What are US students learning about the 2nd Amendment?

[coyote_jr]

So I am subbing in middle school the other day and I draw the Social Studies teacher's classes for the day. The students are studying the Civil War and watching the film "Glory". Well during the film I take a gander at the teacher's History textbook and flip through it to see if there is any mention of the Second Amendment specifically. Lo and behold, in the chapter that discusses our Constitution, there is a section called "Protecting individual righs". Midway through the second paragrapgh....Wham!...there it is, a sentence stating that the 2nd guarantees citizens the right to keep and bear arms. I am pleasantly surprised.

But wait....

Fearing a too good to be true scenario, I look back in the reference section of the text and find info on the Bill of Rights. The book discusses each one with little sidenotes on each outside the actual text. Now, this being the teacher's edition, I don't know if the student's texts' have the same information, but the little sidenote about the 2nd Amendment says to the effect that only the state militias have the right to keep weapons. It even specifically references the National Gaurd. It goes on to say that the courts have generally ruled that the gov't can regulate private ownership.

Seemingly contradictory statements that I would think would send a definite mixed message to students.

My question(s) is this: Excluding the prejudices and biases, if any, of a teacher of this subject, are the publishers and/or writers of this information biased or prejudiced against the 2nd?

I think alot of gut reaction replies to my question will be something like "well it all goes back to the teacher, if he/she is an anti (or pro) they will teach what they believe..." but I ask you to think beyond that. Is there a bias with the publishers? Who owns these publishing companies? Are they inherently anti or pro? What do you think?

 

[Third_Rail]

I think that most of the books are published by people who are simply regurgitating what they've read elsewhere. Doesn't make them pro-gun, anti-gun, or anything of the like - they're lazy.

Unfortunately, students generally don't seem to know the difference between parroting things back and thinking.

 

[radicalthoughts]

To be perfectly honest the consitution isn't really thought in most high schools. American History is more of a "mix and stir" of different histories (Black, Woman, White Male Elitist, Public knowledge) without a common naritive. Without that common naritive, it's impossible to really teach history and that's why the consitution isn't really taught. The consitution is actually a very deep document based on a libertarian philsophy, and it's almost impossible to teach this to students. That's why the consitution isn't really taught, and all most students ever really have to do is memorize the bill of rights and which article goes with which branch and the power of them.

So over all even if the publishers were biased it's hard for me to believe that this would effect the children without an adamently pro or anti gun teacher. Also, I think that rural and urban kids would read it different. Urban kids who have no exposure to guns would read "militia" as not me becuase no one I know has guns. Rural kids would read it as, "Everyone I know has guns, Militia...That must be me"

 

[Dr. Dickie]

"The consitution is actually a very deep document based on a libertarian philsophy, and it's almost impossible to teach this to students."

This is true, BUT it is true because kids are not taught to think, they are taught to parrot and recite. As someone who teaches college, I have seen this become a serious problem (getting much worse over the last 20 years or so).
Can you imagine teaching them that they had the RIGHT to defend themselves? The Left would have a cow!

 

[Manedwolf]

Common younger-gradeschool book in the shelves.

 

[carlrodd]

The Berenstains should be praised for this work which teaches lessons to little ones that unfortunately are needed today. As a fellow author from Pennsylvania, I do think it's mighty neighborly of them to do this book that reaches kids on their level. It's got the right lessons kids today should hear early on in life. Believe me, I've covered school shootings stories in my TV career. It's never too early to preach anti-violence to kids. This book is a very helpful tool indeed.

a review of the book on amazon. it's not the job of anyone to preach anything to children, except for their parents. this nonsense is the attitude of a good many educators.

 

[lucky_fool]

Textbook publishers are usually biased about the bottom line. It's cheaper for them to print one book and sell it to many states than it is to publish a bunch of books and sell each one to a couple of states. This leads to textbooks tending to fall right in the middle of the spectrum since they have to sell the same text to their two biggest markets, California and Texas. That doesn't mean that the textbooks are unbiased or even-handed though, it just means that they're generally devoid of anything that might offend either of those markets.

Not gun-related, but a good book on the subject is The Language Police.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

It's never too early to preach anti-violence to kids.

Anti-violence is ok. Pacifism is not. Disarming yourself and preaching limp-wristed socialist dogma is lunacy.

 

[shaggycat]

I have noticed that so many of my fellow students in college have just accepted what they have been taught as fact. It is as if anything a teacher says is fact. This is even more true if it is written in a textbook. We had a class where gun ownership came up and nearly every student accepted the teacher's twisted reading of the 2nd Ammendment as fact.

Parroting is a very good word to describe their reaction to the information.

As to what is taught, with the exception of my Constitutional Law class, every instance where gun control has been brought up has been done so in a manner presenting gun control as the only logical reaction to violence and crime. So in other words, I have only taken one pro-gun class in 14 years of education.

In twenty years those same students will be political leaders writing laws.

 

[radicalthoughts]

Dr. Dickie,

As a college student this seems to be a problem. In fact my best teacher was a Communist and I loved his class. As a person with a libertarian philsophy, this class requried my self to defend my self on a daily basis against the teacher and the other 10 or so left leaning students in the class. This by the way was a political theory class.

ShaggyCat,

As a member of a college community and an ex member of the college conservative movement I can only urge you to speak up on campus, write articles to the campus newspaper, join the College Republicans, College Libertarians, or College Democrats ( I know a few pro-gun Democrats). Heck, even start your own newspaper like I did or your own club. In my case it was College Libertarians. It's important that you get your voice out in the market place of ideas.

 

[TimboKhan]

This is true, BUT it is true because kids are not taught to think, they are taught to parrot and recite.

Well, this is why you should support your kids' school social studies program. Teaching kids to think historically does more than give them good grades in a class; it also teaches them to think critically about all sorts of topics. Also, get rid of standardized testing, which is nothing more than learning to pick the best answer from four.

Further, I have to say that as a high school teacher, I am somewhat offended at the idea that you guys apparently just think we make these kids memorize and repeat, memorize and repeat. My students do a lot of fun, active, creative activities. Actually, I am going to end this here because I want to take the high road, and there is a big part of me that is really, really wanting to take the low road right now.....

 

[radicalthoughts]

TimboKhan,

I appologize for suggesting that all high school students do is repeat and memorize. In my experience, that is all that is neccessary to pass high school. I graduated less than 3 years ago, so I would assume it is very similar still today. There are good teachers out there that teach in a way that promotes learning and not memorizing. I had a lot of busy work in high school and I hated it becuase it wasn't about learning or thinking critically.

Teaching Kids historically is very good particularly in regard to science. It's important to see the evolution of scientific thought from the egyptions, greeks, and romans to our modern society. This also allows students to evaluate the ethical and social implications of technology on our society.

Once again, TimboKhan, I appologize for suggesting that all teachers do is require memorization and repeating of their students. That simply isn't the case, although, I still stand by my generalization that in most high schools that is all that is required.

 

[BlackManWithAGun]

Information Generation

I have realized that our information is one way. It either goes in or is deleted. It is rarely debated, chewed on, or provokes more thought. If the celebrity says it, then it is true until debunked by a higher authority. I am trying to provide some controversial truth into the IPOD generation via my podcast BlackManWithAGun LIVE!

 

[Dr. Dickie]

"Further, I have to say that as a high school teacher, I am somewhat offended at the idea that you guys apparently just think we make these kids memorize and repeat, memorize and repeat."

Timbokahn, you are ONE, and I wish there were a whole lot more like you--I encourage to keep up the good work.
I am sure that not all high school teachers do this, but (at least in my experience) the vast majority does this. I have been told this by students and have seen this attitude displayed by most of the students I have taught (at least from government schools--private seems to be a lot better). Course, I teach science and down here good math and science teachers are tough to find.
Did not mean to offend you, but you need to know you are an anomaly (at least around here ).

 

[go_bang]

The root of the issue is that a proper education in civics is seriously lacking in the public school system. The system was never designed to teach its students how to think for themselves in the first place, but to teach them how to follow the system and be good little subjects of it. For more background read this guy's book:

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm

When you're done don't be surprised if you find yourself thinking about homeschooling your kids.

If the UK and Australia are any indication, that system wants to have us disarmed as well. If they can't pull that off in the US through the legal system, there is always the educational system.

 

[coyote_jr]

Also, I think that rural and urban kids would read it different. Urban kids who have no exposure to guns would read "militia" as not me becuase no one I know has guns.

I'm not sure which urban area you speak of, but I don't think this assumption would apply to most inner city kids

 

[Gordon Fink]

It goes on to say that the courts have generally ruled that the gov’t can regulate private ownership.

All too true.

~G. Fink

 

[El Barto]

I am a returning college student (I'm 35) and I have noticed that the newer textbooks are beginning to be written to placate special interest groups and be more politically correct.

In my US history book, there are exactly 2 sentences written about the reconstruction after the Civil War. I feel that there should be more written about this era due to its cultural, political and economic impact on a large portion of the U.S. that continues to this day. To compare, there was about half a page devoted to the emergence of the homosexual lifestyle in the early 20th century.

We are also taught less. In Algebra class we are just showed how to solve the problems in the book. No actual theory is taught.

I agree that most textbooks are products of lazy writers and editors that “borrow” statements and facts from previous editions. In regards to gun ownership and rights, I believe that this is a subject that most educators would rather not touch. Yes, we have them, no we aren’t going to talk about them and their importance.

 

[MechAg94]

Does Texas still have the high school govt class requirement?

When I was in there in the late 80's, we covered the constitution in the Fed Gov part of the class. It was not greatly detailed, but it was studied.
Also, in college, we had to take a semester of FedGov and a semester of StateGov. I didn't think those were electives.

 

[MechAg94]

On testing, I don't have an issue with testing, but it really should be "minimal" skills testing. If a kid has basic skils of reading, writing, and arithmetic, he passes. It sounds like the current skills tests go beyond that.

 

[TimboKhan]

In my US history book, there are exactly 2 sentences written about the reconstruction after the Civil War. I feel that there should be more written about this era due to its cultural, political and economic impact on a large portion of the U.S. that continues to this day. To compare, there was about half a page devoted to the emergence of the homosexual lifestyle in the early 20th century.

We are also taught less. In Algebra class we are just showed how to solve the problems in the book. No actual theory is taught.

I agree that most textbooks are products of lazy writers and editors that “borrow” statements and facts from previous editions. In regards to gun ownership and rights, I believe that this is a subject that most educators would rather not touch. Yes, we have them, no we aren’t going to talk about them and their importance

I too am 35, and I too am an old college student. I think what you have to realize is that US history texts tend to talk more about new events than they do older ones. Not to sound blase about the whole thing, but if you want to learn more about reconstruction, you need to take a civil war class. You will get more reconstruction than you can handle, and I speak from expereince. Really, for a survey class like US history, reconstruction has been passed over in favor of the civil rights movement. I am willing to bet there was more than a couple of sentences devoted to that topic. Homosexuality has become the new, and biggest, focus of the civil rights movement. I mean, look at the news. I just had to vote on two bills related to homosexuality here in Colorado in the recent election. The reality is, homosexuality has become a political issue, and is likely going to be one of the defining issues of this decade. In other words, it really is appropriate to talk about homosexuality historically, regardless of whatever your particular view or belief on the subject happens to be.

 

[SamTuckerMTNMAN]

teacher

I'm a teacher and I teach kids that thinking takes effort, truth is hard to discern, and that manipulation is everywhere. I challenge them when they all raise hands that they eat meat after they say hunting is wrong. I challenge them in many ways. I've been told, "If Walt Disney doesnt say it, we don't say it". So I invite students and parents over to shoot
Textbooks are written with agendas absolutely - the agendas of companies who fund the textbooks!! It's a long paper trail.
And to the person who posted that the constitution was too deep for students to understand or study, WTH?
There are principles which are advanced and underpinnings and context etc. however, the constitution should be taught from early childhood, what it means, how you interpret it. Middle schoolers should debate it, high schoolers should write about it and act on it. College students should further elucidate and challenge teachers and peers. Kids are only incable because we expect them to be so. . .
A good time to practice the old adage a few will remember,
"FOLLOW ME"

 

[bthest86]

I was also taught that the 2nd Amendment refers to the National Guard in High School civics. But I had been taught in my home and other sources that the 2A refers to the people.

I remember I asking the teacher if the 2A was only about arming the militia (NG) then why mention "the people" at all?

Her answer was that the militia used to be "the people" until the National Guard was formed which replaced the militia (or somesort of nonsense like that.)

 

[arthurcw]

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what the 2nd amendment says or what they teach about it. It is gospel truth to just about every history teacher and professor I've ever talked to that the Constitution is a "Living Document" and means what society needs it to mean at any given time.

They could teach that the 2nd amendment was written as a guarantee of personal firearm rights to fend off an unjust government, but that it's not relevant in today’s enlightened world. And since violence is so rampant in society, we need a more nuanced reading of the Constitution. And since the founders envisioned a "Living Document" then we are only doing what needs to be done for the good of society.

I was a teacher and I got that all the darn time when talking to “Historians”.

It is a gross mischaracterization of the Constitution to teach that it is a "Living Document" in this way. It is only "Living" in the sense that WE AS A PEOPLE can amend IT. Not the fecking courts through activist judges, the Congress though laws, nor the Executive Branch through fiat. But since I didn’t have piece of paper that said I had been properly brain washed in a History Department, my opinion was worthless and just what they would expect from some racist, sexist, bigoted conservative techie.

As long as the majority of the people in the US think it's a "Living Document" . You can say what ever you need to say about any of the amendments because tomorrow it could change if need be.

EDITED TO ADD:

</rant> sorry. That one burns me up.

Basically what I'm trying to say is, the battle for the classroom is over for the moment. If you don't try to teach people outside the classroom about the RKBA and Original Intent, no one will. The "Historians" sure aren't going to.

 

[Monkeybear]

I remember when I was in school they made each of us read the preamble out loud and that was it, we skipped the rest of the Bill of Rights. Sad really.