Many Kids are smarter than you think

[TCB in TN]

I teach 2 sections of 6th grade Social Studies and this week (state wide) we were supposed to be teaching at least 1 lesson on the US Constitution. Wednesday I did about a 1/2 hr of in class prep for my lesson on Thursday. Basically it was supposed to be on which 5 rights of the BoR are most important to you and which 5 are not (all are really important but the theme of the lesson is to inform and to get them to think). Well during my explanation of the 2nd amendment, the question was asked about why if the it guarantees the right to k & b arms do teachers NOT carry to protect their students (in the wake of VT). I had several assenting comments and a couple of comments saying that they did not want teachers to be armed. Well I asked if they wanted to debate the issue on Friday (which they did).

Well Thursday's lesson went EXTREMELY well, with very good discussion about the importance of different individual rights and with the 3 groups in my 1st class choosing the 2A as the most important of right. (All were concerned about being able to defend themselves). In the 2nd class 1 group picked it 1st, the other 2 groups picked it as 2nd. Also in both classes there were students that commented about their concern on losing ANY of their rights. (Made me proud).

Friday's lesson went just as well, I gave each student an opportunity to choose a position pro-armed teachers, against-armed teachers, or undecided. In the 1st class the pros were initially 1 fewer than the undecideds with only 5 against. After the discussions and the debates, they finished with the pro's having a 3-vote majority. In the 2nd class the pro's were the majority initially with only 3 anti votes, ended the class with only 2 anti votes and gained 1 of the antis and 2 more undecideds.

 

[Titan6]

I am curious. What was the substance of the debate? Was it civil rights vs. public safety or was it something else? I only ask because 6th graders kids are normally right at the cusp of seeking independent thought and rebellion at home.

 

[Nolo]

That fills me with hope. Sometimes, I think things are going down the tubes. I'm an AP student, and many of the people in my classes are just whacked. I just don't get where they're coming from. I'd consider this a testament to your excellence as a teacher.

 

[Superpsy]

good to hear...sometimes I feel like the only one thinking clearly in public schools. keep it up teach!

 

[El Tejon]

Sounds like the kids are really confused. The Second Amendment has nothing at all with defending oneself.

Were you able to correct that notion?

 

[Jamie C.]

Sounds like the kids are really confused. The Second Amendment has nothing at all with defending oneself.

I must really be confused too, 'cause I thought the whole purpose of keeping and bearing arms was so one could defend themselves, their family, their home, and their country, if need be...

Or is there something in both your post and the 2nd amendment that I'm missing, E.T.? ( I have a cold, so I can't currently smell sarcasm as well as I usually can... )


J.C.

 

[Blackbeard]

We need more teachers like you. How do you feel about cloning?

 

[Nolo]

It's sarcasm, Jamie, I'm 99.99999% sure of it.

 

[Jamie C.]

I'm sincerely hoping so, Nolo... but in my present condition, I'm not gonna risk assuming.


J.C.

 

[Pilgrim]

Sadly, space aliens will soon come and turn them all into teenagers.

Pilgrim

 

[Deacon Blues]

In a way I'm surprised, in a way I'm not. As many parents only want to occupy their kids rather than raise them, I can see how some of them will have failed to communicate their biases to their children. How can they, when they don't even talk to them? Children are usually exposed to a different subset of the media than adults; you'll rarely find a TV at a daycare tuned to MSNBC. I'm thinking that children are not being effectively targeted by the enemies of the Constitution; perhaps they believe children are instinctively afraid of guns.

I believe that there are really only two things in the minds of ordinary people that separate the pro-2A from the anti: fear of guns, and a cache of anti-gun rhetoric; the latter is needed to rationalize the former. If the up-and-coming generation forms a common sense opinion about the RKBA before the media tries to induce hoplophobia in them, then the future looks bright indeed.

So, who's going to ask the Brady Bunch, "Are you smarter than a 6th grader?"

 

[El Tejon]

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal self-defense and sadly many today think that it does today (how many times do you hear the Second Amendment mentioned when somone repels boarders on the street or in his home?). At the time the BoR was written, self-defense as so deeply held that no one questioned it.

The Second Amendment is for fighting government, not street thugs. The Ninth Amendment is for fighting street thugs.

 

[CNYCacher]

If I may be so bold as to try and interpret El Tejon's post, I would have to say that he may have meant to remind everyone that the second amendment is about overthrowing a tyrannical .gov

A well-regulated militia being necessary to keep a state free. . .


Edit: I started writing this post a couple hours ago, then got distracted by housework, then came in and finished it.

 

[Hoppy590]

the second ammendment ensures we retain the ability to over throw the government. plain and simple. and thats why we should be allowed to own military grade small arms.



the right to life and liberty. those are what 2 A is protecting

 

[Zoogster]

Yes the right to individual protection was considered natural and unquestioned. That was covered under the ninth.
The right they felt was necessary to state was the ability to remain armed so the people could organize at a moments notice and take up arms against a tyrannical government.
That is the reason for the second.

That may not be why most people get arms, but that is why they are protected by the constitution.

Also many people feel as you mention, and still support the restriction of arms and thier ownership, which is how people are divided and conquered. Make the hunters with wood stocks turn against those crazy people with the "assault weapons", who turn against the crazy people with "cannons that can shoot down orbiting satelites", who turn against those with "easily concealable and favored by criminals" handgun crowd, who turn against...
Until they feel the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED they don't really support it much more than the average individual, which only support the interpretations they like but give free reign to infringe on the others.

Not being an anti is different than being pro Second Amendment. People have just lately confused the two because the antis have been so strong and vocal in the last couple decades that everyone that wants any right at all has had to fight.

The reason the 2nd is mentioned so often is not because it is the most relevant to self defense or use of arms for the reasons most of us own them, but because it is the clearest one that shows restricting or infringing upon ownership is a clear violation of the constitution. Arguing for self defense or recreational activities like hunting or shooting is best argued in other ways.
The 2nd just means you have the right to own them anyways regardless of people's current opinions about how you should use them.

 

[SoCalShooter]

Nice work apparently they still teach the constitution in your state. Good work and keep it up. I would say you could plan a field trip but someone would frown on that.

 

[TCB in TN]

I am curious. What was the substance of the debate? Was it civil rights vs. public safety or was it something else? I only ask because 6th graders kids are normally right at the cusp of seeking independent thought and rebellion at home.

The debate was mostly the about the right for the teacher to protect themselves and the students they are charged with protecting vs the danger involved with allowing an armed person in the class. They actually had a fairly nuanced debate, with the anti kids bringing in many concerns with storage of a weapon in school, and the pro kids bringing up the idea that a stored weapon is NOT effective when needed.

And as for the issue of the 2A not being about defense, I would have to point out that there were plenty of comments from the founders about the right to defense against any and all dangers, from the gov, to lesser entities, as well as the lowly criminal. And in our discussion of the 2nd we touched on each of those reasons. Especially the right to protect ourselves from the tyranny of the gov. (focused on the original intent of extricating our country from England, and the need to keep the gov, sensitive to the people)

As for a field trip, I would LOVE to organize one, but shooting sports are common enough here that it would not have the impact here that it might elsewhere. Living in small town (less than 60,000 in the entire county) it is a hunting and shooting sport haven. I have 22 boys between the 2 classes and more than 1/2 have already taken their 1st deer, not to mention that 6 or 7 of the girls have also). Our county also has an organized youth trap team (if I remember correctly they finished top5 in state last year), and are looking to expand the program to include rifle and pistol.

 

[Flyboy]

The Second Amendment is about self-defense--you just have to use the proper defintion:

That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).
Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007)