It is a known fact that the subject of gun control has always been one of the most heated topics that can come about in any given discussion. The Second Amendment has received a lot of public attention since the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which upholds the rights given to citizens of the United States to bear firearms. Even today, in 2013, the occasional question of whether or not the freedom of citizens to keep firearms is “safe” still arises. 
   In America, people are entitled to their opinions and are free to defend them if they choose to do so. Sometimes this is a good thing, as it encourages individuality. But, depending on the topic, is it possible for people to go a little too far? Maybe a recent case in Texas can help in determining that answer. 
  Last week, Fox News reported a case in which the parents of students at a local school in Texas caused an uproar in regards to a workbook definition of the Second Amendment. The workbook summarizes the definition of the textbook by stating that the U.S. has the right to “keep and bear arms in a state militia.” The wording of the definition led many parents to believe that the authors wrote the definition in favor of gun control. 
  The article in Fox News reports the co-author of the workbook, “The United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination,” confirmed the book simply intended to state a “summary definition” of the Second Amendment, and there were no “devious intentions” behind the wording of the definition. The case concluded with the authors of the book admitting the definition in the book is incorrect and that there will be an edited edition sold in 2014, in which the definition is changed to: “A militia is necessary for a free state, and people have the right to keep and bear arms.” 
  This new definition is clearly more in tune with the actual Second Amendment to the Constitution, which states that “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.” 
   While it is appropriate that the definition used in the workbook was corrected, was it really necessary for the authors to be accused of “distorting the Second Amendment in terms of gun control?” Rather than focusing on the fact that the definition was incorrect, the people in this particular case were automatically under the impression that the textbook was trying to encourage gun control in schools. 
  It is obvious that most workbooks attempt to summarize information in a way that makes information easier for students to understand. They are written for the benefit of the students. The article in Fox News said this particular workbook was published before District of Columbia v. Heller. If this is the case, why wasn’t the incorrect definition within the workbook a big deal before? While there are many factors that could contribute to this, such as lack of parental knowledge about the workbook, it could lead the consideration of other theories. Is it possible that current public issues cause increased sensitivity to the subject they address? If so, how far will people go to defend their opinions? And where should we draw the line?
   The answers to these questions are expected to vary from person to person. The fact is that each individual is different. Perhaps the bottom line is that it is important for people to use their knowledge to express their opinions, instead of letting strong feelings linked with public issues cause them to lose touch with reality.