Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

[Pogo]

We're not at all far apart-- I agree with virtually all of that. It is indeed without meaning, if it's prefatory rather than operative. So I ask again, why would they stick a prefatory clause in here, when they (correctly) didn't do it anywhere else?

Logical answer: because it's operative rather than prefatory. Because that way it is like the others.

Still atrociously written, no matter which way intended. If it was concisely written, we'd have nothing to jaw about here and it would be unequivocal.

Take that comma for instance. What was up with that?

Wait, I think Dave's got that one. Over to you, Dave?

Bzzzzt.

"SCOTUS are expert in English"? Don't think that's in the job description, no. But I'll bite-- what do THEY say about that comma?

Well, since the SCROTUS believes that bribery is freedom of speech, they'd say that it was put in there so the printers could charge more. Possibly a lot more, if they needed an extra comma to go over a limit on a cheaper fee.

Bunch of comma-kazis.

They removed the comma before it was ratified. No doubt while singing:

Comma comma down, do be do, down down...

 

[FA_Q2]

Note the "colon" in the preamble. The sentences following the colon and preceding the actual amendments are informational. The way to read the bill of rights first two amendments is therefore as follows (emphasis added to show the portions of the list in the paragraph that are not operative):

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: (I) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (II) 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.

You see, your error is in reading each sentence separately like they are unique pieces of art. But they are not. They are portions of a single long winded statement or paragraph if you will that cites a list of "declarations and restrictions."

Malarkey.

The original intention of the Constitution was to provide that a professional army (Ground forces) under Federal Control would not be used.

The idea was that a "part time" army..or minutemen, be at the ready should the United States need them in cases of insurrection and land invasions.

It was a cheap method of providing such forces and a check against "big" government.

Something that is impossible without an armed populous hence the beginning of that amendment – since the people needed to be ready to come to arms they needed to have the right to arm themselves protected and codified in the BOR.

So simple yet you seem unable to make the logical conclusion to your own statements.

 

[daveman]

I'm hip. That's what I keep saying. So why is it there?

"Being" in this usage is the equivalent of "whereas". Can't be interpreted as past or future; it's a present condition.



You don't NEED an explanation. If you want that law you just declare " the right of the people to keep and bear cell phones shall not be infringed". Include the "well-managed system" qualifier, and it sure looks to me like you're legislating not what the people can have, but how the cell phone company has to operate.

Sorry, you're really not selling this. Can you find any other empty filler clauses in the Bill of Rights that have no purpose?

I already did, see the "preamble" to the bill of rights.

And yes that is the point to prefatory clauses, they are not needed. They merely aid the reader. It's like saying "as you might expect." It's completely without meaning because it's not a part of the operative portion of the sentence. You keep asking for purpose, where there is none. This is why many people will remove prefatory clauses. This is also why many people argue to use only active voice, and never passive voice. They want you to get to the point and freak out when you take your time to get to it.

We're not at all far apart-- I agree with virtually all of that. It is indeed without meaning, if it's prefatory rather than operative. So I ask again, why would they stick a prefatory clause in here, when they (correctly) didn't do it anywhere else?

Logical answer: because it's operative rather than prefatory. Because that way it is like the others.

Still atrociously written, no matter which way intended. If it was concisely written, we'd have nothing to jaw about here and it would be unequivocal.

Take that comma for instance. What was up with that?

Wait, I think Dave's got that one. Over to you, Dave?

Yeah, yeah, we get it. You're an expert in English.

SCOTUS, however, are expert in English AND the Constitution.

Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you!

Bzzzzt.

"SCOTUS are expert in English"? Don't think that's in the job description, no. But I'll bite-- what do THEY say about that comma?

Somewhere Gertrude Stein laughs maniacally...I could tell you what she said...

*sigh*

No, kid. For probably not the last time, you DON'T get to dictate what the Constitution means. You can get your panties in a wad all you want; we're not under any obligation to alter the government and laws just to validate your unmerited sense of superiority.

You're an English major. Yippee. When you've also got a law degree and a few decades of experience practicing Constitutional law, then you can speak authoritatively.

Until then, you're just whining about how unfair it all is.

 

[daveman]

Aww, Dave feels left out being that he doesn't know what we're talking about.

Want to play, Dave?'
Explain that comma after "Militia".

Yeah, yeah, we get it. You're an expert in English.

SCOTUS, however, are expert in English AND the Constitution.

Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you!

SCOTUS made a 5-4 decision. You go to a committee of 9, and half of them dont' agree with you, then you probably aren't on firm ground.

Especially when the OTHER half had to do handstands to explain why your GOD GIVEN RIGHT to a gun doesn't include Howitzers.

Why do you keep lying about that? Anyone with the proper licence and the money for the fees and hardware can own a Howitzer...and the ammo, too.

Of course, you can't stop lying about anything.

 

[daveman]

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.

That's the correct reading of it.

It's you folks that drop the militia requirement almost every time.

You folks bifurcate the Amendment every single time you cite it.

SCOTUS, of course, says you're wrong.

Now you will predictably screech that SCOTUS is wrong.

But whose view is the law of the land...yours, or SCOTUS'?

 

[Foxfyre]

Coming to the thread late.

While commending Daveman on starting this thread on a very important topic, I will caution him (and others) not to take JoeB's bait (and others) to derail the thread. This is a topic that deserves and needs a full airing.

The topic is one near and dear to my heart. All you have to do is spend some time discussing things with kids who are attending public schools to know that this is just the tip of the iceberg. In everything from adulation of the President--something that would have driven icy chills through our Founders--to welfare to global warming to basic economics, the kids are being force fed--indoctrinated--with liberal concepts. It is even worse at the college level.

I am amazed that we continue to have the number of people that we do with the intelligence and intellectual honesty to look through the indoctrination to the actual facts and who are determined to seek truth instead of propaganda.

 

[J.E.D]

We need a civil war so bad to weed out all the leftist Un-American socialist.

It would be blood well let

-Geaux

How patriotic of you - wishing death upon those that disagree with you.

What are you waiting for, internet tough guy aka pussy?

Get off of your lazy ass, out of your trailer and into the streets.

 

[PrometheusBound]

We're not at all far apart-- I agree with virtually all of that. It is indeed without meaning, if it's prefatory rather than operative. So I ask again, why would they stick a prefatory clause in here, when they (correctly) didn't do it anywhere else?

Logical answer: because it's operative rather than prefatory. Because that way it is like the others.

Still atrociously written, no matter which way intended. If it was concisely written, we'd have nothing to jaw about here and it would be unequivocal.

Take that comma for instance. What was up with that?

Wait, I think Dave's got that one. Over to you, Dave?





Well, since the SCROTUS believes that bribery is freedom of speech, they'd say that it was put in there so the printers could charge more. Possibly a lot more, if they needed an extra comma to go over a limit on a cheaper fee.

Bunch of comma-kazis.

They removed the comma before it was ratified. No doubt while singing:

Comma comma down, do be do, down down...

So the lawyers for their 1% gave us, the people, the unratified version of the Constipation to worship like a Bible? Rats!

Which one does the SCROTUS use? Did the Founding Fodder give the ratified one to those rats?

 

[AmericanFirst]

The right wingers need to read what the 1st amendment says in that book, memorize it, and follow it.

So your only idiotic defense is to off topic? You are a big idiot as ever.

 

[daveman]

We need a civil war so bad to weed out all the leftist Un-American socialist.

It would be blood well let

-Geaux

How patriotic of you - wishing death upon those that disagree with you.

What are you waiting for, internet tough guy aka pussy?

Get off of your lazy ass, out of your trailer and into the streets.

Odd...that's what I keep telling far leftists who want their Workers' Revolution.

Hasn't seem to have happened yet. Did I miss it?

 

[Geaux4it]

We need a civil war so bad to weed out all the leftist Un-American socialist.

It would be blood well let

-Geaux

How patriotic of you - wishing death upon those that disagree with you.

What are you waiting for, internet tough guy aka pussy?

Get off of your lazy ass, out of your trailer and into the streets.

Wow, talking about internet tough guy. I found your class reunion picture

-Geaux

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually there are two distinct groups battling for the heart and soul of Texas education. While the following excerpts are not taken from an unbiased website, the information I believe to be accurate:

Educational Research Analysts sends their textbook rating sheets (for free) to every school in Texas to help educators make informed choices about textbooks. Educational Research Analysts functions very efficiently with a small staff and lives within its means on less than half of what Texas Freedom Network receives in its Education Fund. Educational Research Analysts accepts no contributions from textbook lobbyists or political candidates and organizations yet has nationwide influence because of its esteemed long-term service to the school children of our nation.

On the other hand, Texas Freedom Network is an aggressive, leftwing, political organization that is completely out of step with today’s parents who want their children to learn foundational skills that will help them to become well-informed leaders of tomorrow.

TFN has a well-defined political/social agenda for our school children; and the purpose of TFN is to practice the politics of personal destruction on the conservative members of the Texas State Board of Education and anyone else who holds the same principled beliefs.

TFN staffers have never bothered to read an entire textbook, critique it, research the contents, list factual errors, and go through the laborious yet legitimate textbook adoption process. TFN prefers to hold press conferences, highlight statements in textbooks that are taken out of context, and steal the attention of the all-too-willing liberal media who then go out and spread misinformation and bias across the country.

In recent years, TFN has lost the battle over the English / Language Arts / Reading standards. The ones passed by the majority of the elected SBOE members are much improved over the old ones and stress phonics, grammar, usage, spelling, penmanship, expository and persuasive writing, research writing, and the great pieces of literature along with their characteristics.

TFN also lost the battle over the new Science standards that will now require teachers to teach all sides of scientific theories including the weaknesses of evolution.

- See more at: Indoctrinating Our Children: Textbooks | EducationNews.org

It probably doesn't take a rocket scientist to identify which group probably promoted the textbook cited in the OP.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is a fact that that's what the court said

No. It's what the court held.
And thus, it is a fact.
You can choose to disagree - it just makes you wromg.
Why do you choose to be wrong?

"Wromg"?

Ah... a petulant typo nazi.
:roll:

How a court interprets things (as to what they mean), or how you interpret things, or how I interpret things, those are opinions.

Incorrect.
The holding of a case is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact.
You can choose to disagree - it just makes you wrong.
Why do you choose to be wrong?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yeah, yeah, we get it. You're an expert in English.

SCOTUS, however, are expert in English AND the Constitution.

Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you!

SCOTUS made a 5-4 decision. You go to a committee of 9, and half of them dont' agree with you, then you probably aren't on firm ground.

Especially when the OTHER half had to do handstands to explain why your GOD GIVEN RIGHT to a gun doesn't include Howitzers.

Why do you keep lying about that?

Because if Joe didn't lie, he'd never post.

 

[J.E.D]

We need a civil war so bad to weed out all the leftist Un-American socialist.

It would be blood well let

-Geaux

How patriotic of you - wishing death upon those that disagree with you.

What are you waiting for, internet tough guy aka pussy?

Get off of your lazy ass, out of your trailer and into the streets.

Wow, talking about internet tough guy. I found your class reunion picture

-Geaux

So, you aren't going to do anything about it. That's what I thought. Pussy

 

[The T]

How patriotic of you - wishing death upon those that disagree with you.

What are you waiting for, internet tough guy aka pussy?

Get off of your lazy ass, out of your trailer and into the streets.

Wow, talking about internet tough guy. I found your class reunion picture

-Geaux

So, you aren't going to do anything about it. That's what I thought. Pussy

What do YOU expect ? DAVE to openly threaten you? Really?

YOU are the PUSSY...*BOY*

 

[daveman]

How patriotic of you - wishing death upon those that disagree with you.

What are you waiting for, internet tough guy aka pussy?

Get off of your lazy ass, out of your trailer and into the streets.

Wow, talking about internet tough guy. I found your class reunion picture

-Geaux

So, you aren't going to do anything about it. That's what I thought. Pussy

Oh, you mean like your Workers' Revolution?

 

[Abatis]

If it was concisely written, we'd have nothing to jaw about here and it would be unequivocal.

Take that comma for instance. What was up with that? . . .

"SCOTUS are expert in English"? Don't think that's in the job description, no. But I'll bite-- what do THEY say about that comma?

They are experts on the fundamental principles and the operation of the Constitution and your understanding of English do not override, can not extinguish that unalterable meaning and function.

Since the Court first spoke of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment some 140 years ago, they have never wavered from the fact that the right is not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd so it is deemed a "pre-existing right' and thus is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence:

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [that of self-defense from the KKK by ex-slaves citizens in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”​

So, the real question you need to answer is why are you so preoccupied pondering things that the right does not depend on, to try to discern what the right is?

Seems kinda absurd and useless to me . . . but I'm not looking for excuses to dismiss constitutional principles.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, yeah, we get it. You're an expert in English.

SCOTUS, however, are expert in English AND the Constitution.

Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you!

SCOTUS made a 5-4 decision. You go to a committee of 9, and half of them dont' agree with you, then you probably aren't on firm ground.

Especially when the OTHER half had to do handstands to explain why your GOD GIVEN RIGHT to a gun doesn't include Howitzers.

Why do you keep lying about that? Anyone with the proper licence and the money for the fees and hardware can own a Howitzer...and the ammo, too.

Of course, you can't stop lying about anything.

Proper Licences?

You mean a "Well-Regulated" ownership of a Howitzer?

You mean everyone doesn't have a right to terrorize the neighborhood with a Howitzer, that you have LAWS saying who can have them, where they can use them, when they can use tham and so on.

Wow. Awesome.

Let's do the same thing with other guns.

Problem solved.

 

[J.E.D]

What do YOU expect ? DAVE to openly threaten you? Really?

YOU are the PUSSY...*BOY*

Uh oh, looks like you fell off the wagon.

I expect him to get off of his lazy ass and start his revolution.

But I know he won't because he's an ubber-pussy. Just like you.

Go have another drink, old man