High School and the Anti-Gun Agenda

[gunlaw]

This "teacher" must have gone to a really bad college. When the constitution was drafted we had already defeated the British and really were not shooting very many at that time (until 1812 of course).

 

[bhk]

In the district I retired as an administrator from, many of the teachers and administrators come from shooting/hunting backgrounds. The FFA high school club usually has an annual coon hunt and the club just received an NRA grant to buy shotguns and set up a trap range on school property. Federal and state laws relating to guns and school are strictly enforced, but life with guns goes on. It is possible to make this work.

 

[danprkr]

Some people naively believe that our country is somehow special and different, and stuff like that could never happen here. Or they think that something like that couldn't happen in a country with representative government. They fail to realize that the tyranny of the majority can be as bad as that of a single dictator. History also shows that countries may start out with representative government, but they can quickly devolve into autocratic rule, especially when citizens have no effective means of resistance.

I also have never understood why people think that America is immune to the lessons/mistakes of history. I guess it comes down to we're all crazy via Einstein's definition. We think we can do the same things and get different results.

Anyway, this goes from monetary policy, to guns, to prohibition. We do what history has shown not to work, and then when those of us who have read history point it out we're labeled idiots because, "This is America and that could never happen here."

Whatever.

I got a C!......I had the top score in the class until that presentation. Stupid liberal professors and their bs claims of neutrality.

I agree with the member who said you should have protested. I have, I had an accounting teacher who didn't like it that I'd been in business, and was constantly asking questions to relate it to my past experience, and getting the class sidetracked. He finally basically told me to shut up and not ask any questions. I was in the Dean's office as soon as class let out, and explained to the Dean, that I had paid for that class, no loans, no grants, I'd taken the money out of MY POCKET in CASH and paid to be there, and I would ask what I )*(^ pleased. In the meeting with the Dean, the Prof, and myself I pointed out that, "That's not covered until you get into the ____ class." Was a perfectly legitimate answer that I would gladly accept, and that it wasn't my job as a student to control his class.

But, I was VERY happy that basic accounting is math, and that there were definite right or wrong answers. Otherwise I'd have been in real trouble. You're situation therefore might have gone differently, but given the comments you received, it seems like you got a C for being prepared. I don't see how that could be fair. Certainly doesn't mean it would have been reversed, but you had a good case.

 

[xfyrfiter]

I have read, from some current and former mil. that a large percentage would not wage war against their countrymen, FWIW. I can't say whether true or not but the question is still there.

 

[9mm+]

9MM THANK YOU! Lots of anti gun people and anti hunters say "When the Constitution was written, guns were necessary to fight the British, but in today's society, the Second Amendment is no longer needed." AND IT MAKE ME GO NUTS! They think we dont need them to get food for familes and protect us. Us hunters and gun owners hunt and shoot gun and own them because its in our blood and heritage

I agree Deer Hunter! Btw, there have been some excellent points raised by all posters. Anyone who has studied the writings of the Founding Fathers will tell you that they had a profound distrust of government, which is a bit ironic since they were the architects of our own government, and knew very well the abuses that could be inflicted from the government to the governed. The Second Amendment -- like most articles in the Constitution -- was conceived as a check and balance against gross excesses and tyrannical proclivities. In short -- arm the people, keep the government honest.

A well-armed society is a very good thing and I intend to do my part to pass my firearms knowledge to any and all who are interested. The Swiss are also well armed, but for an entirely different purpose (they have a very small standing army so they augment through a militia force and conscripted service), and it has been proven that these armed societies have enjoyed lasting security and stability.

 

[Owen Sparks]

People who work in government schools often operate through a collectivist mentality that sees the individual as no better than the weakest member of the group and the rules are always set for the lowest common denominator or weakest link. For example, if there is a problem with graffiti they will make a rule that NOBODY can bring magic markers to school even though the vast majority of students never write on the walls; they are still treated like potential vandals. We have all heard stories about the honor student who accidentally brought some prohibited item to school and got expelled. That is how collectivism works. It treats anyone who shows the potential for breaking the rules as guilty for what they might do. This attitude is applied to kids who come from families that own guns also. To the collectivist, gun ownership equals intent and the best way to keep guns out of the “wrong hands” is to keep guns out of ALL hands, except the governments of course.

 

[rbernie]

Let's keep the editorializations about public educators and the constant drumbeat of politics slurs out of the thread. Neither are appropriate for THR.

If your post has been edited or has disappeared - that's your clue that you posted content inappropriate for THR.

 

[rule303]

In my senior year, I took a criminology class. For our final, the assignment was to write a report about the need to ban weapons. I pleaded with the teacher to let me argue to the contrary, but she wouldn't even consider it (this was right after the AWB was enacted). So I got to thinking, and wrote a 5 page report about a weapon that is easily aquired with no background check, can pass through metal detectors, and is easily smuggeled into prisons and schools, and many children are injured by due to negligent storage in the home.
The final sentance was "I am in possesion of such a weapon at this very moment, and if I chose, could injure or kill several people at this very moment, which is why we need to take imediate action to ban the #2 pencil".
This of course led to a 3 day suspension, and a failing grade, which was ultimately overturned by the superintendant of the school district, and the teacher was reprimanded for forcing her opinion, rather than teaching the facts.
This was pre-Columbine, and I wonder if a student tried this toay what the results would be?

 

[ohgrady]

"need"

What is most troubling to me about the teacher from the OP is the use of the word "need." Constitutional rights are the basic tenents of our society. It would be just as easy to say, well in this modern society, troops don't live in private homes, so we don't need the 3rd Amendment. It's a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.

I really can't remember much of the lessons from my high school civics/history teacher (guess that's cause it's pushing 30 years). My limited recollection is that he taught the Bill of Rights from the perspective of why the Founding Fathers enacted them.

 

[TexasBill]

In my senior year, I took a criminology class. For our final, the assignment was to write a report about the need to ban weapons. I pleaded with the teacher to let me argue to the contrary, but she wouldn't even consider it (this was right after the AWB was enacted).

So you write a report stating there is no need to ban guns and why. Fits within the parameters of the assignment and, as such, is much more defensible.

So I got to thinking, and wrote a five-page report about a weapon that is easily aquired with no background check, can pass through metal detectors, and is easily smuggled into prisons and schools, and causes many injuries to children due to negligent storage in the home.

The final sentence was "I am in possesion of such a weapon at this very moment, and if I chose, could injure or kill several people at this very moment, which is why we need to take imediate action to ban the #2 pencil."

While I appreciate your intentions and admire your ingenuity, your paper was off-topic and the last sentence was phrased in a way that could considered a threat. Worse, it makes you look like you are contemptuous of the actual assignment; even if you are, as I would be, that's not a good idea.

Having said that, I am very glad the superintendent backed you.

Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the other instances of disturbed people using guns to commit their criminal acts are not justifications for gun control or intolerance of pro-gun-rights viewpoints. Unfortunately, it is a politically attractive, though almost entirely ineffective, solution that has long been preferable to addressing problems within our society. It's a nonsensical response that, reduced to its simplest form, says the answer to a crime problem is to create more crimes.

 

[mp510]

My son had a student teacher one day this week to teach his high school Civics class. As for the Second Amendment, the student teacher's comment was (paraphrasing but very close to verbatim), "When the Constitution was written, guns were necessary to fight the British, but in today's society, the Second Amendment is no longer needed." As soon as the student teacher said this, half of the class raised their hands (apparently to challenge this statement), but sadly the teacher was out of time and couldn't take any questions.

My son is an excellent shot and a strong believer in RKBA so he was completely unfazed by this, and the good news is that a good number of friends also felt that this 2A comment was spawned from pure ignorance and political indoctrination. I am not sure what these college students are being taught nowadays, but rest assured that the anti-gun agenda is alive and well in America's universities.

...

Context is really important in these circumstances. There are instances when the student teacher's comment may have been acceptable. There are also many when it would have been unacceptable. Unfortunately, context is not always relayed with the comment-something that happens often when students (who may or may not have been fully engaged) relay what they heard (or think that they heard). Something that compounds this is that in social studies disciplines, there is a necessity for teachers to sometimes use examples, tones, statements, etc.... that might not be propper in a more concrete environment (e.g. science or math). A conversation with your son's teacher (and the student teacher) is in order. If that does not resolve things, contact the student teacher's university and speak with the individual in the School of Education that handles field placements/ coordinates student teaching. Express your concerns to them and ask that they relay them to the student teacher's university facilitator/ supervisor. That individual and/ or the coordinator WILL have a talk with the student teacher (and possibly the cooperating/ host teacher) to correct the situation. Something that student teachers are graded on is their content profficiency. If that statement was made as an attempt to substantively define the Second Ammendment that would be a gross content error (it would not, however, be problematic if the ST was attempting to elicit thought/ response through a provactive statement OR charecterize a particular person/ group's perspective and made that clear). If the ST was sharing his/her view in response to a student's question (on the same), it might still be an issue to discuss for the future (and the potential impact that sharing personal political leanings could have on their professional image).