No second ammendment in national Gov't textbooks?

[BJA]

Well I just got done with the civil liberties and civil rights section in my college national government and politics today course. There was no mention of the second ammendment..... I go back to the index to see where the second ammendment is discussed, it's only on two pages with very little discussion in the WHOLE book. Realy?! I then look up "gun control" in the index of my textbook and it has five pages. Discussing whether gun control is good or bad, it says to make the conclusion yourself and get involved...... Anyone's elses textbook or course like this?



This really worries me.



Ben

[Hillmann]

When I was in high school the only founding document that was covered in any depth was the decleration of independence. All the other importent documents (Magna carta, Articles of confedration and constution) were very quickly skimmed over, usualy in a single 45 minute class.

I know the magna carta isn't a founding document but is is important to american history because it recognized the rights of commoners.

[D94R]

Discussing whether gun control is good or bad, it says to make the conclusion yourself and get involved

Well, at least the book is neutral sounding in that aspect, asking you to make your own decisions instead of using written opinion to push the publishing company's views.

Now, with a little bit of satire in my voice. The 2 page Vs 5 page comparison in the book is quite obvious as to why that is. The 2nd Amendment is clear and concise. Doesn't take much to explain it. Gun control on the other hand is about as ambiguous, non-researched, and infinite as you can imagine.


I've always liked the (paraphrased) statement that if it takes longer to describe a topic, than it does to write/read it, it's a bad topic. That topic is gun control.

[BJA]

True that, but the crazy thing is that it doesn't recognize it as a Civil liberty even after the heller trial which declared it an individual liberty stricking down Miller which saw it as a militia. They cover every civil liberty in depth EXCEPT the second ammendment.

[wrightme]

BJA wrote:

True that, but the crazy thing is that it doesn't recognize it as a Civil liberty even after the heller trial which declared it an individual liberty stricking down Miller which saw it as a militia. They cover every civil liberty in depth EXCEPT the second ammendment.

That is misconstrued. Miller did not see it as a "militia."

[Michigander]

While remodeling an elementary school in Arizona, I saw a sign printed by the state which described the constitution. As I recall, it said "in some cases, people have the right to own and carry weapons without interference from the government"

I believe it also had other details, but that alone was pretty impressive to me.

[Sonora Rebel]

Michigander wrote:

While remodeling an elementary school in Arizona, I saw a sign printed by the state which described the constitution. As I recall, it said "in some cases, people have the right to own and carry weapons without interference from the government"

I believe it also had other details, but that alone was pretty impressive to me.

My sister-in-law is a schoolteacher here (AZ) and remarked about that same poster in her school. The anti's are OUT OF CONTROL!

[BJA]

You are right Wrightme, but the anti's saw it as that. Heller "i believe" please correct me if I'm wrong totally threw out anything that miller would have indicated.

[MarlboroLts5150]

"I was surprised.....to say the least"

Look at some of our politicans, the anti-guns folks, and most of the sheeple who just "follow the herd". They truly believe what they were taught in most of our own schools.

Not all of us here, but how many here do you think did their own research about the 2A AFTER they got out of school? Myself...I was a sheep for awhile. Always liked guns, but didn't really follow politics or the laws until after I joined the Navy. Alot of things started NOT making sense. And now here I am.

So after thinking about it for awhile, are you still surprised?

[BJA]

I've been a "gun activist" since 12but had no one to guide me. I had to learn on my own. I just can't believe how blatent this is though, I paid 125$ for the textbook, I told theprofessor I believe I wasted my money. We also had an online discussion on "what civil liberty do you think is most at risk" the title of my response is "where is the second ammendment????" and wrote my response. Don't know if i'll get in trouble for sturring things up but I don't care.... I told him straight up WOW, I can't believe I wasted my money on this textbook, one of the most important civil rights cases just happened and this Brand new expensive text book has nothing in it to do about the second ammendment. Does this class say anything about it?

[Sonora Rebel]

MarlboroLts5150 wrote:

"I was surprised.....to say the least"

Look at some of our politicans, the anti-guns folks, and most of the sheeple who just "follow the herd". They truly believe what they were taught in most of our own schools.

Not all of us here, but how many here do you think did their own research about the 2A AFTER they got out of school? Myself...I was a sheep for awhile. Always liked guns, but didn't really follow politics or the laws until after I joined the Navy. Alot of things started NOT making sense. And now here I am.

So after thinking about it for awhile, are you still surprised?

I argued the 2A in a 7th grade Civic Class when I was 13. Recently, I put the following together for my sis-in-law to go poke her fellow teachers in the eye with it.

Rights

All free people are born with certain inalienable rights. Such rights would exist in the presence of Government or none. Government does not have rights. Government has ‘authority’. Authority of government is derived from the people (the governed) and is not separate and autonomous.

Government does not grant Rights. Government can only recognize the legitimacy of a right, codify and enumerate them; protect and defend them (or) deny them. Rights (as codified and enumerated by the U.S. Constitution) become the basis for ‘The Law of the Land’. From this body of laws, all other laws are derived and compared.

Government cannot enact ‘Rights’. Rights are not to be confused with ‘Permit’, ‘License’, ‘Privilege’ or ’Allowance’ or other contrivance. Rights cannot be ’purchased’ nor can government extract fees for the free exercise thereof. Rights are inherent and eternal w/o interference, infringement, impairment or regulation when exercised responsibly by the individual. The free exercise of a Right requires personal responsibility and moderation.

Absolute denial of a right in a free society is tyranny.

Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”

“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

　Rule by such governments headed by absolute monarchs or dictators do not recognize individual rights and often deny them. Such governments are tyranny.


I believe this opinion to be valid regarding all 'laws' and 'ordinances' imposed upon the population. Imposition and enforcement of any other contrary to the law of the land is tyranny; regardless of the supposed desired effect, cause or reason.

[markand]

Anti's and their ilk have controlled the public education system for decades. They hate the 2nd amendment and several others. They do love the first amendment and its protection of pornography and the fourth amendment's protection of abortion (is any of that really there?) This is what they pound into the brains of the impressionable children in their care. No knowledge of history. Distorted view of constitutional principles. Its no wonder we have such a politically ignorant, downright stupid population of voters.

I kept my daughter out of the last 2 years of high school and home schooled her. Wish I had done so far sooner. I think families who home school, avoiding all the indoctrination and junk that passes for "education" these days, are doing a great service to their children.

[cbackous]

markand wrote:

Anti's and their ilk have controlled the public education system for decades. They hate the 2nd amendment and several others. They do love the first amendment and its protection of pornography and the fourth amendment's protection of abortion (is any of that really there?) This is what they pound into the brains of the impressionable children in their care. No knowledge of history. Distorted view of constitutional principles. Its no wonder we have such a politically ignorant, downright stupid population of voters.

I kept my daughter out of the last 2 years of high school and home schooled her. Wish I had done so far sooner. I think families who home school, avoiding all the indoctrination and junk that passes for "education" these days, are doing a great service to their children.

While the First amendment doesnt specifically say pornography, it does say "infringing the freedom of the press" which applies to the media and published materials. This would become a very slippery slope once you make an acception. Who chooses what is acceptable or not? Does it then become rule by mob (majority) and defeat the whole point of the first amendment? Once you change that part of the first amendment, why not change freedom of speech and religion too?

Morality aside, if a person chooses to make pornography, that is their right to do so. Everyone has the option to ignore such publications, but just because some people dont like it, doesnt mean others shouldnt be able to do it.

[PrayingForWar]

markand wrote:

I kept my daughter out of the last 2 years of high school and home schooled her. Wish I had done so far sooner. I think families who home school, avoiding all the indoctrination and junk that passes for "education" these days, are doing a great service to their children.

Good choice, schools today do not teach critical thinking. Grades are given out for how well you regurgitate your programming back to the instructor. Independence is frowned upon, as all the system was really designed to do is churn out semi literate laborers, and pull managers off the top.

[wrightme]

BJA wrote:

I've been a "gun activist" since 12but had no one to guide me. I had to learn on my own. I just can't believe how blatent this is though, I paid 125$ for the textbook, I told theprofessor I believe I wasted my money. We also had an online discussion on "what civil liberty do you think is most at risk" the title of my response is "where is the second ammendment????" and wrote my response. Don't know if i'll get in trouble for sturring things up but I don't care.... I told him straight up WOW, I can't believe I wasted my money on this textbook, one of the most important civil rights cases just happened and this Brand new expensive text book has nothing in it to do about the second ammendment. Does this class say anything about it?

If your professor gives you ANY crap about your assignment, contact his superiors, get a new text, AND a new professor. Unless he is teaching his agenda, you sound to be well within the confines of the assignment.

[D94R]

It may be a "new" book, but look at the publishing date. It may have been in production before the recent-in-history decisions.

Or they may just be conveinently leaving them out.

[Sonora Rebel]

PrayingForWar wrote:

.

"... schools today do not teach critical thinking. Grades are given out for how well you regurgitate your programming back to the instructor. Independence is frowned upon, as all the system was really designed to do is churn out semi literate laborers, and pull managers off the top.

Government schools have never taught or encouraged critical thinking. Regurgitation of programming is conditioning to 'obey'. Anythingoutside of the the pre-determined boxis often labled 'non-conformist'. Creating a myopic, dependent population and generallabor force is the objective of this institutionalized mediocrity.

I understood this early on... before I was even able to articulate it. I just 'knew it' instinctively. Upon enlisting in the Navy... I found that there was structured conformity (of necessity) but critical thinking was not only encouraged,it was REQUIRED. Individual accountability was measured, rewarded or punished accordingly. Not perfectly... but at least it was an organizational requirement that this be done. I could go further into the differences of management and leadership, butI can't do this all day.

[SlackwareRobert]

D94R wrote:

It may be a "new" book, but look at the publishing date. It may have been in production before the recent-in-history decisions.

Or they may just be conveinently leaving them out.

I guess you can date the publishing deadline by looking for the overturning of
private property rights when the old country was deeded preemption over the
constitution by the Bush court. Why they never argued that they could raise
the tax revenue by raising tax rates and therefor had no need of steeling the
property, since the clause is for taking property when there is no other
option.

I am still amazed there was no problem when MA SCOTUS found post dated
rights in their state constitution. There is a right to marriage, but the writers
post dated it till next summer.

My professor almost fell out of her chair when I refuted her claim that guns were
dangerous by pointing out that Gates emptied his revolver on a crowded subway
and not one innocent person was hit. :shock:

While home schooling is great, I have sent mine back for a couple of years
to learn about brainwashing and snake oil salesmen. The teachers can't handle
him not spouting the propaganda back to them. But it gets them thinking on their
feet and develop reasoning in stressful situations. You can only explain
'street smarts' so far, you just need to get out in it to fully comprehend.
I am thankful that the school system isn't a cesspool that can be trusted
not to get him stabbed or shot at like some I attended, just want to
expose him not get rid of 'em.

But at least you get $30 back when you sell the book after the class.
Maybe put a tri-fold for your state inside for the next guy to find.

[D94R]

All good points. However I was speaking more in terms of recent trends in history within the past few decades. Not from the creation of certain documents.

Up to now, the trend seemed to be to leave more and more of the "2nd Amendment" out of teachings, or to teach it as a communitive Right, and not an individual. Recent history has shown how ambiguous the interpretations of the 2nd Amendment had became.

However, with Heller's ruling on the 2nd Amendment reinforcing it as an individual right there is not much the books can do other than either report it as that way, or leave it out to avoid any "opinionated" interpretations.

Which is what I meant by checking the publishing date. If it was before the recent rulings then it would seem on par for most academic publishings to push it to the side. If it were post the recent rulings then they are either including just enough about it to acknowledge its there, or saying just enough and telling the readers to make their own decision because they still don't agree but must acknowledge it's there because of the recent historical confirmations to the fact it is an individual Right.

[BJA]

The book is very new, it even has barack obama becoming president, it also costed 150$ and it's not a hard cover. 2009 cengage learning. While they go over all the other civil liberties in great detail except the 2nd ammendment. man o man someone just posted that they thing the 2nd ammendment is most at risk yet they agree with outlawing hollow points and "armor piercing bullets", 6 month waiting period on every gun, no private gun sales, limiting magazine capacity and registering every firearm and ballistics in a national database. WOW I have a long semester ahead of me....



Ben

[suntzu]

BJA wrote:

Well I just got done with the civil liberties and civil rights section in my college national government and politics today course. There was no mention of the second ammendment..... I go back to the index to see where the second ammendment is discussed, it's only on two pages with very little discussion in the WHOLE book. Realy?! I then look up "gun control" in the index of my textbook and it has five pages. Discussing whether gun control is good or bad, it says to make the conclusion yourself and get involved...... Anyone's elses textbook or course like this?



This really worries me.



Ben

I have had courses like that. The entire purpose of college training is to indoctrinate you into a set mode of thinking--universities and colleges do not I don't think by nature encourage free thought, or free speech, and they certainly do not tend to promote the exercise of your other Constitutionally protected rights--the student whose professor called the police on him after he exercised his Constitutionally protected First Amendment right when he advocated for allowing Concealed carry on college campuses http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum64/22431.html

is but one example.

It is not about "education", it is about indoctrination. That is the sad fact of education today.

[Tomahawk]

suntzu wrote:

It is not about "education", it is about indoctrination. That is the sad fact of education today.

For the lefty profs, maybe.

For the college boards of directors, it's about making mad cash via the path of least resistance. Crank out diplomas, take that grant money and those subsidized student loans, and stuff that bank account.

For the students, it's about getting that piece of paper that you need to get a job, regardless of whether you actually learned anything or not.

/cynicism

[FunkTrooper]

BJA wrote:

The book is very new, it even has barack obama becoming president, it also costed 150$ and it's not a hard cover. 2009 cengage learning. While they go over all the other civil liberties in great detail except the 2nd ammendment. man o man someone just posted that they thing the 2nd ammendment is most at risk yet they agree with outlawing hollow points and "armor piercing bullets", 6 month waiting period on every gun, no private gun sales, limiting magazine capacity and registering every firearm and ballistics in a national database. WOW I have a long semester ahead of me....



Ben

This is why I'm dropping out of my bachelor degree and either going to a tech school or getting an associates degree since I don't want to be a doctor or lawyer, I don't want to be in debt over books.

[marrero jeff]

actually, heller only applied to D.C. Because of the incorporation clause in the constitution it has to be brought up to the supreme court against a state to be applicable to them.

[Seigi]

Holy thread necro, Batman!

Heller was an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and thus applied to all federal laws, not just to D.C.. You are correct in that the 2nd Amendment wouldn't apply automatically to the states, but there is nothing called an "incorporation clause" in the constitution. Incorporation is the process by which jurisprudence extends the Bill of Rights to the states; it is done under authority of Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1.

In McDonald incorporation was attempted through the 14th Amendment's "Due Process Clause" and "Privileges or Immunities Clause." The latter was shot down quickly in oral argument; the former may bring us a victory.