Square Dancing Around The Issue

I’m so glad I’m not a kid in this day and age. Not because being a kid in this day and age is a bad thing but ME being a kid in this day and age would not be pretty. You see, I’ve always been outspoken and I’ve always had strong convictions for as long as I can remember. When all the other kids were focused on playing outside, I was inside listening to the adult conversation. That’s what I preferred. My strong convictions often found me in the principal’s office and they never really knew what to make of me. Fortunately, I had parents who were willing to correct me when I was wrong but who stood behind me when I was right. Today, I would undoubtedly be in the media, especially for one particular occurrence of standing up for my convictions.

In elementary school, part of our “physical education” was square dancing. I thought that was absurd. Ms. Belyew (I think I recall her name correctly) lined all the girls and boys up facing each other. She assigned our partners. I found myself across from a boy by the name of Jeffrey. I refused to dance with Jeffrey and I stated as such out aloud and in front of everyone the moment she started the music. Ms. Belyew pulled me aside and ordered me to comply or I’d find myself in the principal’s office. I told her that she may as well send me to the principal’s office then, because I would not be dancing with Jeffrey. I offered to explain to her why I refused to dance with Jeffrey but she wouldn’t hear it. She didn’t care and was only pissed off that I would not do what she told me to do.

So, there I found myself in Evil Eva’s office. She was officially Mrs. Eva Clark but to all the kids she was Evil Eva. And evil she was. But we’ll get to that later. She sat me down and told me that my behavior was unacceptable and that she would be calling my parents. She did just that and sent me back to class to continue square dancing. I told her that I would not square dance and she could not force me to. So, she decided that I could do floor aerobics while the rest of the class had their square dancing lesson.

When I got home, my parents broached the issue with me and I explained to them that I had two reasons for refusing to dance with Jeffrey. First of all, the boy stank to high heaven with body odor. I mean, he STANK. It was pretty sickening. Secondly, I explained that I didn’t find square dancing or any kind of partner dancing at all, to be appropriate in physical education. I reasoned that dancing was a social activity and that I should be able to choose when, where and with whom I want to participate in such an activity (and yes, I really did speak in that manner as a kid). My parents agreed with me 100% and upon meeting with Evil Eva a day or two later, informed her that it was HER actions which were inappropriate and unacceptable and that neither her nor Ms. Belyew would be giving such orders to me ever again.

They didn’t. In fact, they stopped the square dancing all together. The fact is, they had no right to impose such things on me. Furthermore, what kind of message does it send to a boy when a girl can be made to dance with them against their wishes? That’s a recipe for a future rapist.

By the way, Jeffrey happened to be a black boy and that was the assumed reason for my refusal to dance with him. Neither Ms Belyew, nor Evil Eva (both white women) even allowed me the opportunity to explain my reasons, neither of which were even loosely related to his race. It was just assumed. Take that same incident today and I would suddenly be a black-hating, racist little white girl and there would be tweets all over the place about people wanting to kill me, likely.

Oh, I promised earlier that I would explain Evil Eva, didn’t I? Well, here’s just one example of many which illustrate her backwards, evil thinking. A number of years later, she did find herself on the 6:00 news. 2 little 5th grade boys – one black and one white – were dragged to her office for calling each other “nigger.” Her remedy was write the word, “nigger” on two pieces of posterboard, punch holes in them, insert string through the holes and place one around each of the little boys’ necks. Really? All her years of teaching and serving as a principal and that’s her brililant, educated solution? She found herself with a position at the Board of Education after that incident.

I wonder if she ever learned her lesson. She’s probably dead now and I have some serious doubts whether she ever even got a glimpse of St Peter at the gate.

Why Do You Need an AR-15?

This is a frequent question from the lefty gun grabbers that they throw out not as a question, but as a grenade. They expect you to not be able to answer why you might need an AR-15 with any “reasonable” answer and they are under the impression that they are prepared to shoot back at your no doubt frivolous, misguided responses with what they would like for you to believe are their logical reasons that you don’t need one. And I will promise you that they will eventually, some sooner than later, pull out the “baby killer” card (which is funny considering they’re so pro-abortion, but that’s another matter for another day).

Before we go any further, I’d like to remind you all exactly what the Second Amendment states:

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.

Let’s analyze this a bit. Some argue that the term “militia” means National Guard or state forces. Hmmm. Ok, let’s see. Yes, yes. That sounds reasonable, right? Let’s define the term as Wikipedia (whom the left seems to love so we’ll go with it):

militia (pron.: /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility. Some of the ways the term is used include:

  • Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.[2]
  • The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
    • A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
    • A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
  • A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
  • An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army ReserveNational Guard, or state defense forces.

Yep, the term “militia” can and does refer to an official reserve army. So there we go. I guess we regular citizens really don’t have the right to bear arms. But it also mentions a private force not supported or sanctioned by government. Hmmm. Well, that’s confusing. Let’s keep reading through a little, just for the heck of it.

The next phrase is “security of a free State.” Ok. So, how do we define “free State?” Well, we could assume that it means one of our 50 states. But then, if we use the term literally, then Washington, D.C. would be excluded from the Constitution. While D.C. certainly likes to pretend they are not beholden to the same rules as the rest of us, that is not the case. Clearly, the use of “State” here is something a bit more abstract. Let’s consider what the term “free State” meant when our founding fathers were around. During the 18th Century, “free State” was often used by the writers who are known to have substantially influenced the writers of our Constitution and the term was well understood to mean free country, in opposition to despotism.  And let us not forget that Madison’s original proposal included the term “free country” which was later changed to “free State.” This also means that in regards to the Second Amendment, “free State” does not refer to states’ rights, but freedom from despotism. But we’re not here to talk about states’ rights today.

Now, since “free State” means freedom from despotism, then “militia” could not refer to any state force, right? But it could still mean a National Guard, correct? Well, let’s keep going.

We now come to the next and most exciting part yet of the Second Amendment.  I love this phrase, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms…,”

The who? That’s right, the PEOPLE! That’s you and me, baby. That’s your mom and your granny and your cousin and your uncle. Not the military. The PEOPLE! Think about it. Think about where these guys came from and from what they were running away. They created a government OF, BY and FOR the PEOPLE! They had freedom in mind and they weren’t in it just halfway. There is no question whatsoever about what the term “people” refers to in our Constitution. It’s all of us. So, that knocks out any illusion of the term “militia” referring to a military. WE are the militia!

Oh, but wait. Wait, it gets better! How, you ask? How could it get any better than that? It does! We’re finally at the dessert portion of this wonderful meal:

“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

That is a wonderfully beautiful bow on a gift from our founding fathers. But, don’t mistake it for just decoration. It’s far from decoration. It’s the pièce de résistance. The finale and the parting benediction. Shall not be infringed. Shall not be infringed by the government. Shall not be infringed by those who desire to control us. Shall not be infringed by those who think their rights matter more than anyone else’s. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Oh, and you still want to know why I need an AR-15? It’s none of your damn business. But, look for a future posting on the many reasons you may want one.