Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

[The T]

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 Gubmint has to get rid of the notion that the Second Amendment was MEANT for them too if they got out of line.

 

[daveman]

Until the Courts rule it isn't.

Which they have done in the past. (US v. Miller).

Even Heller had to do some logic twisting to make sure you can't get that Howitzer you've had your eye on.

Of course you'd claim it was twisted logic. You can't recognize the real kind.

Bad Commie. No disarmed populace for you!

Only a matter of time, guy.

People are tired of sharing their streets with heavily armed madmen.

So why can't you have that howitzer, if owning weapons is an individual right?

I don't want a Howitzer, you buffoon.

But if I did, I could have one, your puling notwithstanding. As long as you comply with the applicable Federal and state laws, you can own one. The ammo, too.

Perhaps you should just stop talking.

 

[daveman]

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.

Well, THAT was lame.

 

[daveman]

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?

You're not nearly as bright as you think you are.

This whole thread you've been trying to edit the real Bill of Rights -- not the fake prog POS in the OP.

And you just don't have the horsepower.

 

[The T]

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.

Well, THAT was lame.

Maybe POGOBOOB should consult the founders...? That's right, they're dead...so the Second means nothing...

 

[daveman]

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.

Where have I ever given any indication that I'm afraid of my children having different beliefs?

Degree of difficulty: The voices in your head are NOT admissible evidence.

 

[daveman]

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

Wrong. It's rewritten so idiots like you can agree with it.

Because you don't like the original so much, do you?

 

[daveman]

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

What's the matter, CC? Don't like the tenets of your faith being questioned?

Too bad.

 

[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.

Well, THAT was lame.

"Lame" is irrelevant; it's true. You inserted soemthing that isn't there, and you got busted.
Don't wanna get busted? Don't make shit up.

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?

You're not nearly as bright as you think you are.

This whole thread you've been trying to edit the real Bill of Rights -- not the fake prog POS in the OP.

And you just don't have the horsepower.

Once again, nothing but gainsaying.
You lose. Twice.

Care to go for three? Oh wait, hold that thought, we've got a bite already...

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

Well, THAT was lame.

Maybe POGOBOOB should consult the founders...? That's right, they're dead...so the Second means nothing...

Bingo. Gainsay #3. "Only" never appears in the text, and the best retort either of you fuels can come up with is "Pogoboob".

Game / Set / Match. Thanks for playin'.

 

[The T]

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

Well, THAT was lame.

"Lame" is irrelevant; it's true. You inserted soemthing that isn't there, and you got busted.
Don't wanna get busted? Don't make shit up.




Once again, nothing but gainsaying.
You lose. Twice.

Care to go for three? Oh wait, hold that thought, we've got a bite already...

Well, THAT was lame.

Maybe POGOBOOB should consult the founders...? That's right, they're dead...so the Second means nothing...

Bingo. Gainsay #3. "Only" never appears in the text, and the best retort either of you fuels can come up with is "Pogoboob".

Game / Set / Match. Thanks for playin'.

Would you like a name tailored MORE to your taste, BOOB>?

How about shithead?

 

[Pogo]

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.

Fact: that's opinion, not "fact". Something doesn't become fact simply by inserting the word "fact" before it. Just as someone isn't "wrong" on nothing more than your say-so (especially when you're the one playing loosely with the laws of language).

But feel free to substantiate this view, in spite of the qualifier phrase."A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". Tell us what the hell it's there for -- if as you claim it is not there to specify service in a militia as a basis for keeping and bearing arms, then what exactly is its purpose? Moreover, if "self-defense within the home" was intended, why is that not spelled out as well?

While you're straining at the intellectual commode with that, lemme toss the same question again, this will be the third time--

There is no other amendment in the entire Bill of Rights that includes a qualifier or basis. This is the only one.
1A does not say "an open exchange of ideas being necessary to the healthy exercise of a free republic, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." ---
3A doesn't say "The People having the right to be secure in their homes, no soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered..." ---
4A fails to qualify the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects etc (remember that one? I barely do) with "a good stash being necessary to a good home" ...

Same on down the line for the rest: NO other amendment is worded with any kind of qualifier, limitation or basis of reasoning. Only the Second. Matter of fact it was consciously put in there, as it appears in both versions, the one passed by Congress and the one ratified by the States, so we know its inclusion is intentional,

Why do you think that is, you know, the clause having no function and all?


Corollary question:

Which of those two versions do you favor?

 

[Pogo]

Well, THAT was lame.

"Lame" is irrelevant; it's true. You inserted soemthing that isn't there, and you got busted.
Don't wanna get busted? Don't make shit up.




Once again, nothing but gainsaying.
You lose. Twice.

Care to go for three? Oh wait, hold that thought, we've got a bite already...

Maybe POGOBOOB should consult the founders...? That's right, they're dead...so the Second means nothing...

Bingo. Gainsay #3. "Only" never appears in the text, and the best retort either of you fuels can come up with is "Pogoboob".

Game / Set / Match. Thanks for playin'.

Would you like a name tailored MORE to your taste, BOOB>?

How about shithead?

How about simply coming up with a logical answer, or admitting that there isn't one because you're wrong?

 

[JoeB131]

Of course you'd claim it was twisted logic. You can't recognize the real kind.

Bad Commie. No disarmed populace for you!

Only a matter of time, guy.

People are tired of sharing their streets with heavily armed madmen.

So why can't you have that howitzer, if owning weapons is an individual right?

I don't want a Howitzer, you buffoon.

But if I did, I could have one, your puling notwithstanding. As long as you comply with the applicable Federal and state laws, you can own one. The ammo, too.

Perhaps you should just stop talking.

But Dammit, why should there be LAWS if you have a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to have a weapon of your choice.

Or what you are aruging is that certain weapons are just too fucking dangerous for just anyone to have.

Okay. You've won me over. Let's get working on that assault weapon ban. That high capacity clip ban. And all those ot her bans that make you guys nuts.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Wrong. It's not a fake book. "My" son used that book for his AP History class last year. It's not a college course. It's not a separate text book used as a study guide. It is the TEXT BOOK that they were required by the state of Texas to use for the Advanced Placement American History class.

I can confirm the photo shown, because I have the book right in front of me. That said the teachers also teach the class, the study guide is just that, it is a take home study guide they are supposed to use to prepare for tests.

Clearly, the writers of this portion intended the student to use a liberal viewpoint wrt. the constitution's most important parts.

Texas is in an uproar over this book. Heads are rolling all over the state. Parents are yelling at Principals and Teachers for allowing this book to be used in our classrooms. Teachers are getting let go for this and other libtard reasons. Administrators are getting let go for this and other reasons. We recently booted our Principal and School Superintendent for their liberal lies and policies. We now have a more conservative mindset leading our school system in my area. We are in a battle for hearts and minds, and it would seem, facts and history.

 

[bendog]

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?

Wrong. It's not a fake book. "My" son used that book for his AP History class last year. It's not a college course. It's not a separate text book used as a study guide. It is the TEXT BOOK that they were required by the state of Texas to use for the Advanced Placement American History class.

I can confirm the photo shown, because I have the book right in front of me. That said the teachers also teach the class, the study guide is just that, it is a take home study guide they are supposed to use to prepare for tests.

Clearly, the writers of this portion intended the student to use a liberal viewpoint wrt. the constitution's most important parts.

Texas is in an uproar over this book. Heads are rolling all over the states. Parents are yelling at Principals and Teachers for allowing this book to be used in our classrooms.

I don't doubt your veracity, but I'm not sure about "author's intent," because until 2008, it was not a "wrong" reading of the second. And, even now, it is a minority view that still has academic support as to the Founder's intent. Still, it's wrong, and any student taking the AP test, which would entitle them to college credit w/o having to pay for a college course, woudl have gotten the question wrong ... which would suck for them. The idea is you work hard in HS, and you get a reward by either saving money by getting your college degree quicker, or you avoid poly sci and spend more time on pre-med or whatever you want to be.

But, I'm curious. My kid took AP classes too, but she had to read parts of various textbooks (that teachers made availabe) and even primary source stuff like federalist papers. Do you guys in Texas do that too?

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't doubt your veracity, but I'm not sure about "author's intent," because until 2008, it was not a "wrong" reading of the second. And, even now, it is a minority view that still has academic support as to the Founder's intent. Still, it's wrong, and any student taking the AP test, which would entitle them to college credit w/o having to pay for a college course, woudl have gotten the question wrong ... which would suck for them. The idea is you work hard in HS, and you get a reward by either saving money by getting your college degree quicker, or you avoid poly sci and spend more time on pre-med or whatever you want to be.

But, I'm curious. My kid took AP classes too, but she had to read parts of various textbooks (that teachers made availabe) and even primary source stuff like federalist papers. Do you guys in Texas do that too?

You are incorrect. It is an invalid reading of the second amendment. Ask someone familiar with English and/or Law to explain to you the difference between a prefatory clause and an operative clause.

Yes, if you have the grades in an AP class at the end of year you get to take a college level test to get college credits for the class. We also have what we call dual credit courses, in which community colleges come to the High Schools to teach a college level course to HS students.

Yes, our teachers and students also used and had access to, the actual documents vs. the liberalized text book form.

The point isn't that the liberal view should be "hidden" from students. The point is that when you purposefully change the meaning of a thing as important as the Bill of Rights. You should have a prefatory clause, nudge, that explains the purpose of the summary, as written.

Dual credit is an interesting trend that I support. Instead of taking AP classes, our best students will be able to take a full suite of Dual Credit courses and graduate HS with an Associates Degree.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Wrong. It's not a fake book. "My" son used that book for his AP History class last year. It's not a college course. It's not a separate text book used as a study guide. It is the TEXT BOOK that they were required by the state of Texas to use for the Advanced Placement American History class.

I can confirm the photo shown, because I have the book right in front of me. That said the teachers also teach the class, the study guide is just that, it is a take home study guide they are supposed to use to prepare for tests.

Clearly, the writers of this portion intended the student to use a liberal viewpoint wrt. the constitution's most important parts.

I'm afraid you're not understanding what I mean by the term "fake book". That's a noun, not a noun plus an adjective. It doesn't mean the book doesn't exist -- a "fake book" is a kind of summary (cheat sheet) musicians use to navigate songs. It contains basic chords, though not harmonies and little details. It gets you into the ballpark, and you take it from there.

Same thing here; a summary without details, used as a memory jog for a test. The history class equivalent of a "fake book" or a "Cliff's Notes" if you will.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Texas is in an uproar over this book. Heads are rolling all over the state. Parents are yelling at Principals and Teachers for allowing this book to be used in our classrooms. Teachers are getting let go for this and other libtard reasons. Administrators are getting let go for this and other reasons. We recently booted our Principal and School Superintendent for their liberal lies and policies.

About what?

We now have a more conservative mindset leading our school system in my area. We are in a battle for hearts and minds, and it would seem, facts and history.

I asked before and no one bit, so take it if you like: do you believe that children's or students' minds are like a CDR that you burn and forever thereafter that student is incapable of developing,, challenging or augmenting that information?

Or to put it succinctly, are you into mind control?

 

[bendog]

I don't doubt your veracity, but I'm not sure about "author's intent," because until 2008, it was not a "wrong" reading of the second. And, even now, it is a minority view that still has academic support as to the Founder's intent. Still, it's wrong, and any student taking the AP test, which would entitle them to college credit w/o having to pay for a college course, woudl have gotten the question wrong ... which would suck for them. The idea is you work hard in HS, and you get a reward by either saving money by getting your college degree quicker, or you avoid poly sci and spend more time on pre-med or whatever you want to be.

But, I'm curious. My kid took AP classes too, but she had to read parts of various textbooks (that teachers made availabe) and even primary source stuff like federalist papers. Do you guys in Texas do that too?

You are incorrect. It is an invalid reading of the second amendment. Ask someone familiar with English and/or Law to explain to you the difference between a prefatory clause and an operative clause.

Yes, if you have the grades in an AP class at the end of year you get to take a college level test to get college credits for the class. We also have what we call dual credit courses, in which community colleges come to the High Schools to teach a college level course to HS students.

Yes, our teachers and students also used and had access to, the actual documents vs. the liberalized text book form.

The point isn't that the liberal view should be "hidden" from students. The point is that when you purposefully change the meaning of a thing as important as the Bill of Rights. You should have a prefatory clause, nudge, that explains the purpose of the summary, as written.

Dual credit is an interesting trend that I support. Instead of taking AP classes, our best students will be able to take a full suite of Dual Credit courses and graduate HS with an Associates Degree.

Well, look, 4 sup ct justices and a good number of academics do believe that the milita clause is not independent of the right clause. But, the Heller decision decided the law in 2008, and the prevailing view became that the founders believed there was a right to own firearms that underlaid the milia clause. Personally, I think that was correct. But, people who have studied more history than I, disagree, and I don't insult their abilty to read (infer insult to your intellect there, buddy)

But more to my original post to you. Thanks for confirming that the teachers used other texts and primary sources. But, the way AP classes work is the ONLY grade that counts is the test score on the standardized AP test that all students take for the same AP course.

AP Score - What's a Good AP Score?

As far as the study guide goes, the school did the kids a disservice by using it. Ideology is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is preparing kids to get the most "right" answers on the test. If the question involved the effect of the milita clause, the kids using that study guide missed the question, and that's wrong. If they study, they should know the right answer.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well, look, 4 sup ct justices and a good number of academics do believe that the milita clause is not independent of the right clause. But, the Heller decision decided the law in 2008, and the prevailing view became that the founders believed there was a right to own firearms that underlaid the milia clause. Personally, I think that was correct. But, people who have studied more history than I, disagree, and I don't insult their abilty to read (infer insult to your intellect there, buddy)

But more to my original post to you. Thanks for confirming that the teachers used other texts and primary sources. But, the way AP classes work is the ONLY grade that counts is the test score on the standardized AP test that all students take for the same AP course.

AP Score - What's a Good AP Score?

As far as the study guide goes, the school did the kids a disservice by using it. Ideology is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is preparing kids to get the most "right" answers on the test. If the question involved the effect of the milita clause, the kids using that study guide missed the question, and that's wrong. If they study, they should know the right answer.

I did not say "independent clause." I said prefatory clause. Since you are confused as to thinking prefatory is independent I invite you to look up the meaning of "prefatory clause." I do not intone that you may not be able to read english. I merely point out that prefatory clauses are not often used outside of the law.

Additionally, I do not think under-laid means what you think it means. I do not say this with bad intent. I merely point out that your use of the term indicates, to me, that you are using it incorrectly. This because, you have given support to the very incorrect reading.

In my words, the point of a prefatory clause is to explain why the operative clause, that follows, has value. The writer was in essence saying that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and because of this, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. He is not saying the militia has a right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. The way in which the phrase was changed, changes entirely who the actor is in the operative clause by converting from an active voice to a passive voice half way through the new sentence. This is a grievous error that changed the actor from the people to the people in a militia, the purpose of which is clear.

>>> The only relevant thing is preparing kids to get the most "right" answers on the test.

I disagree. When studying history, getting the most right answer is not the only relevant thing. I have no problem with presenting both views regarding the meaning of the sentence, as that is also a part of our history.

 

[Pogo]

I don't doubt your veracity, but I'm not sure about "author's intent," because until 2008, it was not a "wrong" reading of the second. And, even now, it is a minority view that still has academic support as to the Founder's intent. Still, it's wrong, and any student taking the AP test, which would entitle them to college credit w/o having to pay for a college course, woudl have gotten the question wrong ... which would suck for them. The idea is you work hard in HS, and you get a reward by either saving money by getting your college degree quicker, or you avoid poly sci and spend more time on pre-med or whatever you want to be.

But, I'm curious. My kid took AP classes too, but she had to read parts of various textbooks (that teachers made availabe) and even primary source stuff like federalist papers. Do you guys in Texas do that too?

You are incorrect. It is an invalid reading of the second amendment. Ask someone familiar with English and/or Law to explain to you the difference between a prefatory clause and an operative clause.

Oh poster please... Go back to snark school.
Why don't you tackle that question I've asked three times (see 234) and tell us what the purpose of that prefatory clause is. Or in other words, demonstrate how it's prefatory. And let us all know why they took the trouble to make sure it was in there, alone among ALL the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

...

The point isn't that the liberal view should be "hidden" from students. The point is that when you purposefully change the meaning of a thing as important as the Bill of Rights. You should have a prefatory clause, nudge, that explains the purpose of the summary, as written.

Like 2A does?

So how does this summary "change the meaning"? Speaking of unanswered questions...