Workbook teaches kids 2nd Amendment includes gun control

In a thread last night someone asked the question "what's wrong with public schools?" This was about the US and there is another problem besides the general dumbing of American student. There is the political bias by both the "progressives" and the "conservatives" as they push their competing agendas.

In this case I would like to bring up "progressive" anti gun agenda. It's no secret that the US attorney general believes we must "brainwash" the people into accepting gun restrictions. In the article I believe we are seeing this agenda in action.

Workbook teaches kids that Second Amendment includes gun control

A social studies workbook, used in an Illinois public middle school, is generating controversy among gun rights supporters because it claims that the Second Amendment permits only strictly regulated, registered gun ownership.

A screenshot of the workbook was first posted to the Facebook page for Illinois Gun Owners Rights. It provides the following description of the Second Amendment:

This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and have not been in prison. The founding fathers included the amendment to prevent the United States from acting like the British who had tried to take weapons away from the colonists.

The actual text of the Second Amendment makes no mention of gun registration:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

He (parent Rich Kinison) reported the workbook to the head of the history department at the school, who explained that the description was written by teachers at the school some years ago. It predated Common Core, and would be re-evaluated given the concerns about its accuracy.

Parents you must be ever vigilant in protecting your childrens minds, from all agendas. If that requires your teaching them yourselves then so be it. Do not leave them helpless in the face of clear misinformation, lies and propaganda.

Home schooling is looking better and better vs public indoc... education.

"A Well Regulated Militia"

Well Regulated-this could very well be interpreted as basically authorizing the federal government/state governments to have standards that must be met for possession of firearms.

-the term militia varies in what exactly it means, and who exactly has authority over the militia, (such as the state, or the county or etc.)

reply to post by Bassago


Ugh. If that is an actual workbook, I have a real problem with that. It should be left as written or more simply rephrased followed by court exception and why the founders authored it. I'd hate to see what the other amendments say.

reply to post by NonsensicalUserName

"A Well Regulated Militia"

these are the words that are often forgotten by pro-gun advocates.

along with the several insurrections (whisky rebellion for one) that the early american government crushed

Well regulated in this context means in good working order and citizens are the Militia.

What does the whiskey rebellion, etc have to do with this? The topic is that the school is using a workbook that is telling blatant lies about what the 2nd amendment means. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean only certain weapons and they must be registered.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


it looks like a packet that was printed and stapled together for an elementary school social-studies/government+history class.

it's probably for 4th or 5th graders...

reply to post by NonsensicalUserName


Militia
It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service.

Well Regulated
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

Neither of these addresses the right "shall not be infringed" nor do they place any type of restrictions on who may own a firearm.

Wow... That's just *WRONG* and on so many levels. I'm stunned by the audacity.

When I saw the title, I was thinking to myself 'Well....yeah..technically...if you take Super Court interpretations as * footnotes...it does kinda..." but, hey! They aren't even playing half way fair in trying to connect two totally unconnected periods of time and people for their "lesson".

They outright misstate in black and white what our Constitution reads. That's just TOO far. How ignorant are the teachers who would teach off it, anyway? Do they even recall what the document says themselves??

I had an environmental course I dropped this semester where the instructor actually, I kid you not, showed a film he prefaced by saying was inaccurate in a number of ways, 6 years outdated for the science of it, and had been sued over 140 times for material inaccuracies...but the 'message' is what mattered. The man actually said this..in a -SCIENCE- class.

What's next? They're going to say the Pilgrims weren't actually white or they didn't actually come from England but some other twist to history somehow? It's getting wacky.

reply to post by Bassago

This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and have not been in prison. The founding fathers included the amendment to prevent the United States from acting like the British who had tried to take weapons away from the colonists.

It's Indoctrination. Teach them what you want them to think, not facts. Facts are too inconvenient when you have an agenda to push. I wouldn't be surprised to see and Obama logo on there front of the work books.

I'd like to know who actually wrote the book. Any way to find out?

Bassago

Well regulated in this context means in good working order and citizens are the Militia.

What does the whiskey rebellion, etc have to do with this? The topic is that the school is using a workbook that is telling blatant lies about what the 2nd amendment means. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean only certain weapons and they must be registered.

that's your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
There are several different interpretations, the one that's important is the interpretation the Supreme Court makes.

Some more info from the same article...

According to the Facebook page, parent Rich Kinison first posted the image. His child attends school at Grant Middle School in Springfield, Illinois.

He reported the workbook to the head of the history department at the school, who explained that the description was written by teachers at the school some years ago. It predated Common Core, and would be re-evaluated given the concerns about its accuracy.

“I was informed that this would be brought up to the proper people at the school and they would try to get it changed,” said Kinison in a statement.

Since it is a local workbook, I suspect it was just some undereducated educators who wrote it and not part of a conspiracy.

reply to post by Elton


I wouldn't even say it's uneducated educators, they don't go in depth in middle school, they need to cover stuff and move on to the next thing, there isn't time for debates, or long drawn out discussions, they need to cover a topic and move the f** on.

reply to post by kx12x

I'd like to know who actually wrote the book. Any way to find out?

The article indicates that teachers (plural) wrote this BS. I suppose we could contact them directly and ask via email. There are only a few history teachers in the school.

Grant Middle School Teachers List

NonsensicalUserName

Bassago

Well regulated in this context means in good working order and citizens are the Militia.

What does the whiskey rebellion, etc have to do with this? The topic is that the school is using a workbook that is telling blatant lies about what the 2nd amendment means. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean only certain weapons and they must be registered.

that's your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
There are several different interpretations, the one that's important is the interpretation the Supreme Court makes.

the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the second. vote was 4 to 3.

On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right.
United States: Gun Ownership and the Supreme Court

reply to post by NonsensicalUserName


www.constitution.org...

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

well that should clear up any misconceptions on that topic as words meaning can change over time from what they used to mean or be modified by neologisms or new age phrases but the original meaning is quite clear



10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes can be researched to further clarify the issue but that much is clear at least (whom the militia is)

NonsensicalUserName
reply to post by Elton

 

I wouldn't even say it's uneducated educators, they don't go in depth in middle school, they need to cover stuff and move on to the next thing, there isn't time for debates, or long drawn out discussions, they need to cover a topic and move the f** on.

edit on 22-3-2014 by NonsensicalUserName because: (no reason given)

Sure, but when they are making workbooks for the school they can take the time to make them accurate.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


ah ok..

you forgot:

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

in addition:

The outcome of D.C. v. Heller leaves some issues unanswered, including whether the Second Amendment restricts state regulation of firearms, and the standard for evaluating the constitutionality of other laws and regulations that impact the Second Amendment right. These issues will be the subject of future litigation.

NonsensicalUserName
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

ah ok..

you forgot:

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

in addition:

The outcome of D.C. v. Heller leaves some issues unanswered, including whether the Second Amendment restricts state regulation of firearms, and the standard for evaluating the constitutionality of other laws and regulations that impact the Second Amendment right. These issues will be the subject of future litigation.

no i didn't those are gun laws already on the books, we need no new laws just better enforcement of those that we already have.
and not writing a bunch of bs and teach it to kids as if it was fact.

and look at georgia, looks like soon you can carry just about everywhere. as soon as the gov signs the bill.



i was wrong about that case, there is one out that they nwouldn't hear i thought it was the chicago case , t was wrong but i did find a answer to your second quote about over ruleing the state.

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Writing for the majority, Justice Alito held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.[21] Writing a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas reached the same conclusion regarding the incorporation issue on different grounds: Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[22] The majority decision also reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case.[23] Such restrictions include those to "prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms".[23]
McDonald v. Chicago

edit on 22-3-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

reply to post by NonsensicalUserName

I wouldn't even say it's uneducated educators, they don't go in depth in middle school, they need to cover stuff and move on to the next thing, there isn't time for debates, or long drawn out discussions, they need to cover a topic and move the f** on.

You make one point of my OP perfectly. After spending many years internationally I came back to the US to finish high school. I found the level of teaching to be years behind what is taught outside of the US. I could pretty much ignore all remaining classes having already been taught the curriculum years earlier. US schools are slow and behind. Now they teach lies and political agendas as well.

reply to post by Bassago


I think you're overestimating the impact and significance of this sort of thing; I mean I rarely listened to these sorts of materials, now the textbooks were far more influential, mostly because they seemed far more authoritative than packets/booklets printed by the teachers, and/or went into enough depth to appear authentic.

If anything it's stupid but american school is screwed up anyway due to lack of any real interest from the general public, usually because we spend so much time arguing about petty sh*t like this, which merely forces up our "Partisan Sheilds" rather than paying attention to some of the underlying systemic issues with how education is funded, how curriculums are decided, how well teachers are paid, what qualifications we have for teachers.