Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

[TemplarKormac]

In case all of you outraged illiterates didn't notice, THIS IS NOT A TEXTBOOK. It is a review course (cheat sheet) for an AP exam. The goal is not to teach, but to pass the exam. IT'S CONDENSED PEOPLE. That's what these kinds of books do, just like Cliff's Notes. Sheesh. Get a grip!

BTW, I would agree that it is a pretty bad cheat sheet anyway. A lot of provisions of other amendments are incomplete also.

If the 2nd is on the test as a collective right only, the kids are still being taught wrong.

Some people are okay with that. Agenda before truth.

If you see the concept of "only" on that page, you're not even qualified to use English, let alone analyze it.

If indeed you were qualified in English, perhaps you would learn to read the entire Constitution, not just parts of it.

 

[Pogo]

In case all of you outraged illiterates didn't notice, THIS IS NOT A TEXTBOOK. It is a review course (cheat sheet) for an AP exam. The goal is not to teach, but to pass the exam. IT'S CONDENSED PEOPLE. That's what these kinds of books do, just like Cliff's Notes. Sheesh. Get a grip!

BTW, I would agree that it is a pretty bad cheat sheet anyway. A lot of provisions of other amendments are incomplete also.

Ha. Good catch. OP busted all over again.

Even if it were a textbook, as noted before nothing in the world would prevent any student from challenging what's in the book. These knee jerks act like a textbook is some kind of etch-a-sketch on the brain indelible for all time. Not sure that doesn't say even more about authoritarian mind controllism than about their shaky powers of deduction.

Well, ain't you just all pissy because you don't get to edit the Constitution.

You didn't even read the post you just quoted, didja? It's a FAKE BOOK. A preprinted set of summary notes as a study guide. If space were scarce it could have been condensed further as:

"I- speech/religon/press
2- arms
3- soldier quartering"

etc etc.

That doesn't mean that's how the Constitution itself reads.

Wow, if you don't know the difference between a fake book and the Constitution, why are you here?

 

[Pogo]

If the 2nd is on the test as a collective right only, the kids are still being taught wrong.

Some people are okay with that. Agenda before truth.

If you see the concept of "only" on that page, you're not even qualified to use English, let alone analyze it.

If indeed you were qualified in English, perhaps you would learn to read the entire Constitution, not just parts of it.

Once AGAIN...

We're discussing one single line in a fake book. Not the Constitution.
Try reading the post I just responded to -- speaking of English.

 

[NoNukes]

That's not up to you. It does NOT take a village to raise a child. My children are not yours to indoctrinate.

But it's telling that you admit your desire to brainwash children. Tell me, if your ideas are so great, why do you have to force them on kids too unsophisticated to question them? Why not present all sides and let the kids choose for themselves?

Hint: Because your ideas are intellectually bankrupt, and their acceptance can only happen in a vacuum, by threat of government force.

Differences of opinion is not brainwashing.

I teach my children to think for themselves and to form their own opinions. If your children do not agree with your opinions, it does not mean that they have been brainwashed. Perhaps they object to being brainwashed at home.

In my house, we encourage our children to determine their own beliefs.

So much for your "Your children are brainwashed!" bullshit.

Then why are you afraid of them having different beliefs than you? You never appear to be a person who is this open minded.

 

[gallantwarrior]

If the 2nd is on the test as a collective right only, the kids are still being taught wrong.

Some people are okay with that. Agenda before truth.

If you see the concept of "only" on that page, you're not even qualified to use English, let alone analyze it.

If indeed you were qualified in English, perhaps you would learn to read the entire Constitution, not just parts of it.

He and his gun-grabbing buddies don't even bother reading parts of the Constitution. They're perfectly happy lapping the paraphrased dregs left over after their masters have "filtered" the content to remove all the bitter parts they cannot swallow because those passages as written fail to support their agenda.

 

[Pogo]

If you see the concept of "only" on that page, you're not even qualified to use English, let alone analyze it.

If indeed you were qualified in English, perhaps you would learn to read the entire Constitution, not just parts of it.

He and his gun-grabbing buddies don't even bother reading parts of the Constitution. They're perfectly happy lapping the paraphrased dregs left over after their masters have "filtered" the content to remove all the bitter parts they cannot swallow because those passages as written fail to support their agenda.

Once again, real slow now...

We. Were. NOT. Talking. About. The. Consitution.

We were talking about one line in a study guide book (falsely sold here as a "textbook").

Once again, those who don't know the difference between a fake book and a historical document might be well advised to take a reading course.

And btw I've never been a "gun grabber". Feel free to go find evidence thereof while you're dipping into the blanket statement snuff box in blithe ignorance. Happy huntin'.

Once again .... reading comprehension.

Oh the density....

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

Guyer High School (and obviously several others) are complicit in attempting to condition students to interpret the 2nd Amendment in a clearly opposite manner in which it was intended. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th are also misinterpreted as several commenters below pointed out.

This textbook, currently being used by Guyer High School, is attempting to redefine the Second Amendment to impressionable young minds. Parents, you must speak up and demand action. Investigate your child's history book ASAP, and post more pictures in the comments below. Call your school and demand that revisionist history books like this are removed from the school district.

Textbook version: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."

Actual 2nd Amendment: "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."

Did you catch the sleight of hand?

A militia is a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. It's a common man army of citizens, NOT soldiers. The citizens are called up in emergencies to protect the free State.

The 2nd Amendment says that a militia is necessary to protect a free State, so in order to be able to have a militia, the citizens have a natural right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot infringe on that right.

The textbook version implies that we're only allowed to keep and bear arms if we're in a State militia, a clear misrepresentation of the 2nd Amendment.​

Progressives lie. All the time.

The way they rewrote it is exactly what it means. It's rewritten so even idiots like you can understand it.

 

[bendog]

Did anyone bother to note that this book is NOT an AP history text? Not to trample on any paranoia. But, the book is perhaps the most useless of many books available from Amazon to CRAM FOR THE AP TEST.

The actual recommended curriculum by the college board, and recommended texts can be found:
AP Central - AP United States History Course Home Page

It'd be interesting, to me, to learn what resources the school in question actually uses, but the randian paul site in the OP does not provide any info. If the school is actually using ANY study guide as a text, the kids ain't getting their money's worth. But I seriously doubt the Denton County High School is that bad.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Teaching made up stuff is now a bad thing Dave? What happened to your support to teach creationism?

 

[bendog]

Teaching made up stuff is now a bad thing Dave? What happened to your support to teach creationism?

I looked up the book. It's got a 2010 publishing date. Up until Heller in 2008, the statement was correct at least to many scholars' thinking. At least 4 sup ct justices would still agree. But it is not the law of the land.

 

[Pogo]

Teaching made up stuff is now a bad thing Dave? What happened to your support to teach creationism?

I looked up the book. It's got a 2010 publishing date. Up until Heller in 2008, the statement was correct at least to many scholars' thinking. At least 4 sup ct justices would still agree. But it is not the law of the land.

I'm pretty sure that summaries in study guide books are not represented as "the law of the land".

Consider the source here.

 

[FA_Q2]

We ain't talking about SCOTUS. We never were. I know that must be inconvenient to red herringmongers but they're irrelevant. SCOTUS is to decide what the law means. I'm not a lawyer and I don't tussle with that. What we're actually talking about HERE is how English works, and on that I'm well qualified, certainly more than SCOTUS, thank you very much.

Actually, no we weren’t talking about that either. What we were talking about was the fact that a text used in a high school to prepare students for an AP exam blatantly presents falsehoods about the second amendment in the text. YOU tried to change that into an irrelevant discussion on English. That discussion is meaningless whereas the current law as determined by the SCOTUS is EXTREMELY relevant. You only brought English into this as a way to distract from the fact that the text was blatantly incorrect in an attempt to justify its position on the matter.

Uh... no I think it was you that brought it up actually; at least that's where I caught it. Wanna see it?



(that's yours, post 85)
This from Daveman followed a dozen posts later:

..........


Obviously, someone who believes the right to bear arms in only a collective right, not an individual one.

(post 97)

These being questions on the meanings of words, I addressed these two in tandem with post 101. And here we be.

Nope, wrong again. None of those posts are appealing to explanations of language. You are the only one to bring that up and all posts talking about it are direct responses to that particular distraction. They have to do with LAW. Note that none of the cited posts ever say anything about language.

As SCOTUS is the final arbiter on what the text of the second amendment actually means, they are the ones that determine whether or not the text was factually correct no matter what arguments you want to interject about the language. It turns out the text is not.

It's not my place to interpret law (nor is it either my expertise nor my interest here), so I'm not addressing SCOTUS. I'm discussing English, which is.
However, I'm pretty sure SCOTUS has not looked into this here Cliff's Notes book as you suggest immediately above.

As for the whole 'factually correct' thingy of the textbook-that-isn't-a-textbook, I addressed that in post here in post 148 and I got no rebuttal. You might want to pay particular attention to the middle paragraph about etching on brains in stone. In a Cliff's Notes book that isn't supposed to be comprehensive in the first place.

In short... lighten up. It's what musicians call a "fake book" -- not a Red Chinese plot to sell our daughters into slavery. Sheesh.

Your post 148 didn’t get a response because it was not worthy of one. You brought up zero relevant points in that post. Lets go over the points that you ‘thought’ you grought up. The forst being that people can think and the text did not etch minds in stone.

Huh?

That is not only irrelevant but also completely meaningless. The text is a tool to teach and it is incorrect. Whether or not it is indoctrinating people is not the point. I guess I could say the same thing if the text stated: ‘The first amendment protects Christianity as the official religion in the USA.’ You would be pissed if the text made that claim (and so would I). The key difference here though is that as soon as they start calling the second a collective right suddenly it’s okay. That is because YOU agree with that interpretation even though it is legally incorrect.

THAT is why I have stated that you are posting with a political slant in your posts. You are affirming that charge with each passing post because you are STILL defending what is in that book even though it I blatantly incorrect.
WEDFV
The second ‘point’ was to falsely claim a logical fallacy. That is, by the way, another fallacy in itself. Why would I (or anyone here) bother to respond to a post like that when it has nothing in it? That appeal to ipsi dixit was also blatantly incorrect as I have explained in detail every assertion that I have made.

 

[bendog]

The book's wrong. But the op, from a anypaulian site, seems to identify it as what is the text for the course. If the course is a college board approved AP history course, then either the couse is severely effed up, or the op is simply misinformation.

The actual answer to the AP issue should be Heller established the law is the right to private ownership is not based on the milita clause, though scholars still disagree as to whether Heller really reflects the founders' intent. But the pt is that no teacher can teach AP history by teaching mult choice questions, and that's essentially what the book is. But, who knows if the book's 2010 revision simply failed alter its' sample question.

 

[Pogo]

I see the passage where I quoted you has conveniently disappeared. Let's conjure it back up, shall we?


Nope, wrong again. None of those posts are appealing to explanations of language. You are the only one to bring that up and all posts talking about it are direct responses to that particular distraction. They have to do with LAW. Note that none of the cited posts ever say anything about language.

What is it about the word "Summary" that you don't understand?

The part where the summery blatantly disregards the actual text to the point of misrepresenting the right entirely. You should have noted that the ‘summery’ explains only a collective right (and misstates it at that) while leaving out the entire personal right.

If that's not referring to language, I don't know what to tell you.

As SCOTUS is the final arbiter on what the text of the second amendment actually means, they are the ones that determine whether or not the text was factually correct no matter what arguments you want to interject about the language. It turns out the text is not.

It's not my place to interpret law (nor is it either my expertise nor my interest here), so I'm not addressing SCOTUS. I'm discussing English, which is.
However, I'm pretty sure SCOTUS has not looked into this here Cliff's Notes book as you suggest immediately above.

As for the whole 'factually correct' thingy of the textbook-that-isn't-a-textbook, I addressed that in post here in post 148 and I got no rebuttal. You might want to pay particular attention to the middle paragraph about etching on brains in stone. In a Cliff's Notes book that isn't supposed to be comprehensive in the first place.

In short... lighten up. It's what musicians call a "fake book" -- not a Red Chinese plot to sell our daughters into slavery. Sheesh.

Your post 148 didn’t get a response because it was not worthy of one. You brought up zero relevant points in that post. Lets go over the points that you ‘thought’ you grought up. The forst being that people can think and the text did not etch minds in stone.

Huh?


The second ‘point’ was to falsely claim a logical fallacy. That is, by the way, another fallacy in itself. Why would I (or anyone here) bother to respond to a post like that when it has nothing in it? That appeal to ipsi dixit was also blatantly incorrect as I have explained in detail every assertion that I have made.

Once again you've excised my content. So here it is:

It has ALREADY been established and you are simply ignoring that reality.
FACT: the second protects an individual right that is not connected with service in a militia as established by the SCOTUS

It says "the people". Even in the original.
SCOTUS decisions are beyond the scope of a simple breakdown of Amendments. That would make for a very very large textbook.

Not to be neglected here is that it's just a textbook -- not the etching in stone upon brains for all time. Nothing in the world precludes a reader of this textbook from questioning, validating, confirming, contradicting or otherwise developing this info in the reader's mind. Nor should it.

It's a simple textbook, not the end of freaking human civilisation as we know it. I mean we call them students because they study. Sheesh, talk about thought control...

FACT: the statement in the text CLEARLY states that the right to bear arms IS connected to militia service.

As does the original, using the same word (Militia). Without the comma (as ratified) it actually depends on that service..

FACT: the second amendment in the text is a total misinterpretation. That is not only been established in this thread BUT it is also blatantly obvious.

You're back to ipse dixit again.

Your point 1 starts with opinion, not fact (you are simply ignoring) and then make the claim of non-connection with militia. I addressed this.

Your point 2 notes the connection in the fake book between arms and militia. I noted that the original makes the same connection. And later on in this thread I posed the question of why only the Second Amendment, alone among the entire Bill of Rights, carries such a qualifier. Nobody ventured into that, but it still stands as a curiosity

And then your point 3 had no substance. "Everybody knows" fallacy. I pointed this out too.

That is not only irrelevant but also completely meaningless. The text is a tool to teach and it is incorrect. Whether or not it is indoctrinating people is not the point. I guess I could say the same thing if the text stated: ‘The first amendment protects Christianity as the official religion in the USA.’ You would be pissed if the text made that claim (and so would I). The key difference here though is that as soon as they start calling the second a collective right suddenly it’s okay. That is because YOU agree with that interpretation even though it is legally incorrect.

THAT is why I have stated that you are posting with a political slant in your posts. You are affirming that charge with each passing post because you are STILL defending what is in that book even though it I blatantly incorrect.
WEDFV

Again, I have yet to "interpret" any law. I'm analyzing language, which is what the question was. I appreciate your attributing all kinds of legal powers upon me that I don't have, but it's not my gig. You and others have made the assertion that what's in the fake book is "blatantly false", and I question how you get that. I haven't seen an answer yet.

And yes, whether or not it is indoctrinating people does seem to be the point. Read the OP. Not sure how else it can be read.

 

[gallantwarrior]

If indeed you were qualified in English, perhaps you would learn to read the entire Constitution, not just parts of it.

He and his gun-grabbing buddies don't even bother reading parts of the Constitution. They're perfectly happy lapping the paraphrased dregs left over after their masters have "filtered" the content to remove all the bitter parts they cannot swallow because those passages as written fail to support their agenda.

Once again, real slow now...

We. Were. NOT. Talking. About. The. Consitution.

We were talking about one line in a study guide book (falsely sold here as a "textbook").

Once again, those who don't know the difference between a fake book and a historical document might be well advised to take a reading course.

And btw I've never been a "gun grabber". Feel free to go find evidence thereof while you're dipping into the blanket statement snuff box in blithe ignorance. Happy huntin'.

Once again .... reading comprehension.

Oh the density....

Let's go for that reading comprehension thing: I referred to your "gun-grabbing buddies". If you wish to assume that same appellation, sobeit. As far as the suggested purpose of the featured document, I do seem to have missed the original posting that claimed it was a "fake" book. As a study guide, it still seems disingenuous and intentionally misleading to whomever might use it as such.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

Guyer High School (and obviously several others) are complicit in attempting to condition students to interpret the 2nd Amendment in a clearly opposite manner in which it was intended. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th are also misinterpreted as several commenters below pointed out.

This textbook, currently being used by Guyer High School, is attempting to redefine the Second Amendment to impressionable young minds. Parents, you must speak up and demand action. Investigate your child's history book ASAP, and post more pictures in the comments below. Call your school and demand that revisionist history books like this are removed from the school district.

Textbook version: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."

Actual 2nd Amendment: "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."

Did you catch the sleight of hand?

A militia is a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. It's a common man army of citizens, NOT soldiers. The citizens are called up in emergencies to protect the free State.

The 2nd Amendment says that a militia is necessary to protect a free State, so in order to be able to have a militia, the citizens have a natural right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot infringe on that right.

The textbook version implies that we're only allowed to keep and bear arms if we're in a State militia, a clear misrepresentation of the 2nd Amendment.​

Progressives lie. All the time.

The way they rewrote it is exactly what it means. It's rewritten so even idiots like you can understand it.

No, that is not what the original text means. What they have done is very blatantly state that only people in a state militia can "keep and bear arms".

 

[Pogo]

Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

Guyer High School (and obviously several others) are complicit in attempting to condition students to interpret the 2nd Amendment in a clearly opposite manner in which it was intended. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th are also misinterpreted as several commenters below pointed out.

This textbook, currently being used by Guyer High School, is attempting to redefine the Second Amendment to impressionable young minds. Parents, you must speak up and demand action. Investigate your child's history book ASAP, and post more pictures in the comments below. Call your school and demand that revisionist history books like this are removed from the school district.

Textbook version: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."

Actual 2nd Amendment: "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."

Did you catch the sleight of hand?

A militia is a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. It's a common man army of citizens, NOT soldiers. The citizens are called up in emergencies to protect the free State.

The 2nd Amendment says that a militia is necessary to protect a free State, so in order to be able to have a militia, the citizens have a natural right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot infringe on that right.

The textbook version implies that we're only allowed to keep and bear arms if we're in a State militia, a clear misrepresentation of the 2nd Amendment.​

Progressives lie. All the time.

The way they rewrote it is exactly what it means. It's rewritten so even idiots like you can understand it.

No, that is not what the original text means. What they have done is very blatantly state that only people in a state militia can "keep and bear arms".

And exactly where do you see the word "only"? I mean, other than the posts of the other equally reading-challenged high level ranter who created this silly-ass thread?

"The people have a right to keep and drive cars on state roads" -- exactly how does that mean the people can't drive cars anywhere else? Or that the people can't drive trucks?

I don't see any restrictive language at all other than restricting infringement. In fact although it's not visible on the page, the Ninth Amendment would ensure that there is no such restriction. Can't have it both ways.

(FA_Q2 is tearing his hair out right now since his theory that I'm on some kind of political rant is falling apart... )

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing petulant about it. The right flank of the Court determines what their preferred outcome is, and then works backwards from there to develop a legal rationale.

A claim you know you cannot support, especially in regard to 2A jurisprudence.

It's a very easy claim to support.

Please, do so.

No needs to look no further than the Court's equal protection jurisprudence,

... that was decided 7-2.
You lose.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fact:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You do not have to like this fact, but in refusing to accept it, you deliberatly choose to be wrong.

 

[The T]

Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

Guyer High School (and obviously several others) are complicit in attempting to condition students to interpret the 2nd Amendment in a clearly opposite manner in which it was intended. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th are also misinterpreted as several commenters below pointed out.

This textbook, currently being used by Guyer High School, is attempting to redefine the Second Amendment to impressionable young minds. Parents, you must speak up and demand action. Investigate your child's history book ASAP, and post more pictures in the comments below. Call your school and demand that revisionist history books like this are removed from the school district.

Textbook version: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."

Actual 2nd Amendment: "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."

Did you catch the sleight of hand?

A militia is a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. It's a common man army of citizens, NOT soldiers. The citizens are called up in emergencies to protect the free State.

The 2nd Amendment says that a militia is necessary to protect a free State, so in order to be able to have a militia, the citizens have a natural right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot infringe on that right.

The textbook version implies that we're only allowed to keep and bear arms if we're in a State militia, a clear misrepresentation of the 2nd Amendment.
​

Progressives lie. All the time.

Any wonder why the Left is against Vouchers? Homeschooling? HAVE TO BE in charge of education? They HATE the Constitution...They are rewriting it.They rewrite history...poison the young minds they claim they are so concerned about.

GREAT thread, Dave.