Public School's Teaching of the 2nd Amendment - Page 3

Public School's Teaching of the 2nd Amendment

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 ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 47
Like Tree188Likes

Thread: Public School's Teaching of the 2nd Amendment

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array Sister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    None of your business
    Posts
    4,000
    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, He is in control.

    UDC member

    EPSTEIN DIDNíT KILL HIMSELF




  2. #32
    Senior Member Array KevinRohrer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Medina, Ohio
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by flh View Post
    Unfortunately it's not up to the teacher , the school gives the teachers the lesson plans , " you will teach the children this "
    Not that I have seen. The teacher does the lesson plan. As for whom picks the text book used, it varies according to the school system. I assume teachers may have some input, and may even select the book to be used.
    Member: Orange Gunsite Family, NRA--Life, American Legion

  3. #33
    Distinguished Member Array The Old Anglo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Orlando,Fl
    Posts
    1,842
    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!
    CWOUSCG, M1911A1 and Merovius like this.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #34
    Senior Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    18,529
    Quote Originally Posted by flh View Post
    Unfortunately it's not up to the teacher , the school gives the teachers the lesson plans , " you will teach the children this "
    Not universally true, especially in elective courses.
    M1911A1 likes this.
    Smitty
    AZCDL Life Member
    NRA Patron Member
    NROI Chief Range Officer

  6. #35
    Senior Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    18,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad426 View Post
    My 9-year-old daughter is in the 4th grade. She goes to a pretty good public elementary school in Fulton county, Georgia (no, really). A couple of weeks ago they started learning about the Constitution and the founding fathers. The study guide for the test got sent out in an e-mail to all the parents. Now I always like to scroll through the study guides (mostly to find and point out errors so I can feel smug and superior), but I was particularly interested to see how they addressed the Constitution and, in particular, the 2nd Amendment. Below are the three slides of the Power Point presentation that dealt with the 2A:

    Attachment 306934

    Attachment 306936

    Attachment 306938

    I've been thinking about how I am going to address it... thoughts?
    Those slides were amateurish.

    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.
    Smitty
    AZCDL Life Member
    NRA Patron Member
    NROI Chief Range Officer

  7. #36
    Senior Member Array DZUS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    The Great State of Idaho
    Posts
    1,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Struckat View Post
    I struggle with how to tell the grandchildren that they are being lied to.
    A very important issue with which so many of us have familiarity.

    .
    M1911A1 and Merovius like this.
    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

  8. #37
    New Member Array Econ101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    2
    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.

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...406-story.html

  9. #38
    Member Array RBI55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    82
    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?)
    M1911A1 likes this.

  10. #39
    Member Array danco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by RBI55 View Post
    Perhaps a simple English lesson, breaking down the actual words.
    Here it is. The nominative absolute has NO grammatical connection to the main clause. Even a teacher should be able to comprehend it...

    airslot, Havok, M1911A1 and 1 others like this.

  11. #40
    Member Array gunenthusiast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by flh View Post
    Unfortunately it's not up to the teacher , the school gives the teachers the lesson plans , " you will teach the children this "
    Unfortunately, we have lost our childern and grandchildren to the governmet endoctrination aimed to make them ignorant about Constutution, functions of government, freedoms, to make future generation complacent to what government says, etc. And that happened when we allowed to have government education system in its hands (and tax us to support that and associated bureaucracy).

    This is the gravest observation about our future I have.
    M1911A1 and Merovius like this.

  12. #41
    Member Array gunenthusiast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by danco View Post
    Here it is. The nominative absolute has NO grammatical connection to the main clause. Even a teacher should be able to comprehend it...

    From my English class (English was my 2nd foreign language once, now it is main language, at least I hope so): the text of the 2nd Amendment is exactly equivalet to the following text (or can be said as follows carryng exactly the same meaning):

    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; Yesterday at 07:45 PM.
    M1911A1, Merovius and Marc_Brooks like this.

  13. #42
    Member Array M1911A1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Washington State
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by RBI55 View Post
    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?) [emphasis added]
    I believe that the Founders referenced "natural rights," and not specifically God (or gods, or some gods).
    The Founders were mostly deists, but there were a couple of atheists in there too, so they tried to be inclusive rather than exclusive.


    Quote Originally Posted by gunenthusiast View Post
    ...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...[this] text was chosen to contain portion about militia to convince those who otherwise could be against right of people...[But] 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.
    "Who are the militia? The militia is all of the people..." (I forget who wrote that, but it was one of the Founders.)
    Brad426 and airslot like this.
    Steve
    Retired Leathersmith and Practical Shooter

    "Qui desiderat pacem, prśparet bellum."

  14. #43
    Member Array danco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by gunenthusiast View Post
    From my English class (English was my 2nd foreign language once, now it is main language, at least I hope so): the text of the 2nd Amendment is exactly equivalet to the following text (of can be said as follows carryng exactly the same meaning):

    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.
    It's the same form as:

    "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...
    Brad426 and M1911A1 like this.

  15. #44
    Member Array Hasaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Mid-West, USA
    Posts
    146
    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.
    M1911A1 likes this.

  16. #45
    Member Array gunenthusiast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by danco View Post
    It's the same form as:

    "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...
    Your reply sounds to me like we are in full agreement with each other.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Sponsored 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
  •