Teaching the Second Amendment

SierraTimes.com ^ | July 13, 2006 | Jennifer Freeman

[neverdem]

The public education system has tremendous influence in shaping the views of millions of young Americans. In many cases, the public school system is the only exposure that many children have to the Bill of the Rights. It is imperative, therefore, to ensure that our nation's teachers are enlightening our young people and teaching them correctly about our rights and the meaning behind them. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of educators in the United States appear to promote an anti-gun agenda or, at the very least, prefer not to teach the Second Amendment in its true light. We base this opinion, in part, on the fact that the United States Parent-Teacher Association and the National Education Association are both openly anti-gun organizations. We further base our opinion on the fact that the public education system at large seems aligned with the left-leaning socialist agenda that also dominates the dinosaur media and the Democractic Party. These are organizations and individuals who side with the enemy during wartime, attack Christian expression while simultaneously supporting public, other-than-Christian religious expression, and support the licensing and registration of guns while secretly conniving to confiscate every one of them.

These are the same people who try to deny that the Second Amendment applies to you and me, but applies to the National Guard instead. These are the same people who conjured up the term, "assault rifle" in an effort to ban semi-automatic rifles. They claim that when the Constitution was written, the Founding Fathers never intended it to apply to the types of firearm technology available today.

Any red-blooded, patriotic American who understands the true meaning of the Second Amendment is closer in spirit to our Founding Fathers than the sniveling, whiners who call themselves intellectuals. As such, we know that the right to keep and bear arms applies to the American people and is not restricted to muskets. We can further prove the intent of the Founding Fathers by observing how they lived and by reading many of the supporting articles and letters that outline their philosophy on the symbiotic relationship between an armed populace and a government that serves its people.

It is time to demand that our nation's education system duly recognize our Bill of Rights and teach the Second Amendment according to its true intent. You can start by talking to your child and asking them if they are learning about the Constitution in school. If so, take a look at their textbook and see if the Second Amendment is accurately reported. If there is a problem with the textbook or if the Second Amendment is not being taught at all, you may want to talk to your child's principal. You may also want to team up with other parents who share the same views. Teachers have a responsibility to our children and we have a responsibility to see that our nation's teachers are doing their jobs properly.

Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.

http://www.libertybelles.org

jennifer@libertybelles.org

[coconutt2000]

I hear it is a teacher's first amendment right to deny that the second amendment even exists... /sarc

[ivyleaguebrat]

The second amendment should be taught to our children in a proper and positive light. However, this editorial offers no evidence that it hasn't been...

[blogblogblogging]

This is a very good article.

It's a cliche but it's true: Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

The 2nd Amendment is there for a reason. It's not some antiquated passage. People should be taught to respect it.

[Ainast]

Someone who's name I can't remember once said.


"if guns causes people to be shot then pencils cause misspelled words."


I use that quote every single time someone brings up the second amendment as a negative.

Its very effective.

[Richard-SIA]

I well remember my "publik skul edumacation".

I wasted my youth attending several different schools, due to our family moving frequently.

The one thing they all seemed to have in common was the view that the second amendment was an obsolete collective right, that does not apply to common citizens.

Many schools simply passed over it, those that did not claimed it to be a "collective right", an "obsolete remnant", "meaningless" due to our "Living constitution", which is subject to "reinterpretation" to suit "modern conditions".

Every truly useful thing I know I learned AFTER I escaped the socialist indoctrination centers that masquerade as "School"!

Considering that I attended school in the mid 60's to early 70's, and that I am about the same age as many of those in politics and running government agencies today, it is no surprise that the second amendment is still under constant attack by the very people who have sworn to defend it (as it is an integral part of the Constitution and B.O.R.).

They have no problem with an abridged B.O.R., they learned that portions of it are irrelevant, from their "teachers".

[SR 50]

They should be teaching the children exactly what Law Enforcement really is and what their jobs really are.

It is not to protect citizens from harm. Law Enforcement has no obligation to keep its citizens safe from harm.

If anyone does not believe this just check the many cases where citizens sued because they were not protected from criminals by the local Law Enforcement.

[Gumption]

I have 2 daughters (now 14 & 16) who go to public school in Maryland. While they were in elementary school I would read everything they brought home with a hypersensitive eye and then proceed to correct what was being pounded into their mushy little heads in a very long winded way. So much so that they became very obverse to showing me anything the school would give them.

When they got to learning about the Constitution (4th grade I think) they were given a ditto, for homework, "synopsizing" the first 10 amendments that they had to match up with the corresponding number. Being in Maryland, I was highly suspect when I began to perused this assignment. When I got a little way down the list I saw words that simply said "the right to own guns". To say I was pleasantly surprised is the understatement of the decade.

They also had Rep. Bob Ehrlich (now our Governor) in to talk to the kids and he handed every child a complete copy of the Constitution, that we still have and use today. From that point on I have been less suspicious of the public school system.

[xzins]

The best way to teach the 2nd amendment, and to subvert the intent of the liberal social studies teachers, is to actually teach the kids reading and grammar.

With those, they can learn anything else on their own.

[DustyMoment]

A good read, but it isn't strong enough. I have communicated with way too many youngetser graduating from high school whose concepts of the Constitution stop at "It's some government thing". The vast majority have received no education on ANY of the Amendments or the true structure of our government and how it functions.

There is dumbing down and there is CRIMINAL dumbing down. IMO, what the NEA has done meets the criteria for the latter. The liberal/leftist agenda MUST be eradicated from the school system and the kids need to be introduced to a politically-neutral presentation of the Constitution and all of its Amendments and allow the kids to decide which party they want to follow.

[Badray]

bump for later

[MarkL]

"meaningless" due to our "Living constitution",

The next time that someone brings up the "living constitution," ask them if they think that the Constitution is a legal document, like a contract or a bill of sale... You might need mention that the Constitution is considered to be the supreme law of the land, if they don't understand the concept of a legal document. Then, aks them if they'd ever sign a legal document whos meaning can be reinterpreted at the whim of people who are interpreting it.

Would they buy a house if they thought that after the closing, the terms, or even the amount the house sold for could possibly change?

The simple fact is if a legal document has a meaning that can change over time, then that legal document has NO meaning whatsoever.

Mark

[DustyMoment]

They should be teaching the children exactly what Law Enforcement really is and what their jobs really are.

A valid point, but the Second Amendment exceeds the concept of just aiding Law Enforcement. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are about the balance of power. The Founding Fathers, some of the wisest, most thoughtful men who walked this earth (and, thank God, they were Americans!) knew that one of the best ways to counter the potential for an abusive federal government, was through an armed citizenry. They knew that, by authorizing an Army and a Navy to protect and defend the United States, the government would have all the weapons if they did bot balance the playing field by allowing the citizens to keep and bear arms. Liberals and leftists hate the thought that, because of this balance of power, the federal government cannot impose absolute power over the citizens and use the threat of armed force to back up their power. That concept is incorporated throughout the entire structure of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and it is the very reason that the liberals/leftists of the NEA don't want our kids to know this.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Nice story.

For me the main issue of the second amendment which is almost never brought up is the requirement of an armed citizenry to form militias that could potentially be the last line of defense against a tyrannous government.

Honestly I find those gentlemen who talk about their guns as if they were extensions of their manhood or love to talk about "from my cold dead hands" at best silly, and at worst counterproductive oafs.

The 2nd amendment is 2nd because it is the 2nd most important right to ensure an enduring democracy, even under the worst imaginable circumstances i.e. an invading army or the US government itself using the military to impose the will of tyrannous regime it may itself have become.

The 2nd amendment is not about hunting and it is not about protecting oneself from criminals. It is about national defense and the eternal vigilance required to preserve an inherently unstable balance required for representative democracy to endure.

[Beckwith]

These are the same people who try to deny that the Second Amendment applies to you and me, but applies to the National Guard instead.

You have to give the Founding Fathers high marks for prescience. The National Guard wasn't established until the 20th Century.

The 1903 Dick Act, which replaced the old Militia Act of 1792, divided all male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 into the organized militia and the reserve militia.

The National Guard was formed in 1916 by the the National Defense Act. The new act provided increased federal support and regulation.

My own view is that the Constitution should be interpreted with the mindset of the Founders. The militia was an organization of neighbors, not a federally funded professional army.

The second thing to remember is that the militia was used to overthrow the government of King George.

The People have a right to keep and bear arms in order to form militias in order to defend themselves against an unjust government.

No wonder government works so hard to disarm the People.

[Shimmer128]

So they got something right ONE TIME and you have been less suspicious??
Silly person!

[Shimmer128]

If you want your child to understand your view of the Second Amendment, not some liberal teachers view, then I suggest you teach them yourself!

[lionheart 247365]

Todays teachers would have students learn how to surrender rather than fight for their freedom and live in an opressive society , and the first amendment , well that we'll surrender to the state run press and the propaganda spin miesters .

[lionheart 247365]

Todays teachers would have students learn how to surrender rather than fight for their freedom and live in an opressive society , and the first amendment , well that we'll surrender to the state run press and the propaganda spin miesters .

[Jonah Hex]

One comment: The Bill of Rights is not a prioritization list i.e. one right is more important than another. The Second Amendment is equal in importance to the First Amendment is equal in importance to the Fifth Amendment, etc.

In other words, the Bill of Rights should not be confused with Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics...

I'll defer to our resident Constitutional scholar on that point. :-)