US constitution ? Is she a member of this group called people ? The elite ! or is she common folk to whom the constitution gives no protection to ?

I'm not sure there is a good substitute difinition for an educated fool .