This is a discussion on Public School's Teaching of the 2nd Amendment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Brad I donít know your situation or beliefs but my parents sent us two kids to church school because of what the public schools were ...
Brad I donít know your situation or beliefs but my parents sent us two kids to church school because of what the public schools were teaching back then in the 1960ís! We didnít have the money and I remember my Mom getting a job, she didnít have a high school education so it wasnít the greatest job. What Iím saying is how bad do you want her out of that school?
Iím ashamed to say Iíd probably not be as nice as you are about it if it were my child. Have said it before, Iíd rather have them ignorant than being taught crap like that.
You only get one chance to raise a child.
God bless, wish you the best.
Trust God always in every thing you do 🙏
UDC member, Rebels with a cause.
EPSTEIN DIDNíT KILL HIMSELF
Member: Orange Gunsite Family, NRA--Life, American Legion
"Laws are nothing more than guidelines for honest citizens to follow. Criminals care nothing for laws or their consequences, or the Police or Courts. Getting caught is nothing more to them than a minor inconvenience".--Me
Sorry BUT if the Teachers can`t Teach about the Constitution AND The Bill of Rights without the liberal Slant then they Need to be Fired Period!
First - "Congress" wasn't prevented from doing anything, that's just one of the 3 branches of our government. The Amendment simply states, "the right... shall not be infringed." It does NOT say by whom.
Next: There is NO language in the 2nd Amendment which grants power to the Federal or State governments to regulate the possession or use of "arms." So this sentence needs to go if we are talking strictly about the Constitution and not its various "interpretations." Also note that the noun used is "arms," not just firearms. So swords, knives, dirks, daggers, lances, spears, arrows, halberds, battleaxes and morningstars and tasers should all fall under the same mantle of protection.
Next: the author of the powerpoint is confusing individual ownership of arms with the collective use by a "militia." The reference to militia is incidental and does nothing to regulate possession and use of arms by individuals.
Next: The Willie Wonka graphic is pejorative and grossly misleading. Accidental and harmful uses of the First Amendment do nothing to dilute or diminish its protections; Americans are slandered daily and bad people yell "fire" in crowded theaters often. Hunting accidents or other intentional/unintentional misuse of firearms have NO bearing whatsoever on the protections of the Second Amendment.
Last: the 2nd slide ("so I can do whatever I want with guns") is on the level of Dumb and Dumber, as it ignores laws regarding civil conduct.
Q: Can you shoot someone with a gun? A: In general, only if you can convince a jury that deadly force was warranted.
Q: Can I shoot up my neighbor's house? A: No, unless you can convince a jury that you were justified in using deadly physical force.
Q: Can I shoot in my back yard? A: Depends on if your back yard is 500 square feet or 50 acres. Local ordinances may govern where you shoot for the sake of public safety. This has NOTHING to do with bearing arms for self defense or defense against an oppressive government. In general (and I'm probably being too optimistic here) the local laws are/were written to keep idiots from shooting into neighbors' properties and putting innocent lives at risk.
I hope you proceed with your protest.
AZCDL Life Member
NRA Patron Member
NROI Chief Range Officer
Armed And Harmless
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.
- - Sir Winston Churchill, 1941
I'd tell my daughter that the media and academia have been trying to brainwash us for decades. What she really needs to know about the Second Amendment is that the Democrats' resistance to the outcome of the Civil War lasted 145 years until this man put an end to it.
Perhaps a simple English lesson, breaking down the actual words. It seems the lesson glosses over that nobody, at least nobody of THIS world, granted anybody any rights. We were BORN with those rights. The amendment barred anyone from taking that right from us. Of course that might suggest God exists so, oops, another issue for the school's atheist architecture but that's what the amendment says. Let the teacher deal with explaining where that right originated. Then sit back with the popcorn as you watch the teacher ride out of town on a railroad tie, covered in tar and feathers. (Well, one can hope, right?)
This is the gravest observation about our future I have.
As well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Now, linguists, you can chime in.
My understanding is, that even when the Bill of rights was written, some of great people who fought for freedoms, and those who were shaping new country, needed to be convinced that this right - of people to bear arms - is necessary protection that should be in Bill of rights, and the text was chosen to contain portion about militia to convince those who otherwise could be against right of people. Note, that we are fighting about our rights even now, when it should be evident for everybody from our history that we have great Constitution... Again, this is just my assessment why in the list of INDIVIDUAL rights which Bill of rights is, there is half of the phrase that has no relation to an individual.
Last edited by gunenthusiast; November 22nd, 2019 at 07:45 PM.
The Founders were mostly deists, but there were a couple of atheists in there too, so they tried to be inclusive rather than exclusive.
Retired Leathersmith and Practical Shooter
"Qui desiderat pacem, prśparet bellum."
"Peanut butter, being necessary to a yummy sandwich, Bob went to the store."
The nominative absolute provides some context, but is not an essential part of the sentence. "Bob went to the store" stands alone.
The opening phrase tells why Bob went to the store, but it doesn't say that the only thing Bob could buy at the store was peanut butter. It also doesn't limit the use of peanut butter to just sandwiches...
At the school I teach at I have been called in to teach 2nd amendment; however, lately, they have been having another do it. She communicates a lot more passion than I do.
We also have a black teacher, who communicates with a lot of passion, who does the 13th amendment part. I happen to know a couple of the school board members, and they are very pro-2nd amendment.
As far as the quality of the slides, what can I say, I have cranked out some turkeys too. But no, I don't see that slides like that would have gone uncorrected. At the very least, one of the students would have mentoind it to me.