Question of the Day: What Does Your Kid’s School Say About The Second Amendment?

In the clip above, a woman named Muriel Lezk wonders if the government could restrict Americans access to only the guns that were available when the Second Amendment was written; making all other guns a “privilege.” Well that’s just dumb. More to the point, what did the “world-renowned neuropsychologist” learn about the Second Amendment in school back in the day? Not much, apparently. What are your kids taught about the Second Amendment in your school?


  1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

    Likewise, 1st Amendment protections should only apply to technologies available when the 1A was written, such as printing presses and yelling from a soap box. Obviously the founders could not have anticipated phones, the internet, radio, television, etc, and free speech should not apply to those technologies. Clearly this is why the Bill of Rights was mostly about specific devices, methods, and technologies rather than just protecting concepts and actions.

    Rifled muskets and long guns, of course, represented the absolute pinnacle of modern arms technology at the time the BoR was codified. Not just the equivalent to, but superior to anything in military/gov’t hands. We’ve already accepted significant restriction on this concept. I love how these people are constantly talking about “weapons of war” and “military-style weapons” and saying the 2A doesn’t protect those and we can’t have them on our streets, and then in the next sentence saying the 2A only applies to members of an organized militia. Then following that up with “well the 2A was to protect against government tyranny but that’s no longer possible because people can’t own equivalent weapons.” Dizzy from the circular logic, indeed.

    1. avatar That Guy says:

      Don’t stop at the first. Let’s restore voting rights back to how they were when the Bill of Rights were written so she can’t vote again. /sarcasm

      1. avatar Lost Down South says:

        Look luck with your next surgical procedure lady. The one limited to the technology available when the Hippocratic Oath was written.

        Bad tooth? Booze and pliers.


      2. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

        This is fun! so the 4th only applies to houses built before 1800, the 3d only applies to the revolutionary military. Shit , this is turning out more pointed than funny. Maybe if the 10th restores government power to those of that era…that could work.

    2. avatar Mecha75 says:

      then Stop the circular logic. James Madison clearly showed the intention that the people were trusted with arms and should be more numerous than any standing army. Which would keep the federal government from using that standing army against the people when trying to enforce its will. If the standing military had improved weapons platforms, then the people should likewise have access to those improved weapons platforms.

      1. avatar Missouri Mule says:

        US v. Miller 1939 held that ONLY weapons suitable for the militia and use in war are protected by the 2nd Amendment. This was the position taken by the FDR’s Department of Justice. It involved an untaxed short barreled shotgun. See &

        1. avatar Mecha75 says:

          As much as we would like to use Miller v US, it isnt very strong case law despite the supreme court ruling. Mostly because Miller never showed up to the Supreme Court for arguments. So they just ruled in favor of the only argument they received.

        2. avatar Cliff H says:

          Perhaps we can agree that in spite of its supposed lofty perch in the government trilogy SCOTUS has NEVER accepted the Second Amendment nor ruled on any 2A case without entirely disregarding the “…shall not be infringed.” portion. While some SCOTUS rulings have helped our cause, they have hindered it just as much by this one failure.

          Disregarding the militia commentary, the amendment reads, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

          The fact that the Second Amendment makes no effort to further define “people” nor to exclude any group specifically seems to indicate to even non-legal scholars that people means EVERYBODY and is non-exclusive and not subject to further definition. The term “arms” is equally non-exclusive and makes no attempt to define arms which must lead to the conclusion that the intention was to include ALL ARMS. Finally, the one thing that is carefully defined is the final phrase, “…shall not be infringed.” So, PEOPLE, ARMS, shall not be infringed.

          It boggles the mind that this is so difficult for so many people to understand.

        3. avatar Missouri Mule says:

          Mecha75 is correct. Miller’s lawyer died and the case was argued in absentia. FDR had 9 lawyers and SCOTUS. Miller really was a shady guy and was out of money.

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      Women would also not be allowed to have a public opinion (or to take it to the ballot box).

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Not to mention Rep. Frederick would be a slave, not an elected representative.

    4. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      This is why we need school choice//vouchers. He who controls the youth controls the future, why not insure we control our our own posterity as well as what they are learning?

  2. avatar CRF says:

    Whenever I hear the muskets only spiel I facepalm so hard I leave bruises.

    1. avatar Mecha75 says:

      Whenever anyone uses that argument on me. I point them to James Madison’s Federalist 46 as to what those that wrote the constition and bill of rights intended. Madison being the best example as he wrote the Constitution and it was his house bill that began the process that became our Bill of Rights. In federalist 46 you can see they clearly intended on us having the same weapons that our military fields today. These facts ate indisputable.

      1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

        Sure, sure, but we all know that “indisputable” and “infringed” apparently mean different things to different people.

      2. avatar Mr. 308 says:

        We have to understand that when people pull out these arguments, these are not thinking people who have read the constitution to understand what it means and they are not looking at it in terms of logic and understanding language.

        They want guns confiscated – this woman wants no one but the state to be armed, but thinks that what she is proposing (no doubt something she read on Huffington post or told by someone else or something similar) is at least a shortcut or a best effort measure.

        People who argue these things are not interested in any discussion, will not listen or be amenable to reason in any way – to try and do so would just be wasting time.

        And there are a lot of these people.

        We do need to try and engage with those people who are not true believers, who have intellectual integrity and are willing to listen to reason and logic. I’m not sure how to identify this group, at the very least we can start with neighbors and friends of course, but this really is a fight against the media and educational institutions. Who, by the way, literally have boat loads of money and are totally corrupt and completely 1000% part of the Democrat/statist/government machine. RICO is purpose built specifically to use against these kinds of collusion and organized crime style activity – bribes, kickbacks, cronyism, no show jobs, you name it, we all know these things are happening at the real levels of power in these organizations, but we have foxes guarding the henhouse here.

        That last part may sound like tinfoil hat stuff, but tell me it isn’t true.

  3. avatar Removed_californian says:

    Back in elementary school and middle school we learned nothing of it except that it was the second amendment to the bill of rights.

    In AP US history our book said that the right to keep and bear arms while in a militia was protected. It’s annoying how people attempt to rewrite history and be so blatant about it…

    Outside from that we didn’t learn much about the 2A or anything like that. I’m probably an aberration because I’ve attended private edu for most of my life, but that’s been my experience.

    1. avatar Swilson says:

      You’re right- when I was in grade school (early 2000’s) they never really hit on the 2A, only to teach that is #2 on BOR. I have no idea how any of my teachers felt about 2A, although there were some that I could guess which way they leaned. I took AP US Hist. in high school too, and it was more of the same. They didn’t really focus on any of the theory behind 2A just that it existed (which was enough for me). This was all public school.

    2. avatar Will in Oregon says:

      The history “textbook” that my high school used for IB history was “A People’s History Of The United States” By Howard Zinn. I took special exception to being force to read one man’s opinion of historical events, especially those of a self proclaimed anarchist/socialist. Its hard to explain the book selection as anything other than an attempt as sewing anti freedom sentiments in the youth of America, not that it would be difficult to do in the bastion of liberal enlightenment that is Portland, Oregon.

      1. avatar Swilson says:

        Damn son- that’s tough. I’ve read that book as well, I do enjoy reading what the other side says. I might have been a little bit pissed though if a school “required” my child to read Howard Zinn

  4. avatar Jeremy in AL says:

    Home school.
    Don’t let the government raise your children.

    1. avatar Ebby123 says:

      Yes. Yes. YES.

      We will never take our country back from the Socialists if we continue to give generation after generation of young minds away to be “educated”.

  5. avatar John E> says:

    My kids go to a somewhat conservative public school. It was rated in the top ten in Pennsylvania. To illustrate, my daughter’s 4th grade history teacher had a project on the French Indian War which entailed each student making a weapon used in the war. From muskets, to bows, to war clubs. My daughter made a Native warclub. The only rule was the parent had to bring it in because they weren’t allowed on the bus.

    I know several of the teachers who are passionate about the 2nd amendment. On the first day of hunting season school is cancelled. Local police often go into the elementary and middle schools as outreach (one of the officers daughter goes to elementary school). The HS has a shooting team.

    1. avatar Jeremy S. says:


      I mean, aside from what must be a constant river of blood in the hallways 😛

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “I mean, aside from what must be a constant river of blood in the hallways ?”

        So says Jeremy…

        “Jeremy spoke in, class today…”


  6. avatar Mecha75 says:

    My daughters’ school is very pro 2A. They are currently raising funds to by a .22 plinker for them. Btw, we homeschool them.

    1. avatar Tim L says:

      I saw whatcha did there…so saving cereal box tops doesn’t help your ed funds.

  7. avatar Owen says:

    What’s school got to do with it? I taught my kids about the Second Amendment.

    Plus several other practical “life skills” at the range.

  8. avatar passthebrass says:

    I dont have any children yet, but in the late 90s my textbook described the 2nd and 3rd amendments as basically obsolete, and how we can trust the government in these more modern and civilized times.

    I really wish I would have kept it after graduating.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Hasn’t been all that long ago that I read one of those “outraged parent” stories where the daughter brought home her history/civics test that included a question about the Second Amendment, with the allegedly “correct” answer being that it allowed private citizens to own guns “as long as they were registered with the government”.

  9. avatar Another Robert says:

    My kids were schooled at home. They learned that the second amendment means what it says. They learned it by going to various home-school group activities were the dads–and some of the moms–and the adult children–carried. One of my favorites was the wedding where the groom and groomsmen all had iron (or polymer, as the case may be) on their belts and the bride had more than a throwaway garter on her thigh.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      … and the bride had more than a throwaway garter on her thigh.

      Well, that sure adds a level of excitement to the whole process of searching for the garter: better not feel up the wrong thigh … or hope that your bride uses a holster that covers the trigger.

      And if you happen to remove the handgun rather than the garter in all the excitement, really bad things could happen when you toss that over your head to the crowd of eligible bachelors.

      Cuing much more crude references in 3 … 2 … 1 …

  10. avatar pg2 says:

    The “neuropsychologist”, should be much more concerned with important issues more closely related to her field, like the plethora of “neurodiversity” that vaccines are producing in the communities.

  11. avatar Defens says:

    Back in the 60’s, we didn’t learn that much about the 2A, but to be honest, it didn’t become an issue until 1968. The BoR was just covered in overview.

    I do think that neuropsychologists should be limited in practice to what doctors had at their disposal back in the day. For internists, that would be laudanum and leeches. For psychologists, that would be medicine dances and exorcisms. Which this woman obviously needs.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Hey they are all “Scientists” weighing in on Global Warming/Climate change/whatever. Settled progtard science same as right to arms. They are “Scientists” end of the discussion.

  12. avatar Another Robert says:

    BTW, that’s pretty rich, with Mr 3/5ths of a person (in 1780s terms) there agreeing that the Constitution should be interpreted as in the day it was adopted.

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      great point.

  13. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Well, they had rockets, grenades, submarines, biological weapons and chemical weapons. I assume I am covered for these too, right?

  14. avatar Enuz says:

    I can’t speak for lower learning.

    But here in the institutions of higher learning, I am constantly getting into arguments with professors about this sort of thing, save for the Philosophy department. Turns out the people in charge of teaching Critical Thinking are pro-gun. Who would have guessed?

  15. avatar Missouri Mule says:

    I teach social studies (second career).
    I check every text and reference book in every classroom and library I visit.
    The older the book the more inaccurate the statements.
    I find many which say it is a right for those in the militia.
    Some say its disputed as to private or militia.
    Almost none clearly say it is a private right and almost none refer to Heller or McDonald.
    My sons, nieces and nephews know better.

  16. avatar Brianflys says:

    Roll back all civil rights to the time of the Constitution? Ok, Hillary can’t vote, much less be in elected office. Barry Hussein is working a plantation in Hawaii. And now I have lots of slaves, and punish and kill sexual deviants. Wait, this isn’t 18th century colonies, it’s 21st century Islam!!

  17. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    My childhood school books portrayed the Bill of Rights as they were (are.) Rights, period.

    My kids are not old enough to have ventured into Gov’t, yet. But, when they do, you can rest assured I will be right on top of it.

    Calling out and correcting propaganda when it is presented. The things which your kids are taught in school can be requested and downloaded for review – if you aren’t reviewing and understanding it, that’s your bad, not gov’t’s…

    The statist who run .edu love lazy and ignorant parenting, in fact, they bet on it.

  18. avatar Mk10108 says:

    I can relay indoctrination starts early. My twins, (seven) are bombarded with stories of MLK assassination Rosa Parks, and Ruby Bridges. I explained these event occurred 45 years ago and the country has corrected these wrongs. I point to the diverse make up of our neighborhood to show how America make changes for the better. The question is why do schools pull this history forward while leaving revolution or world war history deeper in the curriculum.

    1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

      “The question is why do schools pull this history forward while leaving revolution or world war history deeper in the curriculum.”

      Two words; NEA, AFT, oh yea, add in there SEIU

      Public sector unions are antithetical to our society, they pit the members in collusion with the state against the good of the people. Teaching children has no priority, there interests are to preserve and expand their jobs and benefits and the state sees to it that curriculum that is used serves the interests of the state. It’s indoctrination, not education.

  19. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    “Limit them to the times it was written” she says into an electronic, amplified loud speaker system…
    So much fail there.

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      I almost yelled at the old lady on screen: “Step away from the microphone! They didn’t have them around 1779 (plus or minus couple of years) so your amplified speech is not protected under 1st amendment.
      Even worse was senator’s answer – too logical, my eye.
      And then the “responsible owner” who wants a mandatory insurance against …what exactly? NDs? Or guns getting stolen? (I have one of those from the devil incarnate himself – NRA) I doubt any insurance company will sell policies protecting against misuse and crimes committed with guns.

  20. avatar bastiches says:

    Should I start gathering funds now for my privateer sloop and its 12 cannon?

    1. avatar PeterK says:

      I dream of sailing in a nice fast cutter. Poor on the speed and forget the rest of that mess. I mean It’ll needs good arms, though. 😉

    2. avatar Swilson says:

      Get you a Letter of Marque to protect us all on the high seas (Article 1, sec 8); you know,like back when the Constitution was first written.

  21. avatar PeterK says:

    New toilet, same crap.

    Thus far our kids are homeschooled. But the pre-school my daughter was in in Utah was pretty patriotic, at least. That was very refreshing. Though that was a dying breed honestly.

  22. avatar Jim says:

    As a Civics teacher I teach that the 2nd is an individual right just as important as any other God given or natural right. The right of armed self defense does not rely on feelings or opinions. My students also know there is no such thing as a gun show loophole and you can’t buy a gun on the internet and have it delivered to your house. A background check must be performed by an FFL.

  23. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    My kids are homeschooled, so what they learn is “Molon Labe.”

  24. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

    I went to a private high school in NJ from ’07-’11. I was already pigeonholed as the quiet kid who never smiles and listens to Metal all the time, so attracting further negative attention towards myself by announcing my gun ownership wouldn’t have helped. Thankfully my woodshop teacher was an outspoken shooter and 2nd Amendment advocate, which provided balance to the usual idiocy. I don’t recall exactly what my textbooks said, but I remember studying the Constitution and Bill of Rights boiled down to simple memorization. We went through the motions, but never talked about why they were important, which fits the progressive “attack anything that’s pro-America” agenda perfectly.

    1. avatar The Original Brad says:

      Woodshop guy was a 2a supporter. Imagine that; probably of the very few teachers in your or any school that has actual real-world skills, makes things with his hands and deals with actual physical problems and applications, not just the theoretical. Whodathunk it?

  25. avatar BDub says:

    Does the fruit-bat asking the question not think that blackpowder guns are dangerous? Perhaps she would like to take a musket ball and find out.

  26. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    The very premise of the woman’s argument, that only single shot muskets existed at the time of the Constitution’s writing, so that’s all that the Framers envisioned and allowed, is flat out false.

    Not that it matters, because your right to defend yourself is your own and not limited by any particular era’s technology, but let’s follow this trail, anyway.

    The Framers were well read and educated men. They were well aware of history and the march of technology. They knew full well that early weapons were carved sticks, stones and bones and that technology had progressed through to the weapons of their day to include rifles and canon. It’s implausible to claim they could not envision continued scientific discoveries and technological progress. In fact, the Framers specifically acknowledged this prospect by making provision, in Section 8 of the Constitution, for patents to protect inventors.

    Nevermind the future, though, high capacity and repeating firearms existed during the lives of the Framers. Check out such classics as the duck’s foot pistol, the pepperbox gun, the Nock volley gun, the Girandoni air rifle and the Lorenzoni pistol. Colonial assault weapons! The pursuit of more firepower has been underway forever. The Framers knew this and accepted it.

    For fun: Make this point to gun grabbing liberals at a dinner party and watch them all whip out their smart phones to verify. When they later look up in stunned disbelief, you’ll want to use your own smart phone to capture the moment. Priceless.

  27. avatar Ralph says:

    My kid thinks that the Second Amendment has something to do with graven images.

  28. avatar MSRTom says:

    Insert presidential portrait at 2:04.

  29. avatar Shko qiu says:

    I work in a school. I had to talk to all fourth graders bout veterans day. I explained how veterans fought/fight for our freedom (some may dispute that but an elementary school assembly is not the place for such deep discussions. Homeschool them for that). I mentioned they fought for our free speech, freedom of religion and right to protect ourselves with firearms. I saw a few of the school staff cringe but I’m still here and I dare them to say anything.

  30. avatar The Original Brad says:

    I stopped listening when she said, “I think…”

    Your opinion means nothing lady. Change the Constitution or STFU.

  31. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    She was probably there to hear the framers her self.

    She doesn’t even seem to know anything about firearms, who is she to interpret anything much less something that’s not written in?

  32. avatar DrTodd says:

    As a government teacher, I know what I teach the students. Believe it or not, most of the teachers I know covering this also teach exactly what it says: the right is inalienable and shall not be infringed, that it belongs to the people, and that this right pre-existed the Constitution.

    Having said that, in all fairness, most people were taught exactly what the pre-Heller case Supreme Court had said time and again. This is understandable when one considers that most teachers would have taught what was the generally accepted viewpoint of the Court at that time.

    People tend to forget that the cases (Heller and McDonald) are still considered recent and unfortunately were decided in very narrow terms. Know too that textbooks are not updated as often as they probably should be; please understand that I do try to keep abreast of any changes that have taken place and insert them appropriately… think number of electors per state, civil rights legislation, Supreme Court decisions etc. I do know that most good teachers do this whether we have “a dog in the fight” or not.

    I was surprised, though, that my daughter who attends eighth grade in another district than where I work also learned that the right to bear arms is retained by the people, however she also learned that long-standing laws are to be presumed to not violate that right. I personally disagree with the court on that issue so I really don’t get into the watering down that the Court felt compelled to include in their opinion.

  33. avatar TomD says:

    Ok – the internet should be a privilege – not a right since the speech is not your voice coming out of your mouth or ink on paper… No freedom via Television – no technology applies the the Constitution. What an idiot!

  34. avatar AnhydrousWater says:

    That passes for logical?….

  35. avatar Matt says:

    Liability on gun ownership is about as constitutional as poll taxes.

  36. avatar Smoke Jensen says:

    Well it seems clear to me that she only wants our multi-automatics. I’d be glad to turn mine in if she’d STFU. Her spiel made my ears bleed.

  37. avatar Boyd says:

    Thankfully I’m homeschooled but I did stay in public school till the end of middle school. As far as what they teach it isn’t much. Sure they have you right down and know the Bill of rights but they never really go too much into detail about what any of the freedoms really mean especially the second. I know most of the kids that I was with were completely ignorant including myself. I didn’t really start learning about what my freedoms really meant till I was taken out of school. I’m glad I was taken out though otherwise I’d be falling for the same lies that most other kids fall for in school. Plus it’s a lot safer here knowing there’s a gun to defend myself with than it would be at school with nothing but dull scissors that can almost cut paper if such a thing were to happen.

  38. avatar JoeVK says:

    Just this Monday, my son was suspended 5 days for bringing a single .17hmr round to school. This is the first school year in a brand new school, and I was unaware that the previous principal and assistant principal had been replaced along with the old buildings. Definitely a change for the better. The new principal and assistant principal are actually rational, polite, and respectful people. They knew that my son only brought it to school (carefully wrapped in a Kleenex stuffed in an old medicine bottle, lol) to show something cool to his friends. They said that there was nothing wrong with being into guns (their words), but they had to do something, because the rules are the rules. But they did lessen the number of days to 5 (I guess the norm is 10).

    Had it been the previous principal and assistant principal, the police would have been called (rather than just the SRO), the school would have been put in lockdown, they would have demanded that my son be arrested, and they would have accused us of being horrible people and even worse parents.

    1. avatar JSJ says:

      Sheesh. When I was in Jr HS, we had marksmanship as an elective, held after school. Kept the .22 rifles in our lockers until then. Some kids carried them back and forth on the bus. Nobody cared. I don’t recall there ever being an incident or injury.
      It’s a brave new world, except nobody’s brave anymore.

      1. avatar JoeVK says:

        I was happy with the whole school’s actions. They were completely calm, and nobody made thinly veiled suggestions that my son was a budding psychopath. It was handled as typical teenage boy stuff. I felt the punishment was excessive at even 5 days, but I understand that they would have been risking their jobs if they let him off with a lesser punishment. I wouldn’t risk my job either. But the bottom line is that my son knew full well that he shouldn’t have taken it to school when he made the decision to do it. He and I have had several discussions about what is acceptable at home and what is acceptable at school.

  39. avatar domain says:

    Today, I went to the beach front with my kids.
    I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.”
    She put the shell to her ear and screamed. There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched
    her ear. She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is totally off
    topic but I had to tell someone!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email