• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Need to watch teachers

I hate to write this but we will need to wait longer for the answer. The open house turned out to be Thursday not Tuesday and it didn't permit the opportunity to ask the kind of questions I needed to ask. It was more of a herd the parents around and give us overviews of the class. Hang in there for an answer. I'll be contacting her tomorrow.
 
Take you time, take a deep breath and give it to her good...In a 2A sort of way... ;)
 
Here ya go...doesn't want to offend anyone? BS!!! Hopefully, he was saying this just to get a rise out of his students...but I doubt it. :x

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUi0rUEc_wI&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
 
OA that guy in the video is a real live ahole. I guess no democrat is greedy or hides income...yeah right. He also implies the kids should have free education except for those bad republicans.

From my daughter's school book. The 2A as are all the amendments are, is written in the exact verbiage of the Constitution. To the left is a description of each. Most seem accurate except one...the 2A.

Amendment 2 guarantees that the federal government cannot deny states the right to enlist citizens in the militia and to provide them with training in the use of weapons.
Click to expand...

...and here I thought it was a personal right to keep and bear arms as in GUNS. This is a bunch of crap even if it was printed before the Heller and McDonald cases by SCOTUS. This is the only place in the book it mentions the 2A. It does contradict itself. Earlier the book states that the first amendments are personal rights. I guess I'll look through it more and find anything else amiss and then contact the teacher.
 
carbinemike said:
OA that guy in the video is a real live ahole. I guess no democrat is greedy or hides income...yeah right. He also implies the kids should have free education except for those bad republicans.

From my daughter's school book. The 2A as are all the amendments are, is written in the exact verbiage of the Constitution. To the left is a description of each. Most seem accurate except one...the 2A.

Amendment 2 guarantees that the federal government cannot deny states the right to enlist citizens in the militia and to provide them with training in the use of weapons.
Click to expand...

...and here I thought it was a personal right to keep and bear arms as in GUNS. This is a bunch of crap even if it was printed before the Heller and McDonald cases by SCOTUS. This is the only place in the book it mentions the 2A. It does contradict itself. Earlier the book states that the first amendments are personal rights. I guess I'll look through it more and find anything else amiss and then contact the teacher.
Click to expand...

That is a true - but horribly incomplete and no doubt deliberate - description of the 2A. The left are sneaky bastards. Good catch, but I doubt there's much you can do to get it changed. It sounds like this is one of those instances of teaching to the test. And of course the "correct" answer (probably multiple choice or true/false) on the test would be supportive of the text book and not provide the kind of choices you and I would expect.
 
Amendment 2 guarantees that the federal government cannot deny states the right to enlist citizens in the militia and to provide them with training in the use of weapons.
Click to expand...

Who's interpretation is that? The amendments are not protection for the states but for the people...I hate revisionists...
 
Amendment 2 guarantees that the federal government cannot deny states the right to enlist citizens in the militia and to provide them with training in the use of weapons.
Click to expand...

I've never heard the 2A discribed in that way.... Pretty much a load of crap...and as said before, NOT a states right.... :evil:
 
2A is an individual right.
 
aksavanaman said:
Amendment 2 guarantees that the federal government cannot deny states the right to enlist citizens in the militia and to provide them with training in the use of weapons.
Click to expand...

I've never heard the 2A discribed in that way.... Pretty much a load of crap...and as said before, NOT a states right.... :evil:
Click to expand...

This interpretation goes way back in legal history - that doesn't mean it's right tho. I suspect that this text book description is based on the below, and hasn't been updated in a very long time. That may be a way to get it revised, although the The Gods of the Copybook Headings are a difficult bunch to deal with.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm
Click to expand...


See this:

In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms. For example, in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.” Although most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated (PDF) into the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus cannot be impaired by state governments, the Second Amendment has never been so incorporated.

Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, the last time the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment was in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, Jack Miller and one other person were indicted for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller argued, among other things, that the section of the National Firearms Act regulating the interstate transport of certain firearms violated the Second Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas agreed with Miller. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which reversed the district court. The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U.S. at 178. The Court concluded that the district court erred in holding the National Firearms Act provisions unconstitutional.

Since United States v. Miller, most federal court decisions considering the Second Amendment have interpreted it as preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias. Several of the post-Miller lower court opinions are discussed here (PDF).

http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php
Click to expand...
 
Ok guys, here is an update. Sorry it took so long but I wanted to see how it panned out after the actual teaching went on in the class.

Via emails she agreed that that book explanation of the 2A was wrong and agreed that it was an individual right of ownership.

During class she read the 2A and said it was "a right to have guns". That was it. She asked the class to write down if they agreed with that and an essay on why. After that she asked if anyone wanted to share an opinion and classroom discussion followed with the kids giving opinions. The teacher did not participate or steer the conversation but after hearing an opinion would say she "saw their point". My daughter said that the class was pro gun except for two that referred to mass shootings and mental illness in their opinion. Her essay focused on having arms for personal defense and was graded fairly.

In the end I'm still ticked at the text book description of the 2A as a state right. The teacher, as best as I could, tell did not interject her opinion or any agenda into this issue or the class in general. My daughter really likes the class other than the Obama pictures.

I think the teacher is doing a good job. She is certainly entitled to her own opinion even if it's polar opposite of mine. I just want her to teach the facts and leave the politics to the parent and she seems to be doing that. I liked that she has the kids give opinion and discuss things. It's a shame that we even have to worry about an agenda but they are out there. Be vigilant and involved.
 
This encounter with this teacher reminds me of what my dad taught me. "keep you friends close and your enemies closer".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top