I am enrolled in a private Catholic university (I'm not Catholic though). I am in a class - Sociology 314 - Sociology of Law, and I can't believe the liberal propaganda that flows from that classroom!

The guy teaching it is a priest who holds a PHD in sociology, and has been teaching this class for several years. He also claims to be a respected criminologist that has been appointed to the MT state Juvenile Justice Committe.

But he doesn't know what he's talking about!

Today's class time consisted of a screening of "Bowling For Columbine!" Then a short lecture about how the Second Amendment doesn't confirm an individual right.

I challenged him, and he said the Supreme Court has ruled many times that it is only a right reserved to state government controlled militias - the National Guard - and not to individuals.

I said the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Second Amendment is only a state right.

He said, "Every time Congress passes a gun control law someone challenges it and it goes up to the Supreme Court."

I started to show him a print out of Title 10 U.S. Code section 311, which says,

"EXPCITE-
   TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
   Subtitle A - General Military Law
   PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
   CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
   Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
     (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
   males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
   313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
   declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
   and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
   National Guard.
     (b) The classes of the militia are -
       (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
     and the Naval Militia; and
       (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
     the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
     Naval Militia.
-SOURCE-
   (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7),
   Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V,
   Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)"

but he refused to look at it, and said, "Don't argue with me. Argue with the Supreme Court."

Don't show him that alone.

Get the Federalist Papers and also compare the state constitutions that were drafted at dates after the federal constitution.

Some states have wording more deliberate and definite than anything stated in the US Constitution.    If those things don't go to prove what the framers of the constitution were thinking and the general mind set of that day, I don't know what does.

Your instructor is a closed minded asshat.    I would have got up and walked out when the Bowling for Columbine crap started playing.     I don't need some fat bastard to tell me that something is broken with the society/culture of the US and it's proclivity towards violence but it hasn't got shit to do with guns or availability of guns.

He even refused to look at the precedent I offered, which showed that the Supreme Court understood that the Second Amendment does Provide for an individual RKBA.

Here's what I printed out -

"In Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 , 29 L. ed. 615, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580, it was held that the Second Amendment to the Constitution, in regard to the right of the people to bear arms, is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states. It was therein said, however, that as all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government the states could not prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. "

Full text of the case

Didn't you draw down on him when he was rude and didn't read your print out? Make him beg for his life in front of the class. That'll school him.

Serves you right for taking a sociology course.  Lamest academic "discipline" ever.

He teaches. There is no requirement for him to learn.

Quoted: Don't show him that alone. Get the Federalist Papers and also compare the state constitutions that were drafted at dates after the federal constitution. Some states have wording more deliberate and definite than anything stated in the US Constitution.   If those things don't go to prove what the framers of the constitution were thinking and the general mind set of that day, I don't know what does. Your instructor is a closed minded asshat.    I would have got up and walked out when the Bowling for Columbine crap started playing.     I don't need some fat bastard to tell me that something is broken with the society/culture of the US and it's proclivity towards violence but it hasn't got shit to do with guns or availability of guns.

Oh, I didn't. I left him with 20 pages of quotes from the Founders (including some of the Federalist) in addition to Title 10 U.S.C.
I asked him to look at it and let me know what he thinks next class, but his smug attitude didn't leave me very optomistic.

Sociology is a fascinating subject.

My Univ Soc. professor carried a big ass knife on his briefcase and we often talked about knives on the breaks and after class. A very cool gentleman with his feet on the ground.

Of course, just a friend of mine and myself liked the guy, all other assholes complained to the faculty because his behavior...

Quoted: He even refused to look at the precedent I offered, which showed that the Supreme Court understood that the Second Amendment does Provide for an individual RKBA.

If he even refuses to look, his mind is made up on the issue.  Evidence to the contrary could shake his beliefs, and therefore evidence must be dismissed out of hand (re: argue with the Supreme Court, not me).

My Writing teacher today mentioned several times that most of the wealth is controlled by the upper 5%.  She even alluded to doing it intentionally to get us as mad as she is about it.  

Quoted: Serves you right for taking a sociology course.  Lamest academic "discipline" ever.

I know. One of the professors in my major field of study - political science - always says this of sociology, "It is nothing but conjecture and a bunch of half-assed generalizations."

HAHA

I think I agree, but I need to finish 36 credits this year to graduate in the spring, and I want to go to law school so it sounded like an interesting topic.

All my economics professors mocked sociology relentlessly.  One day we came into class, all the desks were arranged in a circle.  My professor said "Looks like the last class was getting in touch with their feelings.  Must have been a sociology class."

I checked the room schedule posted by the door......yep.  Sociology.

Here's a sampling of some quotes that I left him with:

Jefferson on Gun Sports

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walk.
- Thomas Jefferson, Foley, ed., Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson, p. 318.
________________________________________
Jefferson on the Militia

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security.
- Thomas Jefferson, Eighth Annual Message, November 8, 1808
________________________________________
Madison on the Militia

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.
- James Madison, in the Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-44

An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government.
- James Madison, Eighth Annual Message, December 3, 1816
________________________________________

Tench Coxe on the Second Amendment

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
- Tench Coxe in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
________________________________________

Hamilton on Arms

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

You can disagree (which you should), but be prepared to do poorly grade wise.

I did that (disagree) in a HS German language class on pronounciation, I did for shit grades with that teacher.

Quoted: but he refused to look at it, and said, "Don't argue with me. Argue with the Supreme Court."

Next time he says that shout "Appealing to authority is a classic logical fallacy argument when you have no ability to defend your OWN position! "


OR... if you want to pass the class, play his game and throw this at him:

US CONSTITUTION:

1) We the People of the United States...

2) The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States...

3) ...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

4) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

5) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

6) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

7) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

8) The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years;

9) ...the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.


Nine times the words "the people" are used in the Constitution.

NINE times.

And in EACH and EVERY occurance, the words "the people" mean exactly what they appear to mean... "THE PEOPLE".

Only willful ignorance would lead someone to conclude that when the framers of the Constitution wrote the words "the people" - they meant "the people" each and every time EXCEPT for one time when they decided to use the words "the people" to mean something entirely different - such as "the militia" or "the state" - especially in a sentence that already contains the words "Militia" and "State".

If they meant to say "right of the Militia to keep and bear arms" they would have said "right of the Militia to keep and bear arms".

But they didn't.

And in fact, the Constitution ALREADY makes provisions for "arming the militia" under Article I Section 8 where it delegates the power to "arm" the militia to Congress! WHY would the 2nd Amendment be written to protect the right of "the militia" to be armed when the Constitution ALREADY provides for arming the militia??? That is utterly irrational!

Besides, it makes absolutely NO SENSE to imply that "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" because neither the "militia" nor "states" have any rights at all because only PEOPLE have rights! The 9th Amendment makes that PERFECTLY clear to all but those who refuse to accept plain English.

And lastly, the Supreme Court has ALREADY commented very recently that the words "the people" in the 2nd Amendment mean the same thing as "the people" in the 1st, 9th, and 10th amendments:

U.S. Supreme Court U.S. v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) "The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

The SCOTUS did NOT imply that "the people" in the 2nd Amendment were a special class of citizens called "the militia" but rather just like in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendment - "the people" means "THE  PEOPLE"!

Quoted: You can disagree (which you should), but be prepared to do poorly grade wise. I did that (disagree) in a HS German language class on pronounciation, I did for shit grades with that teacher.

I know. I felt somewhat hesitant for that reason, but I couldn't sit there and let those kids continue to be brainwashed. Besides I did it in a nice way, and it was as class was ending and people were packing up to go, so he wasn't really put on the spot.

When I handed him the papers that I had printed out it was only the two of us in the room.

You could force him to agree with you at gunpoint.

Quoted: Quoted: but he refused to look at it, and said, "Don't argue with me. Argue with the Supreme Court." Next time he says that shout "Appealing to authority is a classic logical fallacy argument when you have no ability to defend your OWN position! " OR... if you want to pass the class, play his game and throw this at him: US CONSTITUTION: 1) We the People of the United States... 2) The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States... 3) ...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 4) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 5) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... 6) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 7) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 8) The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; 9) ...the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. Nine times the words "the people" are used in the Constitution. NINE times. And in EACH and EVERY occurance, the words "the people" mean exactly what they appear to mean... "THE PEOPLE". Only willful ignorance would lead someone to conclude that when the framers of the Constitution wrote the words "the people" - they meant "the people" each and every time EXCEPT for one time when they decided to use the words "the people" to mean something entirely different - such as "the militia" or "the state" - especially in a sentence that already contains the words "Militia" and "State". If they meant to say "right of the Militia to keep and bear arms" they would have said "right of the Militia to keep and bear arms". But they didn't. And in fact, the Constitution ALREADY makes provisions for "arming the militia" under Article I Section 8 where it delegates the power to "arm" the militia to Congress! WHY would the 2nd Amendment be written to protect the right of "the militia" to be armed when the Constitution ALREADY provides for arming the militia??? That is utterly irrational! Besides, it makes absolutely NO SENSE to imply that "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" because neither the "militia" nor "states" have any rights at all because only PEOPLE have rights! The 9th Amendment makes that PERFECTLY clear to all but those who refuse to accept plain English. And lastly, the Supreme Court has ALREADY commented very recently that the words "the people" in the 2nd Amendment mean the same thing as "the people" in the 1st, 9th, and 10th amendments: U.S. Supreme Court U.S. v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) "The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. The SCOTUS did NOT imply that "the people" in the 2nd Amendment were a special class of citizens called "the militia" but rather just like the 1st Amendment - "the people" mean "THE  PEOPLE"!

Hey thanks for posting that case! I'm going to look at the rest of it and show it to him later (the next time I feel like tearing my hair out, which shouldn't be far off. It's been that way the whole 3.5 years I 've spent at this "Liberal Arts University").

The priest must be a Jesuit- they can hold some pretty bizarre, un-Catholic beliefs, in my experience.

Your first mistake was taking anything in sociology. A truly useless waste of faculty office space and classrooms.

When in the liberal arts, you should always remember the main points you are supposed to learn in any of the LA disciplines:

"Capitalism is the root of all evil"

and

"The white man is the devil".




Here is your diploma, already mounted in a display frame....




Now go home, several thousand dollars poorer.

.

Quoted: ... The guy gay guy teaching it is a priest ... .

Sorry, butt that says it all. You will only know if he is open to the obvious if he at least READS the printout of the post by The_Macallan.

I would keep bringing it up, making sure the class is following.  When he refuses to discuss it, don't give your evidence to him- give a copy of the evidence to everyone in the class.  Most people will probably not even bother with it, but if even a few read it and understand, maybe they will help press the issue.

If the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard, how does he explain the fact that for over 100 years after ratification, the National Guard didn't exist?

Or why does "the people" in the other Amendments magically mean something different than "the people" in the 2nd Amendment?  

The most uneducated people I know have master's degrees.  Sounds like this fuckwit fits right in with that stereotype.

tagged for further reading...

TC

Quick lesson bud, don't in front of the class argue with the teacher or make him look foolish, it could lead to "bad" grades. Sad but true.

Quoted: You could force him to agree with you at gunpoint.

He would probably be shocked that a National Guard student was in his classroom.

If your scared of Profs like many others, just wait till the end of the semester and expose him for being a fraud. Kind of hard to fail someone at the end. I've never let facts get in the way of my grades before. I may not have a 4.0, but I didn't let myself nor classmates get submitted to any brainwashing either. If you do it right in class, you may be surprised at the outcome.

Here's a good one to slap him with. "A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders." --- Larry Elders

Actually Sociology is an utterly fascinating subject. I guess you need the right teacher.

Idiots will be idiots no matter what their stripe. He doesn't like guns so he justifies using his teaching as a way to influence young people to not like guns. This is - no matter what the subject - the true danger in many learning institutions. They're not just trying to teach, they're trying to indoctrinate.

So long as you (and importantly, your children someday) have the mental BS strainer to see this junk for what it is, great, take from the class what you can and leave the rest. Unfortunately not everyone has that strainer.

You should DEFINANTLYdisagree w/ him but your grades may suffer. I had a VERY liberal HS History teacher and we frequently butted heads over things like guns and Vietnam. I have ALWAYS been a straight A student in history but I only got a C in his class even though ALL my test grdes were mostly A's

There are two anti-gunners: The one's that have been misguided and you can lead them to the right path, then you have your 'dismiss the facts' people. They go by feelings. So make the feel some copper and lead 'feel' through them!

Quoted: Actually Sociology is an utterly fascinating subject. I guess you need the right teacher.

+1

While Sociology is often not the most rigorous (or "scientific") of disciplines, it CAN be very interested.  My minor is in Sociology, and when I was at Northwestern we had some real big shots in the field - like Stinchcombe, Granovetter, Cook, and others, on the faculty.  Taking classes with top researchers like that was a real pleasure, and very illuminating.

Any professors that bring their personal politics into the classroom should be fired. That kind of stuff really pisses me off

I agree with DK-Prof, sociology was interesting - I didn't minor but took 2-3 classes IIRC. Liberals use it as the "see why" a group are what they are. It is voodoo justification why people behaving badly behave badly and why they continue to do so. I say, ok good - a good study, but when does one take on PERSONAL responsibility.

My Sociology class was pretty much an entire class on Marxism. I couldn't stand it, and some of the idiots in my class.

I even had one idiot raise his hand and ask "If there are so few rich people in this country [percent wise] how do republicans get elected to office?"

tag.  This thread has some good information!

I lived in Montana for 23 years, what college is this???!!!

Quoted: If your scared of Profs like many others, just wait till the end of the semester and expose him for being a fraud. Kind of hard to fail someone at the end. I've never let facts get in the way of my grades before. I may not have a 4.0, but I didn't let myself nor classmates get submitted to any brainwashing either. If you do it right in class, you may be surprised at the outcome.

The teacher sounds like a fraud to me...


Since when is Michael Moore a credible source of information in academia?
The "documentaries" that he has made have been proven to be full of exagerations and lies.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Seriously... I believe the teacher is a fucking fraud. He is not presenting credible information to his students.

Quoted: Quoted: You can disagree (which you should), but be prepared to do poorly grade wise. I did that (disagree) in a HS German language class on pronounciation, I did for shit grades with that teacher. I know. I felt somewhat hesitant for that reason, but I couldn't sit there and let those kids continue to be brainwashed. Besides I did it in a nice way, and it was as class was ending and people were packing up to go, so he wasn't really put on the spot. When I handed him the papers that I had printed out it was only the two of us in the room.

Well, if you want to change his mind, why don't you put together an airtight case?  If I wanted to convince him of something, here's what I'd do.  I'd ask specific questions about statements he's made.  Once I got his feedback and I believe he's wrong, I'd say Hey bud, I think you're wrong, and I want to give you written documentation to that effect.  What is a credible source of information that you would accept?

See what he says.  If you can get a good question asked, line up sources that HE accepts as credible, and you can document your case to his satisfaction, then you got yourself a winner.  You could even possibly go over the top and provide additional documentation from SC opinions on this matter, which is a source he supposedly would see as credible.

Collections of quotes...  Maybe he'll like em but then again maybe they're out of context.

Quoted: Quoted: Serves you right for taking a sociology course.  Lamest academic "discipline" ever. I know. One of the professors in my major field of study - political science - always says this of sociology, "It is nothing but conjecture and a bunch of half-assed generalizations."

Accurate description. Sociology relies on stats, samples and surveys for data. It's an attempt to reduce the study of social interaction to a pie-chart. It's the study of communities, primarily cities and industrialized societies, with an aim towards engineering those societies into something allegedly better.

Sociology, at it's core is a Socialist discipline. The founders of the "science" of Sociolgy in the 1800's, Emile Durkheim for example, were enthusiastic supporters of Marx.

Sociologists, among others, also gave us Political Correctness. There we few Anthropologists involved, because they would've ruined the feel good, PC  belief that King Tut looked like Eddie Murphy, among other things.


ckmorley

Honestly, I enjoyed my sociology professors and classes because I got to hear about lots of insightful observational studies of humaan behavior.  

Like others on this board, I am a university professor and you did fine.  But I will say this,  when faced with a professor who is just plain wrong it often works better to meet with him.her during office hours to make your case.  Professors can get defensive even when they are correct let alone when they are wrong.  

Try again during office hours if your interested in actually persuading him.  

This is what work for me (because I have to argue with my fellow profs all the time).  
1. Acknowlewdge that many people debate this point.
2.  You made a different judgment than his.
3. Present the criterion by which you make your judgement.
4.  Present the points that meet the criterion for your judgment of the situation.  
5.  Ask what he thinks your analysis of the situation.

If he ever was a true academic, he will respect you.  He may try to rebute and disagreee still, but he will respect you if he is an academic.

Just tell him that the fucking Nazis who killed all those Catholic Priests in Poland and other lands agree with his views 100%.

Gun Control - Faceism Approved!

He's a Piled Higher and Deeper who probably has numerous scripts he's developed over the years on the evils of firearms he spouts off at liberal gatherings to impress the chai drinkers. You'll never change his agenda.

I have been doing some reading at GunCite and they seem to have quite a bit of good info about the 2nd Amendment, including references to court cases and the like.

John

Drop the class and take something else.

No reason so sit in class all semester that your going to be pissed off at the teacher 99% of the time.

Psychology will sub for Soc in nearly all schools.  I found it a more interesting class.

Quoted: I lived in Montana for 23 years, what college is this???!!!

The school is Carroll College.

I hear stories that UM is worse (as far as liberal agendas in academia go), and I plan on going to grad school there.

Quoted: Drop the class and take something else. No reason so sit in class all semester that your going to be pissed off at the teacher 99% of the time. Psychology will sub for Soc in nearly all schools.  I found it a more interesting class.

Good point.

Psychology rocks - and is FAR more rigorous social science that Sociology.  Social Psychology is best of all, as far as interesting classes go.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can disagree (which you should), but be prepared to do poorly grade wise. I did that (disagree) in a HS German language class on pronounciation, I did for shit grades with that teacher. I know. I felt somewhat hesitant for that reason, but I couldn't sit there and let those kids continue to be brainwashed. Besides I did it in a nice way, and it was as class was ending and people were packing up to go, so he wasn't really put on the spot. When I handed him the papers that I had printed out it was only the two of us in the room. Well, if you want to change his mind, why don't you put together an airtight case?  If I wanted to convince him of something, here's what I'd do.  I'd ask specific questions about statements he's made.  Once I got his feedback and I believe he's wrong, I'd say Hey bud, I think you're wrong, and I want to give you written documentation to that effect.  What is a credible source of information that you would accept? See what he says.  If you can get a good question asked, line up sources that HE accepts as credible, and you can document your case to his satisfaction, then you got yourself a winner.  You could even possibly go over the top and provide additional documentation from SC opinions on this matter, which is a source he supposedly would see as credible. Collections of quotes...  Maybe he'll like em but then again maybe they're out of context.

Well. That's what I did. I knew this topic would be coming up so I did some research.

I found those quotes, and the section of law defining a militia (Title 10 U.S.C Section 311) because he stressed several times that RKBA only applies to the militia - so I defined "militia" for him.

I even googled "Supreme Court cases involving the Second Amenment." I found several cases that helped make "an airtight case."

The problem arose when I attempted to speak in class, and he continually interrupted me - I couldn't get in a word, edgewise.

Since he wouldn't let me speak I included those cases in the info I gave to him at the end of class (I had printed up about 15 copies to hand out to the rest of the class, so I was prepared).  

Two of those cases were - Presser v. Illinois (116 U.S. 252 - filed 1886), and U.S. v. Miller (1939).

In Presser it was held that "the Second Amendment to the Constitution, in regard to the right of the people to bear arms, is a limitation on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states. It was therein said, however, that as all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved mitlitary force of the national government the states could not prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

Since the 14th Amendment has been accepted as applying all of the 10 Amendments in the Bill Of Rights to the states as well as to Congress (Whose power they orignally restricted), then Presser should mean that neither state or federal government could prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.

In U.S. v. Miller the SC held that Miller's conviction for carrying a sawed off shotgun (bbl less than 18") across state lines would stand because the defense failed to show that the shotgun would be an "arm" that is commonly used in a militia (In Miller a militia was as described in earlier posts - all males capable of carrying arms from 17 to 45 years of age).

If we use U.S. v. Miller as precedent, then that means any arm that can be shown as one that would be used by a militia it would then be unconstitiutional (by the SC's own admission) for a state or national government to prohibit the people from keeping and bearing such an arm.

Quoted: Drop the class and take something else. No reason so sit in class all semester that your going to be pissed off at the teacher 99% of the time. Psychology will sub for Soc in nearly all schools.  I found it a more interesting class.

I can't - I need to finish 36 credits this year, and I can't add another class to take its place.

Besides, I'm going to law school, and this is an interesting topic.

One good thing that came of this is that while our buddy, Michael Moore, was preaching from the Gospel of Lies and  Liberalism I was talking to the students to my left and right. I gave them copies of the same stuff I gave the professor, and by the end of the film they were on my side.

Quoted: One good thing that came of this is that while our buddy Michael Moore was preaching from the Gospel of Lies and  Liberalism I was talking to the students to my left and right. I gave them copies of the same stuff I gave the professor, and by the end of the film they were on my side.

Buy the DVD - "Michael and Me" by Larry Elder and Pen and Tellers "Bullshit - gun control" and show these in class. Larry gets Mr. ACLU - Alan Dershowitz to admit that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right like the 1st etc.


US CONSTITUTION:
1) We the People of the United States...

2) The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States...

3) ...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

4) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

5) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

6) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

7) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

8) The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years;

9) ...the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.