After making national news over the weekend, Hill says he had many conversations with people Monday asking him to remove the material, "which I've told them I wouldn't do."
Hill tells 970 WMAY the material isn't the only interpretation of the Second Amendment and that it teaches kids "what happens with the right to bear arms in the context of 2014, is the right to bear arms in reality, not as written in the constitution, but in reality is it in anyway abridged and the answer is 'yes, in some places by the need to register guns or gun owners' and so on."
In an interview with 970 WMAY's Jim Leach, Hill says he doesn't think the material was "proselytizing" a certain point of view and that pulling the material out of context is "in my opinion pretty unfair relative to what the teacher has goin on."
Hill says his job is not to micromanage the district's educators and says that doing so would be an insult to teachers.
Download
3 comments:
WOW, Bob the shill hill huh. Great find Mami!. Changing the hearts and minds of the sheep without touching the actual constitution. Gatekeeping Shill.
I believe the Mr sHill is trying to say that in the context of 2014, the rights of the goyim are determined by our jewish supremacist overlords. We don't really have a Constitution, or even the rule of law anymore (except maybe Noahide Law), and that anyone who has a problem with that is a terrorist. Isn't that right children?
A truly disgusting story
If you view the history of the 2nd Amendment, the right has actually gained strength in the courts in the past few years because of the rulings in Heller and McDonald.
Prior to 2008, there were two points of interpretation that had left the right to keep and bear arms without much strength.
The first question was whether the 2nd Amendment was personal, or whether it only pertained to a state militia. In DC v Heller, the court addressed this point, and said that the militia preface to the 2nd Am did not exclude this personal right.
The other major sticking point was that the post 14th amendment matter of incorporation (i.e. whether the amendment is protected against state action) was never explicitly held to apply to the 2nd amendment. (For example, the 7th Amendment is not incorporated.) In 2010, McDonald v Chicago, the USSC finally held that the 2nd Am is applicable to the states.
These types of gun registration legislation sprang up in the vacuum of zero 2nd Am protection, and now there is certainly more leverage to challenge their validity. To be fair to the principal, the brief summary gives a fairly accurate state of the law as it stands. I am not aware of any bright line rule regarding gun registration that has come about since McDonald.
IMHO, Heller and McDonald were HUGE gains. I know that any moron can read the Constitution and understand that there is a right to keep and bear arms, but if the courts are not going to protect that right, then it will be just you protecting that right with that very same gun.
On a side note, I find it very curious that McDonald came down in 2010, and then the federal government created the Sandy Hoax gun grab in 2012.
Post a Comment