Today’s youth and the 2nd amendment

(Hopefully it is appropriate to post this here.)

Hello All. I meant to post this a couple of months ago, I thought this group might find it interesting. I serve on a committee awarding a handful of scholarships, and the application requires an essay regarding “a newsworthy and controversial issue”. We received over 200 applications, and I thought I’d share some findings.

Not surprisingly, ~75% of the essays involved school security or second amendment issues in some form.

The applicant pool was diverse geographically (within the US), racially, economically, and presumably politically. The only shared characteristic is that the nature of the organization required that they have at least one parent working in a manufacturing organization, but that could be the CEO or the janitor. A couple of students were the children of legal immigrants. They wrote these as high school seniors through collegiate juniors, with about a 40-60 mix between high school and college. Age was not listed, but presumably they were between 17 and 22.

From what we read and see today in the media, one would assume that this group is a lost cause when it comes to understanding these issues. From what I read, that is not the case at all. There were a few outliers, but almost every essay recognized the legal standing and the importance of someone being able to defend themselves, their family, and their property and that a gun is a tool to do so. Almost all recognized that school security is a much broader issue than deciding who gets to carry a gun when and where. With maybe one or two exceptions, all recognized the rights of responsible and law-abiding sportsmen to possess and use firearms.

Views were mixed on the application of background checks, waiting periods, restoration of rights to those formerly convicted, mental health screening, and some of the finer points of the issues. While I disagreed with a lot of the commentary and believed a lot of it impractical, I found them generally to be aimed at problem solving and not finger pointing. (I expected to see anti-NRA and anti-gun sentiment – the actual essays maybe didn’t agree with where most of us would fall on these issues, but were a point to a logical conversation.)

Where I can see that the 2nd amendment advocates are failing in their message is the true mechanics of how firearms are designed to operate. Many, many essays expressed limitations toward “assault weapons”, “military-style rifles”, “machine guns”, “automatic weapons”, etc., without an understanding of what those terms are supposed to mean or how some of the limitations they are suggesting would actually affect 90% of firearms, not the 5% they think it would. The antis may not be winning the war, but they are winning this battle with these kinds of misnomers creeping into the everyday conversation. THIS NEEDS TO BE A STRONGER POINT OF THE FIREARM ADVOCATES' MESSAGE.

All in all, I was much more pleased with what I reviewed than I expected to be. I fully expected most students to want to eliminate all guns and be fully willing to rely on police/government regulation. Like I stated earlier, this was not the case at all. The applicants understood the need to protect our rights and ourselves. I’m posting it here because I know this issue is central to a lot of outdoorsmen, and I thought I’d point out that the future is not as bleak as it might appear to be on the news.

In a sort of segue to this topic, there is a world wide movement to topple existing governments and ruling bodies. Including presidents. The trouble is, people take/hold one view: get rid of the existing thing I don’t believe in and replace it with one I do. But they don’t think beyond that one issue: they all just want to be the leader.

In the case of gun control, is anyone campaigning on the allowed use of plain old shotguns, rifles and pistols as was the case when the 2nd amendment was written? No, they’re advocating for what they want in terms of “today”. And there doesn’t seem to be any thought to the simplicity of the time of the constitutional writings compared to the complex nature of multiple shot magazines, bump stocks, silencers, assault type rifles, policing groups, the standing (paid/professional) military we have today.

We’re not thinking our history through enough to appreciate what we want vs what was written. Nor are we thinking beyond our own wants vs that of the whole country. Being president or king doesn’t mean you have the unity of thought by the whole country. It takes a leader capable of getting everybody on board for that to happen. Essay contests like give us a baseline of thought with which we can work. And this is a good starting point.

More think and less action is needed right now

As a hunter, but mostly as an American, I dang sure would not give my vote to anyone wanting to limit the guns we can own to those that were available when the 2nd Amendment was written!

But, spoken like a true liberal as always Teacher.

I would say sure I will take exactly what the colonists had , and that was everything the standing professional army had and better. cannon , musket and rifle.

it is not about a set moment in time the people had just seen the greatest advancement in arms history and they had them before the regulars.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand??????
Also, a militia is necessary in case the government gets out of control. Will muskets, cannons, and such really keep a government in check today? NO- so we need large magazine capacity, bump stocks and yes even automatics, but God forbid free people have everything.

Libertards are idiots!!!!

Are you saying that the second amendment only applies to the arms of the day?

Are you saying that because the founders couldn't foresee the internet the protections provided by the constitution shouldn't apply to the internet?

Yes, what Trapper4 said. The left has made us afraid to say the true purpose of the 2md amendment lest we be viewed as right wing extremists. That purpose is to keep power in the hands of the people rather than relinquishing it to a ruling class by ensuring the people maintain the military capability to change their government. Retain that capability and it will never be necessary to take up arms. Disarm the people at the peril of losing all the liberties you hold dear, and any other liberties the government decides to take.

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or shooting sports, it's not just about personal defense or protection of your home and property, it's about being able to defend your liberties against tyranny. Tyranny by a government unresponsive to your needs and desires (as in the case of King George and the British Parliament), and the tyranny of the majority who might decide you should no longer be allowed to protect yourself, your property, or your liberties. Be true to the US Constitution and defend the 2nd Amendment on the basis with which it was included in the Constitution.

Completely lost as usual. You just don't and will never get it. I would say that you embarrass yourself but you lack the intelligence to even realize it.

Nailed it right here. Well done!

And again in true form, Teacher has picked up the wrong ball and is running with it. Ya just can't fix stupid. How about taking the warning labels of cereal packets. That should weed those mental bonsais out in a week I would think.

You have obviously never read Scalia's writings for the majority in Heller v DC

Where I can see that the 2nd amendment advocates are failing in their message is the true mechanics of how firearms are designed to operate. Many, many essays expressed limitations toward “assault weapons”, “military-style rifles”, “machine guns”, “automatic weapons”, etc., without an understanding of what those terms are supposed to mean or how some of the limitations they are suggesting would actually affect 90% of firearms, not the 5% they think it would. The antis may not be winning the war, but they are winning this battle with these kinds of misnomers creeping into the everyday conversation. THIS NEEDS TO BE A STRONGER POINT OF THE FIREARM ADVOCATES' MESSAGE.

This,..it is a constant and continuous battle trying to educate those defunct in it's explanation. There truly is a
disconnect between rural and urban assertions concerning firearm applications. Millennial's pose a unique problematic
equation. A constant continuous bombardment of NRA hatred,interspersed within anti-capitalist rhetoric!
This is a newly formed voting block that should not be ignored,..they are being organized and manipulated,dependent
upon social media" treats". They excuse themselves as respondents to media"Truisms"
Just finished watching 20 minutes of some late night,.one would think"communist comedian" bashing Trump and his admin.
Oh well,almost two years in now and they feel so limited!

The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms in case there is no standing militia to protect us. Our military budget is huge. One can not say, in good conscience, that we don’t have a standing militia.

I believe the original post by Preassure 9pa called for more education of young people about the words they’re using to describe what they think they want. This is a good place to start rather than everyone here acting like they’re all constitutional scholars and limiting this discussion to a narrow point of view. Lighten up, people!

ill lighten up when you quit trying to take my freedom

Yes, his original post was interesting. Then you started blathering.

To get rid of or limit the Second amendment, you must first make the argument that we as American citizens are not responsible enough to keep a firearm, that we can not be trusted. (rich people, politicians and Hollywood types excepted).

See those two little words there? Sure, our military is fairly healthy today under Trump, but who's to say what it will look like 100 years from now.

Also, what happens if we have to fight our military... you know, the way the people that wrote the constitution did?

Teacher said

I am very afraid of who you might be teaching. You repeatedly demonstrate a complete ignorance on the subject of the 2nd Amendment but have the arrogance to lecture others on what you believe it to mean. It is behavior quite typical of a "progressive." To make it worse you criticize those of us who have educated ourselves on the issue for having done so. You should take the time to study the issue first and then criticize if you have a basis. Do what White17 said and read Scalia and read the Heller decision. Also read The Federalist Papers. Even though they were written before the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, it shows the mindset of the founding fathers with regard to what became the 2nd Amendment.

WE are the standing militia. It makes zero sense to say that the Gov't army is the militia because the whole thing was set up for us, we the people to be able to protect ourselves from tyranny. You don't seem to believe in the 2nd so do you also not believe SCOTUS rulings either? Miller says, guns that are currently being used by the military, Heller says it's OUR individual right to keep and bear arms, McDonald says that it applies to the states. Our youth is being fed a lot of nonsense and untruths from people just like you.

You can call a friend to ask what it means or ask the audience.

[quote=Teacher]The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms in case there is no standing militia to protect us. Our military budget is huge. One can not say, in good conscience, that we don’t have a standing militia.

WRONG It has NOTHING to do with a standing military force. The military can not act inside the US. The military is not to protect you from tyrannical government.

The Militia of the time when the 2A was conceived and written was the citizen-soldier. Look at Switzerland today. EVERYONE serves at least 2 years, and they can take their rifle home with them. That is a true "force in waiting" and more likely what the founding fathers envisioned.

The second Amendment doesn't give us anything ! It prohibits government from infringing an inherent, unalienable, God-given right.

The Supreme Court has clearly stated...in black and white...that the protections guaranteed by the second amendment are in NO WAY tied to service in any militia nor dependent on the existence of a standing army or other armed force.

As I mentioned above....go read Scalia.

Excellent explanation White. Hopefully teacher educates himself before he continues to teach others.

Well stated White!!!!! Free people do not need to explain freedom! Hard to believe that anyone would try to limit the freedoms so many have died to preserve. Ridiculous. My apologies to all who have served to maintain our freedoms. Although the left would have you think they are the majority, they are not!
If you do not LOVE freedom, then move to another country!!!
Freedom is what America was founded upon. The original drafters of the Constitution wrote it to prevent what they had just left- TYRANNY!
Teacher, why are you even on such a forum with your liberal views. You may be more accepted on Hillary's forum, she is always looking for people that she can think for!

Very cute toon hyena,Scuba ! I like him

Sentiments well articulated and researched, Sir Ken . Thank you .

Your patience and info will surely educate those open to updating , honing or sharpening their mind's library of life's refinements. Most, anyway......

I find it fascinating when I learned who/what has been the undercurrent of these marches, movements, and interference to choke freedoms of the 2A .....what sources they are rooted from .

What better way to try that control than infiltrating the teaching segments over time, guiding students who dont have a clue.

I surely would not want anyone dictating to me what I am "allowed" to own , no matter what the type , or what accessory I would choose in its decor

In a home invasion or any circumstance, would that restrictive mindset make effort to assist me then ?

Or would'nt they rather feel relief that my legal Mossburg pump , .45 ACP , or any other firearm of my choosing would suffice in day or night , tipping the scales in my favour ? If tables were turned and it was themselves or someone beloved to them, would'nt they feel the same relief ?

Or if I choose to hunt with any of the same , or something else? Or simply having fun with clays or targets ?

Once one type firearm is restricted , that surely will open more loopholes to do the same with others .

There isnt any sort of assistance in many rural areas when dire circumstances arise.....the west here especially . Half the time cell service isnt working due to sheer ruggedness of the mountains . In five minutes a lot- too much can transpire . Anyone in such vast territory where help isnt a phone call away , needs to be a doer in decisiveness using whatever they desire .

Aside from that , in any circumstance , not just for reason of the aforementioned , the 2A alone is reason enough for anywhere .

"The second Amendment doesn't give us anything ! It prohibits government from infringing an inherent, unalienable, God-given right.

The Supreme Court has clearly stated...in black and white...that the protections guaranteed by the second amendment are in NO WAY tied to service in any militia nor dependent on the existence of a standing army or other armed force.

As I mentioned above....go read Scalia." ..... Succinctly , clearly stated !


At any rate, the undercurrent of all this is not with the "protection of the individual" in mind.....but control of the collective .

Think there's a connection between the students in the survey and the teachers comments?

There otta be a law!

Herd mentality ; herd em all in one direction slowly over time. Now they are all in one field incapable or unaware of knowing how they got there.

"The second Amendment doesn't give us anything ! It prohibits government from infringing an inherent, unalienable, God-given right". (white17)

Exactly!

How many teachers (let alone young folks) know that the philosophy the founding fathers had when drafting the Bill of Rights is that our rights come from God. It doesn't really matter if you believe in God or not, the philosophy still holds that our rights are not granted to us by the government or anyone else. Therefore, no one can take away our rights.

I doubt that any other Country on earth holds that position (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Anyone who says that our Constitution is a "living breathing document" really means that they want to edit or delete something from it. Be very suspicious of these people's motives.

Of course our Bill of Rights can be expanded, and it has been several times by adding newly recognized Rights. Sometimes I don't agree with some of the new Rights (or SCOTUS decisions that expand certain Rights) but I have to accept them.

What we have to be careful of are Constitutional amendments that would restrict our actions or expressions; such as, prohibition (alcohol), flag burning, etc., even if we believe that something like flag burning is reprehensible we shouldn't be creating laws that prevent expression of something we dislike.

For the life of me I can not fathom how the left believes that in the bill of rights, of which there are ten, 9 of them pertain to individual liberties and the other is for a "militia".