A teacher would like some help! - Page 2

A teacher would like some help!

This is a discussion on A teacher would like some help! within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by chiefjason To add to Gruntingfrog. The "free state" was literally the state's themselves. And the thought that Armed citizens of the state ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 34
Like Tree8Likes

Thread: A teacher would like some help!

  1. #16
    Member Array gruntingfrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright...
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefjason View Post
    To add to Gruntingfrog. The "free state" was literally the state's themselves. And the thought that Armed citizens of the state could defend themselves against an out of control federal Government.


    "Suppose that we let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal: still it would not be going to far to say that the State governments with the people at their side would be able to repel the danger...half a million citizens with arms in their hands"
    James Madison, The Federalist Papers
    Great clarification, ChiefJason. I haven't read all the Federalist Papers so I hadn't seen that Madison quote. I knew they were worried about the oppressive possibility of a standing federal army, but that definitely makes the point very clearly.

    Thanks!
    Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.
    - Mike Tyson


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array chiefjason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    2,804
    Quote Originally Posted by gruntingfrog View Post
    Great clarification, ChiefJason. I haven't read all the Federalist Papers so I hadn't seen that Madison quote. I knew they were worried about the oppressive possibility of a standing federal army, but that definitely makes the point very clearly.

    Thanks!
    I found it looking through the page I posted. Don't give me too much credit, lol. I'm working my way through the Federalist Papers currently.

    Another vote for No Guns for Negros. Regardless of whether you use it, it's a great video.
    I prefer to live dangerously free than safely caged!

    "Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun. And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son." Josh Thompson "Way Out Here"

  3. #18
    Distinguished Member Array bigmacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,837
    Saw this in a signature on another thread:

    "Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." -- U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, Re: U.S. vs Emerson (1999)

    You could develop quite a history lesson around the entire Bill of Rights, complete with the philosophical meanderings that accompany each enumerated right. That would be a lesson plan to die for.
    I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
    1 Thess. 5:16-18

  4. #19
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,977
    Quote Originally Posted by gruntingfrog View Post
    One thing that I think it's important to point out is what type of rule the founding fathers were coming from. People forget about the historical context of the 2A and focus on the literal words.

    For example, the concept of a militia was distinct from that of a standing army and was actually intended to be a protection from a standing army. The founders had witnessed the local militias in England being disbanded and disarmed so the standing British army would be able to control the populace without any interference. It is the people that were to bear arms under 2A, not the government so the argument that they were talking about an army isn't accurate.

    The free state that is mentioned in the 2A was in contrast to a tyrannical state. The stress is on the word "free" not the word "state." They weren't attempting to protect the state from outside invasion. Instead, the militia was considered a protection from the government itself. They were extremely worried about seeing the U.S. quickly returning to tyrannical rule if the populace was disarmed.
    Also, the National Guard and Reserves are not what the founders would have considered a militia. They are government funded and equiped extension of the army. If the government were tyranical, it would control the National Guard and Reserves. There may be an argument between the feds and the state about the Guard, but the feds would win in the end.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array chiefjason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    2,804
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Also, the National Guard and Reserves are not what the founders would have considered a militia. They are government funded and equiped extension of the army. If the government were tyranical, it would control the National Guard and Reserves. There may be an argument between the feds and the state about the Guard, but the feds would win in the end.
    I could be wrong here, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am. But I think it is still the states call to deploy them on US soil. Feds take over when they go overseas. I remember a lot of talk about why Bush did not deploy the NG during Katrina. He could not do it. That's the Governors call. But feel free to call me an idiot if I am wrong, it's 50/50 on this one.
    I prefer to live dangerously free than safely caged!

    "Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun. And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son." Josh Thompson "Way Out Here"

  6. #21
    Member Array Maltz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    58
    I like a lot of the ideas so far about teaching the history of the 2nd amendment. But I also think there should be some tie in to how it affects modern life, and the controversy surrounding it. That seems entirely appropriate for each amendment you cover in class. Recent supreme court cases regarding the amendments should definitely be covered. If your students start asking questions about CHL's, well, my opinion is that any question a student asks (that is related to the topic at hand) deserves to be answered. But be objective. You're job is to inform, not persuade. I think 'deflecting' such questions is doing your students a disservice.

  7. #22
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    I would definitly touch on the fact that "well regulated" does not mean controlled by laws, but a well run and comfortable with their equipment and duties.
    Walk softly ...

  8. #23
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,977
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefjason View Post
    I could be wrong here, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am. But I think it is still the states call to deploy them on US soil. Feds take over when they go overseas. I remember a lot of talk about why Bush did not deploy the NG during Katrina. He could not do it. That's the Governors call. But feel free to call me an idiot if I am wrong, it's 50/50 on this one.
    ChiefJason - in theory you are right. I suspect if the feds really want to, they can call them up and ignore the state infrastructure. I don't know that this has happened, but I have no doubt it could. This is the "argument between the feds and state" I mentioned in my initial post.

    We have seen too many times that the feds coerce the stated by a variety of methods to get what they want. I doubt this would be any different. The Constitutional concept of a limited federal government is nowhere to be found today.

    Additionally, given current events, I am not sure how much coersion it would take:

    1. Indiana state supreme court obviates the 4th amendment allowing government officials to enter dwellings at will.
    2. Indiana sheriff thinks #1 is a good idea and publically states he can now conduct random house searches.
    3. Arizona sheriff has no problems ignoring good police work and sending SWAT team to kill a homeowner under a dope warrant.
    4. SCOTUS places significant limits on the 4th amendment - KY -v- King

    I could go on, but the point is that at every level (state, local and federal), the rights of the citizens of the US are being eroded quickly. Given all this, it is not hard to imagine (and it is, at this point imagination) that the feds could grab control of the Guard.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  9. #24
    Ex Member Array hamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,290
    Quote Originally Posted by Dleavitt View Post
    I am currently a student teacher at a public high school, and I will have the opportunity this week to teach about the Second Amendment. While I am certainly capable of planning a lesson, I thought I would seek the wisdom of the forum for further suggestions regarding:

    -Resources. Know any good high school appropriate videos that I could show in class? Other resources?

    -Approach. I want to impart knowledge without becoming preachy (which would likely get me in trouble with parents and administration). Should I focus on the history and intent behind it (play it safe), or focus more on current issues (more interesting, but more risky)? What about CCW? What has worked best in your experience?

    Thanks in advance for your help. I will be checking on this later, but right now I need to finish my Work Sample!
    I'm a teacher also. Stick to facts not your private opinions, if students raise their own don't side with one group against the other. if the opinions are historical, history of law etc. then it's a body of knowledge and of course fine. But you're not there as an advocate for a personal opinion but to Teach - or at least that's what your post seemed to suggest.

    You may want to go into the standing Constitutional Law, as expressed in the Opinion of the Supreme Court a year or so ago - in a way the HS students relate to -

    Or - as was said - the historical purpose of the Bill of Rights, and how and why that "afterthought" was put in by the Founders.

  10. #25
    Ex Member Array hamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,290
    Quote Originally Posted by StevePVB View Post
    Can you "steal" some stats form Gary Kleck (FSU)? He is a life-long Democrat, but is honest in present his findings.
    In terms of objectivity, the source you mention - as a statement of fact - has had his methodology and results called to question by others also prominent in this area. So, as one opinion along with others that should also be mentioned, he's relevant - but as an "answer" to anything that stand's above others he is not.

  11. #26
    Ex Member Array hamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,290
    Quote Originally Posted by FrankWSweet View Post
    Depending on your students' demographics and your own interests ("race" relations is my field of research), you might want to watch the following two-part video, titled "No Guns For Negroes":
    Part 1.
    Part 2.
    It explains the Jim-Crow-era origin of anti-gun legislation and "may issue" policies. In addition to giving you some background, parts of the film would be appropriate and of interest to high-schoolers. If the topic sparks your interest, I would be glad to recommend some peer-reviewed journal articles covering the same racialist origins of modern "gun-control" statutes.
    I's stay away from that - there are plenty of other historical and demographic reason for gun regulation and presenting just that one - which is a part of the story but ignores the rest of the history of influences producing gun regulation - would be a biased explanation of regulation.

  12. #27
    Ex Member Array hamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,290
    I think the best thing you can do is to present the 2A in the same way you presented the others, i.e, you likely began with some overview of the purpose of having a Bill of Rights and are going thru each one and explaining it in an understandable way and how it fits into that general purpose. So, too when you get to the 2nd A. Making more of this one or treating it as "hot" will make it an issue and you an issue.

    If the students have a need to spend more energy then listen and let them have their say. You don't have to "solve" it. It's a democracy! If they did get into political discussion I'd just say after a bit:

    "What we've been hearing is only due to our freedoms, for example, Freedom of Speech allows you all to express these differing opinions, right here, right now. So, you see how the Bill of Rights works: for all of us - all the time; this very discussion would not be possible without these freedoms - you'd be afraid to speak your minds. It would be illegal"

    Or they may well not give the 2nd A. special energy, in which case you move to another Amendment.

    Don't create a problem.

  13. #28
    mel
    mel is offline
    Member Array mel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by rammerjammer View Post
    Avoid the topic. As a former public school teacher I know this will not end well for you. Wait til the bureaucracy gets their hands on you. I was that history teacher who'd cover controversial topics and I'd end up in the principals office too often.
    This is sad to hear. Why is it that if things are skewed one way it is okay, but if it is the other side of the coin it isn't? Good luck to the OP, and just make sure that you tell both sides of the story, and let your students make up their own minds about it.

  14. #29
    VIP Member Array chiefjason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    2,804
    Quote Originally Posted by hamlet View Post
    In terms of objectivity, the source you mention - as a statement of fact - has had his methodology and results called to question by others also prominent in this area. So, as one opinion along with others that should also be mentioned, he's relevant - but as an "answer" to anything that stand's above others he is not.
    Just curious. Called into question by pro gun researchers or anti gun researchers? Both?
    I prefer to live dangerously free than safely caged!

    "Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun. And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son." Josh Thompson "Way Out Here"

  15. #30
    Ex Member Array hamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,290
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefjason View Post
    Just curious. Called into question by pro gun researchers or anti gun researchers? Both?
    They were mostly researchers and statisticians, perhaps academics if I can remember. Don't recall a particular bias. You could search in Google. discount any that seem political and look at the others. I remember reading one of his, and I could even see for some result he gave involving percentages of something - can't remember the exact area he was examining - there was a whooper of an assumption he was making underlying the result. I'll look around myself if I have a chance.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

i would rather live dangerously free than be safely enslaved.

,

i'd rather live dangerously free than safely caged

,

i'd rather live dangerously free that safely caged

,

legislator teachers need guns

,

peer review articles on teachers carrying guns

,

teacher

,

thomas jefferson i prefer to live dangerously free than safely caged

Click on a term to search for related topics.