Common Core Anti Gun?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/1...e-fuels-claims-political-agenda/?intcmp=hpbt2

The Lesson Plan: http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2013/05/guncontrol_guide_final2.pdf

I thought anything to do with guns was not allowed in schools? I man come on, if they suspend a kid for a battlefield memorial shirt then how can they be allowed to talk about guns at all? Oh that's right, so they can brainwash and indoctrinate the youth of the nation with their anti American liberal socialist views on how they think the world SHOULD work, rather than how it does.

The phrase to keep and bear arms contains a compound infinitive and the common direct object of both parts. The branching used for the compound infinitive is closed on the right to allow the diagram to show that both keep and bear have the same direct object, arms. 2. The participle being is a linking verb. A subjective complement, a.k.a. predicate adjective (in this sentence, the word necessary) is preceded by a diagonal drawn from upper left to lower right and stopping at the horizontal line.

The phrase beginning with "a well-regulated militia" and ending with "a free State" is an absolute phrase, a.k.a. nominative absolute. A nominative absolute consists of a substantive (a noun or noun substitute) and a participle and has no grammatical connection with the rest of the sentence. The nominative absolute is identical with the Latin ablative absolute, except that the substantive component of the latter is in the ablative case. An ablative absolutes usually consist of a noun and an adjective. The adjective is often a participle (present like running, or past like done). Example: God (noun) willing, (adjective) their freedom will be preserved.

Lesson over Common Core.

I'm sure the founders used that same diagram when they decided how to word the amendment.

DeSchaine said:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/1...e-fuels-claims-political-agenda/?intcmp=hpbt2

The Lesson Plan: http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2013/05/guncontrol_guide_final2.pdf

I thought anything to do with guns was not allowed in schools? I man come on, if they suspend a kid for a battlefield memorial shirt then how can they be allowed to talk about guns at all? Oh that's right, so they can brainwash and indoctrinate the youth of the nation with their anti American liberal socialist views on how they think the world SHOULD work, rather than how it does.

Click to expand...

Yep, I wonder, where is the anger? We have had enough of their anti-American agenda

anyone else notice they are claiming/insinuating only 4 percent of recorded gun incidents are for self defense?

and the claim of 62 mass shootings is also bunk.

and to claim newton Connecticut as the most bloody is also incorrent, there was one in the early 1900's that killed more as he used dynamite.. but you know.. skew the perception to indoctrinate the young, fragile, gullible mind.

Bath Township School Disaster. May 1927. 44 killed at the school, another 58 wounded. Wasn't as bad as it was supposed to be. Searchers found 500 lb more explosives that didn't go off.

They call them mass shootings even when no one dies or when more than 1 person is shot.

DeSchaine said:

Bath Township School Disaster. May 1927. 44 killed at the school, another 58 wounded. Wasn't as bad as it was supposed to be. Searchers found 500 lb more explosives that didn't go off.

They call them mass shootings even when no one dies or when more than 1 person is shot.

Click to expand...

correct, very nice to know someone else knows about it..

BTW a gun was used on a teacher I believe. but either way, it shows that if you take away the gun, they'll still use something else.

to want to cause death is the problem.

Ezek said:

anyone else notice they are claiming/insinuating only 4 percent of recorded gun incidents are for self defense?

Click to expand...

This one is actually believable. If 90%+ of all self-defense "uses" of a gun don't involve shooting the gun but merely displaying it or even making reference to having it, then I'd expect that most self-defense "uses" of a gun never get recorded. How many self-defense "uses" of an OCd gun does even the carrier himself never know about because a bad guy saw the gun and decided to select a different victim? OTOH, dead bodies don't get ignored and victims of rape and robbery tend to make reports, so most criminal misuse of guns gets recorded, I'd expect. I'm not saying the claim is correct and given the source, I'd easily believe it isn't. I'm just pointing out how it might be correct.

As another example, the antis like to claim a person is X times more likely to injure themselves or a family member with a gun than to kill an intruder. Look at the numbers. If we accept that 90%+ of all self-defense "uses" of a gun don't involve firing it, and if a large proportion of those shot in self-defense actually survive (call it 50% just for kicks), then we realize that only 5% or fewer of criminals who break off an attack because of the self-defense use of a gun are actually killed. It could well be down in the 1% range or lower and probably is if we accept a million or more crimes stopped each year by an armed LAC couple with only a few dozen self-defense shootings.

Now, ignore the numbers and look at the fundamental problem with the comparison being made. This is a case where even if the numbers were accurate the "fact" is worthless because it is the wrong fact to look at. The fix was in when the initial comparison was made. It is a bit like deciding whether seat belt usage saves lives by comparing how many miles are driven compared to how many times a seat belt is needed. Obviously, a seat belt isn't needed until a crash occurs. We all recognize the proper statistic for seat belts is something like the odds of surviving a crash when wearing a seat belt compared to odds of surviving a crash when not wearing a seat belt. (None of which should be taken as me supporting legal mandates for adults to use seat belts.)

Or imagine if we gauged the effectiveness of police based on how many criminals they killed, rather than on how many crimes they solved or how what the overall crime rate is when the police are on the job vs when they are on strike, etc. The job of police is not to kill people, indeed we'd prefer they not kill anyone. Their job is to act as a general deterrent to criminal conduct, to investigate crimes and make arrests. Police killing someone (no matter how justifiable) is not a measure of success, it is in some degree, a measure of inability to effect an arrest or stop a crime without someone ending up dead...a measure of failure if you will.

In similar fashion, dare I say we don't carry guns to "kill bad guys", but rather to defend ourselves from bad guys. On occasion, that defense may result in a dead bad guy. But dead bodies is neither our goal nor the correct metric to use, so making any comparison to how many bad guys get killed by good guys is totally bogus from the get go, no matter what the underlying numbers are. We know that. The folks who gather stats should be smart enough to know that, and probably are in most cases. Clearly, they are using numbers (sometimes accurate, sometimes made from whole cloth) to push an agenda.

IOW, they are lying even in those cases where the underlying numbers are accurate. They lie by telling people that the numbers they present are the numbers that matter. Sometimes they compound that lie by using inaccurate numbers as well. But generally, the big lie isn't the numbers, it is which numbers they claim are important.

Another big lie in the linked lesson plan is the entire premise that RKBA should be subject to popular debate. Imagine the reaction to a similar lesson plan dealing with marriage benefits for homosexual couples. I think the RKBA community needs to borrow their line, "Civil/Constitutional rights are not subject to popular vote."

Charles

I gave up trying to make sense of the standards for education in America. The media and even educators today seem to ignore the reality about firearm ownership. People see and believe what they want to, even if it isn't reality.

A constitutional mechanism exists to eliminate the 2A...our natural right to defend ourselves is not dependent on the use of a firearm to accomplish this.

OC for ME said:

A constitutional mechanism exists to eliminate the 2A...our natural right to defend ourselves is not dependent on the use of a firearm to accomplish this.

Click to expand...

I guess I don't get what your point is. But..
The right to self defense doesn't need to be absolutely dependent on the use of a firearm for our right to keep/bear arms to be founded on the natural right to self defense. Additionally, the natural right to self defense is not the only one relevant to the issue. Humans are individuals and, generally, should be free to the extent they aren't harming others. Weapons prohibitions aren't immoral merely because they'd weaken our ability to defend ourselves. They're wrong because they constitute aggression where none is justifiable. If I wanted to carry dirt, I should be free to carry dirt. A prohibition against carrying dirt would certainly be immoral, even though I can't claim that carrying dirt is critical to the exercise of a right like self defense. Whether or not self defense is absolutely dependent on the ability to carry a firearm isn't really relevant to validity or authority of the right to keep and bear arms.

stealthyeliminator said:

I guess I don't get what your point is. But.. ...

Click to expand...

If We The People desired to strike our enumerated right to keep and bear arms, at the federal level, there is a mechanism to accomplish this. This mechanism exists at the state level as well. Doing this would not deny us our natural right to defend ourselves. The point is; every enumerated right is subject to popular debate because the citizenry can strike the enumeration from the constitution.\

Common Core does not teach anything, it indoctrinates and misleads, and confuses kids. Common Core curricula is anti-liberty...anti-gun. Stick to the 3Rs, so to speak, with a little constitutional history thrown in.

OC for ME said:

If We The People desired to strike our enumerated right to keep and bear arms, at the federal level, there is a mechanism to accomplish this. This mechanism exists at the state level as well. Doing this would not deny us our natural right to defend ourselves. The point is; every enumerated right is subject to popular debate because the citizenry can strike the enumeration from the constitution.\

Common Core does not teach anything, it indoctrinates and misleads, and confuses kids. Common Core curricula is anti-liberty...anti-gun. Stick to the 3Rs, so to speak, with a little constitutional history thrown in.

Click to expand...

Ahh that makes sense.

OC for ME said:

If We The People desired to strike our enumerated right to keep and bear arms, at the federal level, there is a mechanism to accomplish this. This mechanism exists at the state level as well.

Click to expand...

That this has never even been seriously attempted suggest to me that everyone knows there isn't a snowball's chance of actually repealing that amendment and the enumerated rights it protects. Hence, they ought to stop talking about violating the constitution with statutes.

OC for ME said:

Doing this would not deny us our natural right to defend ourselves.

Click to expand...

But the same mechanism could be used to empower government (at whatever level) to grossly infringe that natural right. IOW, not everyone recognizes a natural right to defend ourselves and if enough of the population decides not to respect that right, it will be infringed. Notice the heated debates between so-called "stand your ground" and "duty to retreat" laws. I suspect we could find some honest men of decent character who honestly believe one cannot invoke any right to self defense until after one has exhausted every reasonable/possible means of retreating.

Of course, for every such honest man of good character, we'd find hundreds of "useful idiots" who just don't like guns and think anything but a duty to retreat is a license to kill over minor disagreements.

OC for ME said:

The point is; every enumerated right is subject to popular debate because the citizenry can strike the enumeration from the constitution.\

Click to expand...

The point is, for most of the population, pithy sound bites carry more weight than such logic. Hence the success of the homosexual community in declaring that "civil rights are not up for popular vote." It should not go unnoticed that this refrain was trotted out only after they had lost about 40 votes to 0 at the federal and State levels on statutes and constitutional provisions defining marriage as a man and a woman. Their pithy sound bite begs the question (Who is to say that there is any right, civil or otherwise, to have government or others recognize any particular relationship as a "marriage"?), violates sound logic (As you pointed out, everything is subject to debate and votes if we choose to vote on ConAmds.), and so on. But it is very effective PR.

Hence, we ought to consider adopting some version of it for RKBA which is an explicitly enumerated right (or two) and thus that much more deserving of protection and respect that what is one of several possible interpretations of the generic language in the 14th amendment.

OC for ME said:

Common Core does not teach anything, it indoctrinates and misleads, and confuses kids. Common Core curricula is anti-liberty...anti-gun. Stick to the 3Rs, so to speak, with a little constitutional history thrown in.

Click to expand...

Other than suggesting a lot of history be thrown in--a person doesn't know who he is, what is nation is, or why he should favor one form of government over another in absence of solid history--I could not agree with you more.

Common core seems designed to handicap children by making math and reading more difficult to learn than it should be. It also seems designed to drive a wedge between parents and children as most parents are unable to meaningfully assist young children with math homework given the goofy methods common core demands students use. Public schools are becoming very dangerous to our children and to their family relationships.

Charles

stealthyeliminator said:

Humans are individuals and, generally, should be free to the extent they aren't harming others. Weapons prohibitions aren't immoral merely because they'd weaken our ability to defend ourselves. They're wrong because they constitute aggression where none is justifiable. If I wanted to carry dirt, I should be free to carry dirt. A prohibition against carrying dirt would certainly be immoral, even though I can't claim that carrying dirt is critical to the exercise of a right like self defense.

Click to expand...

Bear in mind that many persons, including many who strongly support RKBA do not necessarily subscribe to this view of rights theory. It is compelling mostly to those who already accept this theory and thus already strongly support RKBA.

However, appeals to constitutional and civil rights using language similar to what has been used successfully in the recent homosexual marriage campaign and in the prior racial civil rights campaign has appeal to many who are naturally inclined against RKBA.

Further, many who oppose RKBA do so on emotional grounds. As a great sigline reads: "You can't use logic to talk a man out of a position that he didn't use logic to get into." Emotional positions against RKBA are most often, most effectively countered using emotional appeals.

When someone becomes more afraid of being an unarmed victim at the mercy of an unarmed but much larger/stronger/faster/more numerous criminal(s) than s/he is of guns, then s/he is likely to change positions on RKBA. Until the anti-RKBA emotions are countered with pro-RKBA emotions, all the facts and logic in the world usually amounts to: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Charles

utbagpiper said:

You can't use logic to talk a man out of a position that he didn't use logic to get into.

Click to expand...

That puts the entire anti camp in one simple explanation. We should make bumper stickers out of that.

DeSchaine said:

That puts the entire anti camp in one simple explanation. We should make bumper stickers out of that.

Click to expand...

But the key is to convert enough of them to our side to maintain and enlarge support for our rights.

How many do we need? Only 5 if those 5 happen to members of the SCOTUS.

No more than 350 if those happen to be properly distributed between the US House, US Senate, and the President.

100 or so legislators and the governor in any given State can do wonders.

A couple of owners of major media (NBC, CBS, etc) could do great things to build support for RKBA among the population.

And some level of support among voters is required to get the attention of the elected politicians who pass laws and appoint judges.

Charles

A dozen years ago CCW was put before the citizens of Missouri and the measure was soundly defeated (urban vote). The legislature enacted CCW anyway. The law was challenged and the highest court in Missouri confirmed the legislative act to be, and remain, the law of the land. utbagpiper is exactly correct, it would not take much effort to restore liberty...but, it may only take the right effort to restore liberty.

color of law said:

Click to expand...

I made one of these up, poster size, and we drag it along whenever we set up "the booth" at events. It is difficult to explain this simple paragraph to someone who cannot count back your change after giving you your fries.