What are US students learning about the 2nd Amendment?

[Havegunjoe]

I don't have the specifics right in front of me....

But I know that public school books have to conform to a standard or funding is witheld. A few years ago a study was done to determine how often certain words and phrases were found in social studies/history school books. Words like "diversity", "freedom of speech", "tolerance", and "second amendment". All the other words/pharses were found numberous times but the 2A on average was found zero, zip, nada times.

What this means is that we are raising a generation of kids that won't even know they have a right to bear arms. If you don't know you have a right it is easier to take it away.

 

[jerkyman45]

Coyoyte its good to see a fellow Rhode Islander here, and to answer your question they don't learn a great deal. Many teachers read it verbatim and it may show up in a quiz or test. These days kids don't learn much of anything on the 2A, and its sad.

 

[TimboKhan]

Those who limit the 2A to militia are also those that think the 1A protects child pornography, crucifixes in jars of urine, and all the "artsy" stuff they support

Well, I don't know any non-insane people who think that the 1A protects child pornography, but the other stuff you mentioned is, in fact, protected. It amazes me how we can be so focused on people accepting our point of view on the 2A, but we are so very close minded about others interpretations of the other amendments.

 

[mindwip]

The 1A does not protect child pornography. It protects the nude image of a child to be made or displayed. But if its sexual then its bad, then its pornography. If you wanted to ban all nude child images then most of european well most of history's art would be illiegal in the USA. As lots of paintings have moms and kids in full nude. Well the ones the church did not paint over. Like the 16th chapel.

Hay i learned that in school too.

 

[Fletchette]

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.

When I was in High School in the 80's (a long time ago ) I read almost the exact same thing in my history / social studies book; the footnote "interpreted" the Second Amendment for the students. The contradiction is a clear sign of Liberal Double-Speak. Try to use the same logic on any of the other Amendments and the ACLU-types will jump down your throat. Truly astonishing.

try to use your position as a teacher to remind the students that the Bill of Rights is quoted, but the footnotes are opinions of the book's authors.

 

[Fletchette]

Wow. After reading through this thread I am again forced to remember my high school "education". Specifically, I wrote a paper for my English class on the subject of Freedom of Speech. My teacher graded me off a letter grade for "incorrect thought"; she could do that because it was a private Catholic school and private schools have such latitude.

Her opinion was essentially that none of the rights defined in the Bill of Rights are absolute and all can be regulated by the State. Her specific comments to my paper was exactly the debate going on here: "The First Amendment doesn't protect child pornography or how to make nuclear bombs".

Well, being told that I was thinking incorrectly stuck in my mind, to say the least, and I have thought about that paper ever since. I had reached a conclusion to this conundrum in grad school.

Conclusion: The First Amendment does recognize an absolute right to Freedom of Speech. My rationale? Child pornography, as disgusting an immoral as it is, is merely evidence of a crime, and not a crime in and of itself. If it were, then those detectives at the FBI would be committing a crime for possessing such pornography.

Another way to look at it; what is worse - a picture of a naked child or a picture of a summary execution? The liberals used the attached picture in their protests against the Vietnam War; in fact it was on the front page of many newspapers. Can you imagine the outcry if people were arrested for disseminating this picture because the person in the picture got hurt? Imagine the cries of censorship!

As for nuclear weapons, the information is simply that: information. It is how one uses it that makes it "good" or "bad". Nuclear technology can be used to make a bomb or a power plant. A nuclear bomb can be used to kill a lot of innocent people or to end a war. It is simply a tool. It all depends on how the tool is used.

Exactly like guns.

 

[arthurcw]

...The "Historians" sure aren't going to.

Ehem. Some of us do.

Can't win can I?

Ok, History Prof

...MOST "Historians" sure aren't going to.

 

[coyote_jr]

Coyoyte its good to see a fellow Rhode Islander here

By the grace of Jesus the Christ himself may I be in Free New Hampshire soon.

 

[Rachen]

I went to high school in New York City

Being the liberal sewer that New York is, I actually went to a high school that is very, shall you say, gun friendly. Not that many people there own one and are obsessed by them, the folks in my HS are not the UK type ignorami that defecates their pants when they see a lonely little .22 short sitting on the sidewalk.
I remember during 11th grade, I did a whole research report on the Colt M-1911 A1 and presented the report to my class in a great 20 minute Powerpoint presentation complete with slides and sketches that I made myself, because I can't bring the real thing to the presentation, I can only use photos of mine, and neat artwork of my own.
Nevertheless, my class was intrigued by my presentation, and not once during the whole thing did anybody make a stupid negative comment about guns, and not once after it either.
I was very pleased on how everybody understands the concept of positive gun ownership. I was a pretty popular kid in my High School, and my presentation made me a lot new friends too, even though everybody knows I am the resident history buff.

 

[Gordon Fink]

I could tell she was thinking “well why aren’t people shooting each other all time just for the hell of it like the wild west!”

Because the Wild West was largely a fiction concocted by dime novelists.

~G. Fink

 

[SamTuckerMTNMAN]

WHOA!

I am teaching classes right now on governmental systems in Africa and the challenges of Democracy / Constitutional Republics / and other systems of the world such as those found throughout the African continent. Anyway, I proudly pulled my school supplied copy of the U.S. Const' and Bill of Rights off of my desk and began reading some parts to the class (also inspired by recent posts on THR) and WHAT DO I SEE?
The pamphlet, called "United States Constitution" , organized and labeled just like the real constitution, is a paraphrased document that 'sums up' the elements of the constitution. It is written by Univ NC school of gov't and the Civic Ed. Consortium to ; "prepare North Carolina's young people to be active, responsible citizens."
How can you do that without the document that defines our system of government? Imagine taking a religion class with a 'paraphrased' bible, updated to not offend anyone, or a 'paraphrased' Qu'ran, or so on. . .
The second amendment and third were the clinchers. . .
2nd - the right to bear arms in certain situations.
3d - don't have to keep soldiers in homes unless required by law

This subtle word change opens a LOT of room for agenda driven teachers to teach what the document is according to them.

Anyway the kids want to write letters to the publishers and express disapproval. Some of them believe that it is dangerous to manipulate the founding documents of our country, especially in edu settings. I'll add mine right in there.

You can visit the NC consortium website at;

http://www.civics.org/

 

[51Cards]

... it is dangerous to manipulate the founding documents of our country ...

AMEN

Personal liberty defines us as Americans.

 

[antsi]

--------quote-----------
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.
-------------------------

College students can and should be able to understand that there are different opinions and interpretations out there, and should be able to express their own viewpoint including opposition to an opinionated instructor.

This is not true of grade school teachers. These kids are concrete thinkers, they tend to see the world in absolute terms, and they take whatever the teacher says as absolute truth.

I would object to this interpretation being taught to my child.

 

[Tom Servo]

One of my post-graduation options was teaching history in public high-school. There are several reasons I did not pursue that course.

The first was the publication of a survey of county college-bound seniors. 90% believed that sound traveled faster than light, that humans and dinosaurs co-existed at some point in the past, and less than 40% were able to write a 5-paragraph essay without signifigant spelling and/or grammatical errors.

It may be cowardice on my part, but I wasn't prepared to walk into a state-censored, ineffective tarpit of student apathy and parental neglect for $25k/yr.

I know people who teach, and it's become glorified babysitting. The public schools are no longer educating; the best they can hope for is that a bit of PC indoctrination holds past graduation. It's ironic that the "bright" kids are usually singled out early as potential discipline problems and ostracized by the system.

As far as the 2A, not one of the three American History books I saw at the time made any mention of it beyond enscapulating in a list of the Amendments. There was no commentary. Civics is no longer taught, and in my neck of the woods, Government is an elective that does its best to avoid any discussion of anything "controversial," like individual liberties.

 

[jerkyman45]

By the grace of Jesus the Christ himself may I be in Free New Hampshire soon.

Run Coyote, get out as fast as you can.

 

[History Prof]

Quote:

...The "Historians" sure aren't going to.

Ehem. Some of us do.

Can't win can I?

Ok, History Prof

...MOST "Historians" sure aren't going to.

Right you are, on that. I understand where you're coming from. Even though Dr. Bellesiles's Arming America has been totally discredited amongst professional historians, historians of his ilk still get the real attention from non-historians......

I could tell she was thinking "well why aren't people shooting each other all time just for the hell of it like the wild west!"

Another myth that I explode in my classes. The way I approach this is to ask how many of my students have heard of the "Gunfight at OK Corral." Ok, so I'm only 100 miles from Tombstone, but still, even if I were in NY, they'd have heard of it....

Then I point out that if gunfights were so common in the "old west," than why does OK Corral matter? EVERY western town would have some shootout or another to build a legend on if the "violence" of the "old west" really happened the way hollywood wants us to believe...

An armed society really is a polite society.