NEWS: You Shouldn’t Be A Teacher, Dipshit

In a list of descending importance, maybe. But not the Amendments. Considering the importance of each amendment is determined by the prevailing attitudes at a particular time of Americans at large. For instance, of what importance to current society is the Third Amendment? When was the last time the quartering of soldiers was ever brought up in the courts? But it directly precedes the Fourth Amendment, which limits unreasonable searches and seizures. Is it then more important than that Amendment? Not in the current America. Your argument is moot.

Implies, perhaps, but does not create.

Ignore this, please.

"For instance, of what importance to current society is the Third Amendment? When was the last time the quartering of soldiers was ever brought up in the courts?"
It has been proposed as a means to prevent the Army from guarding our southern border. But, I agree, in this day and age, no govenment does this... except maybe Zimbabwe, but I have no source for that. I refer you, though, to the top of this post.

"Implies, perhaps, but does not create." Implies is good enough for the implied right to privacy, which I support. (edited for lack of cleverness)

No, I don't think you've quite got it. There are a few of the "anti-gun" arguments on here; but I don't see any of the "maternal figures" point that you make. I'm sorry; I was a teacher, and I don't exactly see myself as particularly 'maternal'.

Here's the gist of it, once again. Now pay attention, or I'm going to give you a detention; I'm tired of you falling asleep during lecture!

*clears throat*

I own guns; my family has had them since I was born. I even like guns, and generally support the right for people to own and use those guns safely. I think that making them illegal would be a gross violation of the Constitution (which I, being an American citizen, generally like); it would also be a disaster. The Founding Fathers put that right in there for a reason (and why can't I help just suspect that a Jefferson supporter was behind it )
That being said, guns have no place in a school; especially in the hands of a teacher. First of all, the very presence of that weapon immeediately makes it a 'hostile learning environment'; nothing is going to kill the student-teacher dialog like the fear that 'Mrs. Smith' could well blow your head off any time she chooses. If I, as a parent, ever discovered that my hypothetical children had a teacher who carried a gun in class, I would pull them out of that school so bleeding fast they might well lose their shoes. Would a law-suite be in order? I'm not the suing type but, in that case, I think it just might be.
You see, teachers are human beings too. They're liable to make errors the same as anyone else. Lets assume that 'Mrs. Smith' is walking through the hall, she's had a terribly stressful day and is feeling horrid; the students were misbehaving all day and her temper is flaring. Suddenly she comes upon two students in the middle of a fight; she steps in to try to break it up and gets pushed back into a locker.
Now, in a usual situation (and yes, this happened to me more than once); that teacher would call for help. Other teachers would rush in and help break up the fight; said student would be kicked out of school (unless this is in Alaska; in that case all bets are off ) Mrs Smith would then go to the staff lounge, drink several cups of coffee and snarl about the youth of today. Other teachers would come in to comiserate with her.
Lets look at that same situation, except this time with the addition of a gun to the mix. You see, when you're packing heat, there is a part of you that wants to use that weapon; its kinda pointless just having it on you if you don't. So, when Mrs Smith comes upon that fight and gets slammed into a locker, her temper lets go and she draws her pistol.
Now, she doesn't even need to fire it, of course; maybe her 'training' kicks in and she just aims it at the two and glares. The kids look at her in disbelif; a girl walking through the hall sees the gun and screams.
Mrs Smith's career is over. You can bet that every parent in the district will be calling the school and demanding she be fired and threatening to pull their children from the school if she isn't. Can you blame the parents for that? I certainly can't.
That is, of course, assuming that she's not really frazzled that day; or that one of the students tries to wrestle the gun away from her. What ever the case, she fires and hits someone. Maybe its one of the fighting students, maybe its that innocent girl walking down the hall. Who knows; all that matters is that some student is DEAD because a teacher had a gun on her body and was in a mental state where using it became a lot easier.

School shoots don't happen that often; no matter what the media likes us to think. I, personally, had my school go into lockdown twice; but in neither of those cases did an armed student break into the building and start firing away. My case was also a peculiar as it was a rough village I was living in at the time; I would expect most teachers to be able to go through their entire careers without it happening once.

I've rather drifted away from my main point here, so I'm going to wrap it up. All I will say in conclusion, though, is that teachers are human beings who have very stressful jobs and are charged with the well being of the youths of our society. No matter what you might think, it isn't an easy job and its quite easy to become angry while doing it; lord knows, I did. I, for one, would not have wanted a gun when I taught, and I can't think of any other teacher I know who'd have wanted one either. The chance of making a mistake would have been too great; and, really, all it takes is one mistake to shatter multiple people's lives.

Yes, because as a Liberal, I HATE guns. Lord knows I'd never get near one, and think they should all be taken away!

Wait...

I own a shot gun

...

Never mind.

Forbidden Zone flashback... whoa!

A) Please reference where anyone proposed banning guns.

B) Should the United States ever militarily crack down on its own citizens on a large-scale basis, the citizens of this country would not be the only military force to fight against it. I can guaranfuckingtee you that the scenario James Madison laid out, in today's world, could be an impetus for World War Fucking Three. While the response to Myanmar's similar crackdown hasn't been overwhelming, it's been strong enough to suggest that should the United States, heralds of freedom, ever attempt such a thing, half of Europe's army, Russia, Mexico, Canada, etc would all be on our asses straightaway.

You have to remember that when Madison wrote those statements, the United States was one of the most isolated nations in the world. Times have changed. We're pretty popular outside of the Middle East and Africa, and the response would be overwhelming.

How is the right to privacy based on proximity associations of items on a list? You've just associated two unrelated things and called them brothers.

My point is that there is no inherent contradiction in supporting one amendment but not another. They represent separate concepts which may be evaluated as to their worth on a similarly separate basis. Their presence in the same document does not link them inextricably on a conceptual level, whether or not it implies that they are so linked.

I guess I'm in the wrong thread... The post was a response to the tired "militia" argument. Regarding teachers carrying in school, I find myself still on the fence. I'd like to see someone experiment with it, and I can only hypothetically say that I'd keep my (hypothetical) kids in the school.

Perhaps I can tie several threads together and say that the lack of parental supervision combined with poor-quality education has led to stressed-out teachers and students, and an educational system that produces ill-informed citizens. I see no one easy place to lay the blame, but the problem threatens the survival of this republic, or at least its standing in the world.

The strength of that link, however, changes greatly over time. Some Amendments have stood the test of time as they were, and some have been made less important. And the Second Amendment, as written, is basically irrelevent in the order that exists today by the simple fact that we have a volunteer, federally funded militia instead of one that consists of farmers and their kids. If anything, I'd suggest revising the language, something like, "in order to prevent the government from militarily infringing upon the rights or property of its civilians," etc.

I made a statement regarding the value of implications in interpreting the Constitution. I think you err in reducing the Bill of Rights to a mere list.

Just put a taser in each teacher's desk and train them how to use them. See how successfully that works. If it works well...keep the tasers. Fuck the guns.

Regarding the rest of your previous statement: You may have something there, and I conditionally agree (that condition being reassesment upon awakening tomorrow). I hope they don't test the theory.

But in essence, that's what it is. It would be wrong and potentially dangerous to assume that because the First Amendment means something, then that means the Second Amendment means something. Because you could use a similar association between the Second and the Fourth, the Second and the Seventh, the Second and the Tenth, and get completely different, and perhaps even contradictory interpretations. Amendments should be taken for their own value, adapted for the evolution of society, but not be assigned meaning in association to other Amendments.

Perhaps we should write "(in no particular order)" before the Bill of Rights, just to clear things up.

"I'd suggest revising the language, something like, 'in order to prevent the government from militarily infringing upon the rights or property of its civilians,'"
This, I like.

"Just put a taser in each teacher's desk and train them how to use them. See how successfully that works. If it works well...keep the tasers. Fuck the guns."
This I like also.

Good debate, and good night.

You're an idiot...

Now you're just being silly.

I like where you're going here... how about something more B-movie though? I'm thinking Fortress style "intestinators" or even the sci-fi stalwart, exploding collar ala Wedlock?

Just once, I want one of these maladjusted little shits to survive and say to the media, "I got the idea from that Michael Moore film."

What the hell are we gonna do? Haven't you heard, we're all just potheads up here

Suck it up, lunatic.

Thanks for the follow-up. And thanks to Judge Arnold for a sensible ruling!