Just Another Random Vent

"Imagine, if you will", an American school where:   

- There is no First Amendment right to freedom of speech or expression.  Even a free and unmoderated student press is forbidden; the only opinions allowed are those that are permitted by school administrators.  

(Disagree? You're suspended or otherwise disciplined, even to the effect of not being allowed to graduate)  

- Walkouts in protest of "gun violence" and "racism" are officially sponsored events, requiring mandatory student attendance at them.  

(Yet unofficial events, such as an off-campus Halloween party, are strictly forbidden.) (1)

- There is no Fourth Amendment right to "be secure in (your) persons...papers, and effects".  If school officials suspect that there is "evidence that (a) student has violated...either the law or the rules of the school", they are entitled to search anything that may belong to that student.  A lack of "reasonable suspicion" does not preclude such a search; nor is it permitted for a student to object to such (2).      

- There is no right to due process, or assumption that one is "innocent until proven guilty".  If administrators say that you are guilty of violating a school rule, then you are guilty of it.  No appeal may be made, no evidence to the contrary may be presented, and no confrontation/questioning of witnesses is permitted.     

- Rather than preaching equality of race, the school routinely tells its students that certain races and nationalities deserve to have more rights than others.      

- If someone from the school witnesses you criticizing the coaching or performance of a school team, it's perfectly acceptable for that person to physically confront you over such, even to the point of putting others in danger.  This applies even to those employed with the school in an official capacity.  

(However, attempt to defend yourself, and you will be politely escorted off school property) (3)    

The above plot sounds like it could have come from a "Twilight Zone" script; Rod Serling might call it one of his best works.  Yet such a scenario is not the stuff of science-fiction shows, but a sad reality of life at Fairfield Warde High School (as well as, I infer, Fairfield Ludlowe High).  

The rights mentioned are not simply imaginary privileges; they are the rights that make up the cornerstone of the United States Constitution, and civil society in general.  Nevertheless, my alma mater seems to regard these as nothing more than figments of an overactive mind.  

In this, they apparently disagree with the Supreme Court, who has held that the public does not lose constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression "at the schoolhouse gate" (4).  

In past articles and publications, I have pleaded for school administrators to change this narrative. 

I have taken my concerns to meetings of the Fairfield RTM; this only to have elected officials interrupt me, and forbid me to speak about the issue.  

I have submitted relevant letters to the Fairfield Citizen-News, only to have the paper decline to publish them.  

And when attempting to address the subject via e-mail to Superintendent of Schools Mike Cummings, I have been totally ignored; the multiple letters that I have sent to him have all gone unanswered.  Did I mention that Mr. Cummings is now resigning his position (5)?  

So let me ask an important question of Fairfield town officials, including those employed with the Board of Education...

...why?

Why is it that whenever I try to bring up this issue, you run "like scalded dogs" (6)?  

Now, to some extent, I understand your hesitation.  The issue of rights in schools is controversial, and not necessarily politically expedient (see definition).  People don't move up on the political "totem pole" by mentioning them in frequent discussion.  

Nevertheless, do you not have a responsibility to the community at large to address these concerns? Is there no duty for you to help develop strong and forthright citizens, or to safeguard the very foundation of American life?

And if there is such a duty, isn't that part of your job description, and the task that Fairfielders have elected you to do?    

Why is the idea of the protection of freedom (rather than the abandonment of it) so antithetical to you that you refuse any consideration of it? 

It is indeed part of your job to review the community's concerns regarding this issue.  If you are unwilling or incapable of doing such, I suggest that you should resign your positions, and find another line of work.  

By the way, don't hate me because I say what's on my mind....heh.  

A Chief Opinion on Gun Control (and the Second Amendment)

Prefacing this by saying that I'm not a lawyer of any kind, nor do I claim to be a legal expert.    

Gun control advocates have recently presented an interesting take on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  As reasoning for their agenda, they point to a published (in 1990) quote from former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger concerning the subject:   

"The gun lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.  The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state.  The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires" (1).

I find it somewhat necessary to refute this argument. The Amendment reads thus:

"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” (2).

Moreover, the Constitution of the State of Connecticut declares that:

"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state" (3).

So saying, allow erstwhile (see definition) political commentators Penn and Teller to explain the matter at hand (with apologies for brief vulgarity).

 (4)

As Penn points out, the Amendment is talking about "the people", not specifically the militia (that is, the National Guard).  

Go read that section again; the language says that the people have a right to bear arms, not specifically and particularly the Guard.  This, according to the Amendment, is a right that "shall not be infringed".  If the framers of the Constitution meant for this right to only be applicable to the "militia(s)", don't you think they would've said that?   

By the way, what is the National Guard comprised of? The individual state units are not made up or commissioned officers from the armed forces.  Rather, they are composed of ordinary citizens; those who have volunteered to serve and defend their communities.  To this extent, the Amendment has indeed entrusted the right to bear arms to ordinary citizens. Therefore, the reasoning detailed by the former Chief Justice is demonstrably incorrect in its logic.

Now, let's look at exactly why the Second Amendment speaks of "the people".    

Referring back to the video, Penn mentions that at the time of the Amendment's writing, the people of the United States had just fought a war against a tyrannical force (that of the King of Great Britain). They knew that a time might come where a similar conflict would take place. As such, the writers of the Constitution put the right and duty of self-defense on the people, not just the militia.

Having detailed the error of the associated argument, allow me to explain one final point.

There are some types of firearms that clearly should not be easily accessible to ordinary citizens, especially those with mental health issues or a record of violent crime. AR-15s, combat rifles, and Uzis come to mind; these are weapons of war, not simply guns for one's defense.

You don't need to carry such a gun around; that is, not unless you intend to shoot up a school or something (bad idea).

Nevertheless, a responsible and law-abiding American citizen should be able to legally purchase a weapon meant for self-defense.

Obviously, we need to have a national discussion about what guns are appropriate. Even so, such a debate should balance the right to bear arms against the need for, and responsibility to, law and order. This topic will, perhaps, be addressed in a future post.