Armed With More Than Education
I ran across this story today and found that, much to my surprise, I had seriously mixed feelings about it.
In a nutshell, a teacher in Ashland, Oregon, who has a restraining order against her obviously violent ex-husband, wants to be able to bring her gun to school. She has a concealed-carry permit and I can truly understand her need to protect herself. However, as the school district reminded her, their policy prohibits anyone, except a law enforcement officer, from bringing a weapon onto a campus.
As a person who has, more than once, been on the receiving end of violent behavior, I immediately understood why this teacher carries a gun. Statistics show that, outside Seattle, restraining orders provide very little protection against a person who is determined to do harm. I mean, think about it. When facing an attacker, flashing a legal document isn't going to stop a bullet or a beating.
However, as a parent, I don't want weapons to get into my child's school - no matter why. Talk to a law enforcement official about the wisdom of keeping a gun in your home and they will tell you that, in too many cases, these weapons end up being used against the owner. And then, after you're dead, there is one more gun in the wrong hands. Unless you are well-trained and truly prepared to kill someone, you have no business with a gun - personal opinion.
Then, of course, there's the Second Amendment argument, about the right to keep and bear arms, that I just knew would come into play. However, I believe that the argument is incorrect in this usage.
"In the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, in England and the British Colonies, the militia system was based on the principle of the Twelfth Century Assize of Arms, where there was general obligation of adult males to possess arms and cooperate in the work of defense." ^ Osgood, Herbert Levi : The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century , Page 499. Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1904.
"United States federal courts have consistently interpreted the federal right to bear arms in United States as the modified collective right, not an individual right." Holder, Angela Roddy: The Meaning of the Constitution, Page 64. Barron's Educational Series, 1997. ISBN 0764100998
What do you think?
In a nutshell, a teacher in Ashland, Oregon, who has a restraining order against her obviously violent ex-husband, wants to be able to bring her gun to school. She has a concealed-carry permit and I can truly understand her need to protect herself. However, as the school district reminded her, their policy prohibits anyone, except a law enforcement officer, from bringing a weapon onto a campus.
As a person who has, more than once, been on the receiving end of violent behavior, I immediately understood why this teacher carries a gun. Statistics show that, outside Seattle, restraining orders provide very little protection against a person who is determined to do harm. I mean, think about it. When facing an attacker, flashing a legal document isn't going to stop a bullet or a beating.
However, as a parent, I don't want weapons to get into my child's school - no matter why. Talk to a law enforcement official about the wisdom of keeping a gun in your home and they will tell you that, in too many cases, these weapons end up being used against the owner. And then, after you're dead, there is one more gun in the wrong hands. Unless you are well-trained and truly prepared to kill someone, you have no business with a gun - personal opinion.
Then, of course, there's the Second Amendment argument, about the right to keep and bear arms, that I just knew would come into play. However, I believe that the argument is incorrect in this usage.
"In the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, in England and the British Colonies, the militia system was based on the principle of the Twelfth Century Assize of Arms, where there was general obligation of adult males to possess arms and cooperate in the work of defense." ^ Osgood, Herbert Levi : The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century , Page 499. Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1904.
"United States federal courts have consistently interpreted the federal right to bear arms in United States as the modified collective right, not an individual right." Holder, Angela Roddy: The Meaning of the Constitution, Page 64. Barron's Educational Series, 1997. ISBN 0764100998
What do you think?
Don't forget to visit JMark Afghans and My Gallery at Zazzle
We also have a page on Squidoo that supports the Genocide Intervention Network.
We look forward to seeing you online.
God Bless!
Jules
posted by JMarkAfghans @ 4:41 PM
2 Comments:
At September 20, 2007 5:56:00 AM MST,
GreatBlueWhale said…
I understand your mixed feelings, however:
1. The School District is a government entity forbidden by Oregon law from entering any area of firearms regulation. If so, their policy is illegal on its face.
2. Every person has the right to defend themselves. Sometimes deadly force is necessary. As you pointed out, if someone is chasing you with a knife or a shotgun, waving a piece of paper seems pretty foolish.
3. Weapons will not harm your children if they are in the hands of responsible people. If the people teaching your children are not responsible, why have you placed them in the school?
4. Anecdotal evidence of weapons being used against their owners is unreliable and though it occasionally happens, the actual incidence is much, much lower than you would expect. However, the incidence of violence against people who are unarmed is very, very high and undeniable.
5. You are correct. If you are not willing to use a firearm or any other weapon when you draw it, you should not be carrying. Otherwise, you are the kind of person who has their weapon taken away and used against them.
6. The 2nd Amendment does not grant the individual right to keep and bear arms. This civil right, as do all our rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are pre-existing rights of men (and women)which the Constitution merely recognizes. A state cannot be secure if its citizens are not secure. A citizen's right to self-defense against criminals is as basic to the security of the state as a militia; otherwise there is no rule of law, only anarchy. Both English and American common law recognize a right to self defense.
7. Courts have NOT consistently held there is only a collective right to keep and bear arms. In fact, they have consistently held exactly the opposite. (Unless the Ninth Circuit is your only point of reference) Even in Miller, often hailed as the key case in support of only a collective right, the ruling only stated the Court's opinion that the particular firearm in question was not suitable for use by militia, an incorrect opinion on its face since shotguns are used every day by the military forces of many nations, not that Miller did not have the individual right to own ANY firearm. The courts most recently found SPECIFICALLY AGAINST the collective rights argument in the case which has become D.C vs. Heller.
All the above are facts. My opinion is that Ms. Doe has the legal right to carry at her place of employment. If she is disciplined for exercising that legal right, she should sue her employer for a violation of her civil rights. She should not have to sue to exercise that right any more than she should have to sue to obtain her right to free speech.
At September 20, 2007 8:03:00 PM MST,
JMarkAfghans said…
Thank you, so much, for your comment. I greatly enjoy hearing from readers who have an actual opinion, rather than just a rant.
Please continue to read and comment.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home