"Pat"> wrote
>
>There's an aspect of homeschooling known as *unschooling* and this is the
>process some people go through after leaving the public prisons, er, >schools.
>You see, the schools fill the students, and their parents, heads with some
>much bullshit it can takes years, decades and sometime forever, to get past
>this massive handicap.
>I too was subjected to this insanity and recognized it at the time and many
>years went by as I went through the *unschooling* process.
>Let me perfectly clear, *education* has nothing at all to do with *school*. >
>Now, gently, I'm going to help Pat a little in his *unlearning* process, and
>if he's a good boy he'll get a nice big fat juicy gold star for his >aptitude!
>
>> For example the 2nd amendment says Don can
>> keep a gun.
>
>The 2nd Amendment says nothing of the sort and can't I imagine how you can
>go from the very precise wording of the statement to where you ended up at,
>if you have in fact ever read and understood the thing.
>
>Have you read it?
>Do you understand it?
>
>If so, then please explain *what* right the 2nd is speaking of when it says
>'...the right of the people....'.
>
>Is this saying that prior to the writing of that amendment in 1787 that no
>right to bear arms existed?
>
>Or is it saying that the right to bear arms was *already* existing, and
>therefore the gov't has no right to infringe upon this pre-existing right? >
>> By taking a strict constructionalist argument, you would
>> also have to say that it does NOT say that Don can keep bullets. >
>(I don't know what you mean by *constructionalist* but....)
>
>None of the amendments say I can keep a toaster either but I have one.
>Should I be sent to gitmo for this heinous infraction?
Since Congress was given the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal which enabled private vessels to capture other ships, it clearly implies that people were allowed to have fairly serious armament. We know from history there were United States based privateers. Incidently, the letters of marque clause predates the 10 amendments.
>The
>> 9th amendment gets rid of problems like that. Just because the right
>> is not enumerated, it does not mean it does not exist.
>
>Well which is it, does it exist or doesn't it?
>Lemme clear this little thing up for you, and I'll even lead you to water,
>but you have to do the drinking on your own.
>
>You are confusing *rights* with *priviledges*.
>Rights are inherent, they cannot be taken away except by criminals with >force.
>Your son has the right to life, you can't take it away if he doesn't do his
>homework.
>Your son has a cellphone as a priviledge which you can remove from him for
>any reason you see fit.
>
>You see the diff?
>You can't take his right, but you can take his priviledge.
>Nobody can take someones natural rights except through criminal force.
>In defense of ones rights they may use defensive force.
>Now do you see why your assertion that an education is a *right* is silly? >
>Regardless of constitutional bearing, rights and priviledges should be
>taught to all kids from an early age and they should be constantly reminded
>of them cause we all know how forgetful kids can be.
>