Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

[daveman]

And conservatives lie. All the time.

In this case the OP.

There’s nothing in the linked article identifying the authors of the textbook as being ‘progressive,’ or that there was any political affiliation or motivation concerning writing the text of the Second Amendment.

The article’s author is jumping to a subjective, unsubstantiated, and politically motivated conclusion as to why the text is written the way it is, absent any evidence that the book’s authors were attempting to intentionally mislead anyone as to the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The OP, in typical conservative fashion, is attempting to contrive a controversy where none exists, this is nothing more than partisan rightwing demagoguery.

And so, in conclusion, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and swims like a duck -- it's a luggage rack.

As FA correctly pointed out, the summary says the right to bear arms is only a collective right.

And that's exactly what the left says it is.

You fail. Yet again, you fail.

That's also what the text of the amendment says.

No, it doesn't. It affirms the 2nd is an individual right.

 

[daveman]

UHHHHH Dave dear, and all the others blaming liberals for what the TEXAS Board of Education approved, an extremely CONSERVATIVE group is kind of par for the course as of late....

This Board SEEMS to read and touch every book in Texas schools to approve or disapprove of it or strike language in them....seems to have flubbed up on this.....

Texas school board whitewashes history - CNN.com

I think Tinydancer is right, the Board of education in TEXAS is who you should ultimately go after....

NOT ONLY is the 2nd amendment rewritten in this book but so is the 1st Amendment rewritten, yet none of you even noticed....makes me wonder if you all weren't told what to be upset about, you'd be lost.....???

The book puts ''may make no'' in the spot where it should read ''shall make no'' should be....and there is a HUGE legal difference between ''may'' and ''shall''.....

1st

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.


that book is for a high school COLLEGE course....

advanced prep course they can get college credit for..........

who authored the book?

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

Is it? Or are you parroting this post?....

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.

"Misrepresents", huh? Let's have a look...

"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."

People/person; which word is singular and which is plural (collective)?

Where does it say anything about the right of "the person" or the right of "a citizen"? Where's the word "individual"? Where's the word "personal"?

This isn't rocket science. It's English.

[/quote]
I don't parrot; progressives have the exclusive franchise to that mindless activity. In my post immediately before the one you quoted, I acknowledged FA's assertion.

As far as your asinine interpretation, SCOTUS agrees with me.

So you lose.

 

[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.

Paraphrasing allows editing to fit the current PC interpretation.

Indeed. And then people who agree with the PC interpretation will innocently bat their eyes and say, "What? That's what it says, right? We're not altering anything!"...exactly as we've seen in this thread.

 

[daveman]

It's written for low-information voters, Obama voters, like, ahem, cough cough ^

Right wingers can't even read books, they just do whatever the flashy colors and bleach blonde bimbos at fox tell them.

Excuse me? I read what was posted, it is very clearly an abomination and a total misrepresentation of what the 2d Amendment states. I am not stupid, nor uneducated.

If you hold the exact same views as progressives, you're an "independent thinker", just like the rest of them.

 

[JoeB131]

If that's a legitimate copy of the text book, wow! Are they trying to hide behind putting the bill of rights in everyday English?

What's so difficult to understand about the original?

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."​

Not seeing the difference. The founders obviously thought the "Well-Regulated Militia" thing was kind of important.

I don't think they ever thought that Aaron Alexis should be running around with a gun because he heard voices in his head.

 

[daveman]

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

Yes, it says progressives have the right to lie about the Constitution.

Normal people have the right to call you on your lies.

Perhaps we do not want our children growing up like you 'normal' people.

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.

 

[daveman]

Bahahahaa! Houston is a "very liberal area of Texas"? 'Scuze me but I'm channeling my inner George Carlin here and remembering "jumbo shrimp", "holy war" and "plastic glass" just to name a few.

If you think Houston is liberal then what does that make Midland/Odessa? How about Austin? Is that considered the local Communist outpost?

Yea Houston is so red, that's why they've had Democrat Mayors since 1982.
List of mayors of Houston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Austin is a very blue area as well.
Lee Leffingwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Will Wynn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Does it hurt being so stupid?

Not enough, apparently.

 

[daveman]

If that's a legitimate copy of the text book, wow! Are they trying to hide behind putting the bill of rights in everyday English?

What's so difficult to understand about the original?

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."​

Not seeing the difference. The founders obviously thought the "Well-Regulated Militia" thing was kind of important.

I don't think they ever thought that Aaron Alexis should be running around with a gun because he heard voices in his head.

Of course you don't see the difference. Your programming is that the 2nd is a collective right only.

Run along now.

 

[JoeB131]

What's so difficult to understand about the original?

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."​

Not seeing the difference. The founders obviously thought the "Well-Regulated Militia" thing was kind of important.

I don't think they ever thought that Aaron Alexis should be running around with a gun because he heard voices in his head.

Of course you don't see the difference. Your programming is that the 2nd is a collective right only.

Run along now.

Actually, I couldn't really care less what the Founding Slave Rapists were thinking.

There's no good reason for Aaron Alexis to have a gun.
There's no good reason for George Zimmerman to have a gun.
There's no good reason for Joker Holmes to have a gun.
There's no good reason for Adam Lanza to have a gun.
There's no good reason for Jared Loughner to have a gun.
There's no good reason for YOU to have a gun. (I wouldn't want you to feel left out.)

Self-defense almost never happens and we don't want you overthrowing the government.

 

[NoNukes]

Yes, it says progressives have the right to lie about the Constitution.

Normal people have the right to call you on your lies.

Perhaps we do not want our children growing up like you 'normal' people.

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.

 

[Polk]

"Misrepresents", huh? Let's have a look...

"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."

People/person; which word is singular and which is plural (collective)?

Where does it say anything about the right of "the person" or the right of "a citizen"? Where's the word "individual"? Where's the word "personal"?

This isn't rocket science. It's English.

That’s right it is English and it should be easy as hell to understand but here you are twisting the words to make them refer to a collective right when that is blatantly false. The reference to people in no way means that right is collective in nature. It simply states that all people have that right. Simple English.


Now, the reality here is that simply does not matter. You can debate what you want the right to be until you turn blue in the face and keel over but it is not the job of the school or the texts that are used in it to teach YOUR asinine interpretation of the constitution no matter how correct you might demand that you are. The school teaches what IS, not what you want. The constitutional right that the second protects has been ruled on by the court and the SCOTUS had determined that you are wrong. I understand that does not mean we cannot debate that fact. Nor does it mean the court was correct – they have been wrong before. What it DOES mean though is that the schools have no right whatsoever to claim that the second does not protect an individual right to bear arms.


No matter how you slice it – the text is flat out wrong and defending that is nothing more than political hackery in attempting to teach your political slant on things rather than what is.

The "quote" from me in your post isn't a post I made. It's the text from Pogo's post (#101).

 

[Polk]

And so, in conclusion, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and swims like a duck -- it's a luggage rack.

As FA correctly pointed out, the summary says the right to bear arms is only a collective right.

And that's exactly what the left says it is.

You fail. Yet again, you fail.

That's also what the text of the amendment says.

No, it doesn't. It affirms the 2nd is an individual right.

If that were true, half of the language in the amendment is meaningless and the Congressional debates during the ratification process make no sense.

 

[Pogo]

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

Is it? Or are you parroting this post?....

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.

"Misrepresents", huh? Let's have a look...

"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."

People/person; which word is singular and which is plural (collective)?

Where does it say anything about the right of "the person" or the right of "a citizen"? Where's the word "individual"? Where's the word "personal"?

This isn't rocket science. It's English.

I don't parrot; progressives have the exclusive franchise to that mindless activity. In my post immediately before the one you quoted, I acknowledged FA's assertion.

As far as your asinine interpretation, SCOTUS agrees with me.

So you lose.

SCOTUS... SCOTUS... ah yes, the infallible entity that enlightened us on how Dred Scott was three-fifths of a person while a corporation is five-fifths. Makes one wonder how many fifths they were drinking.

Whether SCOTUS agrees with you or not, simple rules of English do not, and they're way older. And that was the question.. So you lose.

 

[Pogo]

"Misrepresents", huh? Let's have a look...

"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."

People/person; which word is singular and which is plural (collective)?

Where does it say anything about the right of "the person" or the right of "a citizen"? Where's the word "individual"? Where's the word "personal"?

This isn't rocket science. It's English.

That’s right it is English and it should be easy as hell to understand but here you are twisting the words to make them refer to a collective right when that is blatantly false. The reference to people in no way means that right is collective in nature. It simply states that all people have that right. Simple English.


Now, the reality here is that simply does not matter. You can debate what you want the right to be until you turn blue in the face and keel over but it is not the job of the school or the texts that are used in it to teach YOUR asinine interpretation of the constitution no matter how correct you might demand that you are. The school teaches what IS, not what you want. The constitutional right that the second protects has been ruled on by the court and the SCOTUS had determined that you are wrong. I understand that does not mean we cannot debate that fact. Nor does it mean the court was correct – they have been wrong before. What it DOES mean though is that the schools have no right whatsoever to claim that the second does not protect an individual right to bear arms.


No matter how you slice it – the text is flat out wrong and defending that is nothing more than political hackery in attempting to teach your political slant on things rather than what is.

I didn't post about political slants. I posted about how English works. Stop overanalyzing.

 

[Pogo]

Funny, they have the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution on an "Advanced Placement Exam"

Dunno which is worse folks, I knew the first 10 amendments in 1st Grade. At any rate, that is indoctrination of the worst kind. The poor kid will start asking gun owners "hey are you in a militia?" to which they will reply, "No. What makes you say that?" The kid will respond, "I learned in school that only people in militias own guns, that's what the Second Amendment says!"

Unfortunately for your strawman, that's not what this textbook says. Nice try, if facile.

 

[Pogo]

UHHHHH Dave dear, and all the others blaming liberals for what the TEXAS Board of Education approved, an extremely CONSERVATIVE group is kind of par for the course as of late....

This Board SEEMS to read and touch every book in Texas schools to approve or disapprove of it or strike language in them....seems to have flubbed up on this.....

Texas school board whitewashes history - CNN.com

I think Tinydancer is right, the Board of education in TEXAS is who you should ultimately go after....

NOT ONLY is the 2nd amendment rewritten in this book but so is the 1st Amendment rewritten, yet none of you even noticed....makes me wonder if you all weren't told what to be upset about, you'd be lost.....???

The book puts ''may make no'' in the spot where it should read ''shall make no'' should be....and there is a HUGE legal difference between ''may'' and ''shall''.....

1st

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.


that book is for a high school COLLEGE course....

advanced prep course they can get college credit for..........

who authored the book?

So is the Third. They are paraphrasing each Amendment, and thereby adulterating the actual language of each Amendment.

Modernizing with paraphrase isn't necessarily adulterating. It can be, if such distortion can be shown to exist. This one hasn't.

If you don't think clarity of meaning morphs over the centuries, have the class read Beowulf. In the original.

Excuse me? I read what was posted, it is very clearly an abomination and a total misrepresentation of what the 2d Amendment states. I am not stupid, nor uneducated.

Uh, I have a question...
If this textbook is so "clearly" an "abomination" and "total misrepresentation" ------ how is it that no one can demonstrate that?

I mean, it really is necessary to come up with something more than ipse dixit...

 

[gallantwarrior]

The series debuted in 1967. The flying nun was played by none other than Sally Field. The series aired for three years.

When were you born?

[MENTION=31362]gallantwarrior[/MENTION]:

20 years later.

That doesn't seem to have become the handicap many of your years appear to have, mentally, morally, or socially.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Right wingers can't even read books, they just do whatever the flashy colors and bleach blonde bimbos at fox tell them.

Excuse me? I read what was posted, it is very clearly an abomination and a total misrepresentation of what the 2d Amendment states. I am not stupid, nor uneducated.

If you hold the exact same views as progressives, you're an "independent thinker", just like the rest of them.

Independent of what? As far as I read and see, progressives think and parrot exactly what their lemming hive-mind is directed to by their (currently) socialist messiah.

 

[FA_Q2]

"Misrepresents", huh? Let's have a look...

"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."

People/person; which word is singular and which is plural (collective)?

Where does it say anything about the right of "the person" or the right of "a citizen"? Where's the word "individual"? Where's the word "personal"?

This isn't rocket science. It's English.

That’s right it is English and it should be easy as hell to understand but here you are twisting the words to make them refer to a collective right when that is blatantly false. The reference to people in no way means that right is collective in nature. It simply states that all people have that right. Simple English.


Now, the reality here is that simply does not matter. You can debate what you want the right to be until you turn blue in the face and keel over but it is not the job of the school or the texts that are used in it to teach YOUR asinine interpretation of the constitution no matter how correct you might demand that you are. The school teaches what IS, not what you want. The constitutional right that the second protects has been ruled on by the court and the SCOTUS had determined that you are wrong. I understand that does not mean we cannot debate that fact. Nor does it mean the court was correct – they have been wrong before. What it DOES mean though is that the schools have no right whatsoever to claim that the second does not protect an individual right to bear arms.


No matter how you slice it – the text is flat out wrong and defending that is nothing more than political hackery in attempting to teach your political slant on things rather than what is.

The "quote" from me in your post isn't a post I made. It's the text from Pogo's post (#101).

Thanks for the heads up. Fixed in original post.

 

[FA_Q2]

That's also what the text of the amendment says.

No, it doesn't. It affirms the 2nd is an individual right.

If that were true, half of the language in the amendment is meaningless and the Congressional debates during the ratification process make no sense.

It is true. The second covers 2 rights that are intimately connected – the right of the states to form militias and the right of the people to bear arms. Militias would be essentially impossible if the people were not allowed to be armed as in general it was common practice for the militia to bring their own weapons with them.

Most of the left wants to ignore half the amendment. I don’t think that you will find many on the right that want to ignore any part of the second.