Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

[JakeStarkey]

Somebody is drinking spiked kool aide.

Anytime I think the far righty reactionaries hit rock bottom, they then set a new low.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Perhaps you think it is acceptable for a classroom book to ‘summarize the first as: ‘First Amendment: you have a right to freely practice your religion.’ Of course the rest of us are going find that absolutely unacceptable as that leaves out some VERY important rights and leaves the student utterly ignorant on the amendment itself.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

Legally speaking, yes but the text is not in legalese. It is meant to be a simple language representation and in that light shall make no law and will make no law are virtually synonymous. The change is in bad form considering both versions would read just as easily and we are not talking about grade school students here but I would not take that to an extreme. The second in the summery is outright incorrect. The first is not.

I would note here though that the entire concept is asinine considering that anyone in high school should NOT be shown a ‘summery’ of any of the bill of rights. They are not complex literary works. They are essentially a few plain English sentences that, even in dated English, are extremely easy to understand. The APPLICATION might be more difficult as simple concepts usually are when expanded over incredibly diverse and complex situations but the amendments themselves are EXTREMELY simple.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Perhaps you think it is acceptable for a classroom book to ‘summarize the first as: ‘First Amendment: you have a right to freely practice your religion.’ Of course the rest of us are going find that absolutely unacceptable as that leaves out some VERY important rights and leaves the student utterly ignorant on the amendment itself.

I imagine the summary of every one of the first 10 amendments were botched in a way that offend someone. I bet that somewhere in that text there must be a copy of the actual text of the Constitution and all the Amendments, but I could be wrong, it is Texas.......

 

[FA_Q2]

Progressives lie. All the time.

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.

They don’t have to establish that they are progressives. The cited portion is an extremely left slanted view on an amendment. To claim that the statement is conservative would be asinine.

The text is likely written that way simply because the author is so think as to actually believe what he is typing in and I don’t have a single problem with calling him and the schools that use such drivel out on it.


Your post is nothing more than an attempt to bury an obvious fail.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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 parents should rip the page out of the book and tack it to the head of that

clown teacher and then boot the teacher out of the school

 

[daveman]

Is this actually true...seems awfully dumb...like RW history books...

Let's see...progressives **** up the Constitution to indoctrinate schoolkids with their bullshit...and it's CONSERVATIVE'S fault.

Go be stupid somewhere else with Black_Label. You two can get lost together.

The democrats honor and uphold the constitution, the right wing pieces of shit like to cherry pick certain parts, then twist, and shit on the rest.

There are two terrifying things about your post:

1. You really believe that nonsense.

2. You vote.

 

[daveman]

Texas and other loudmouth idiot red states are the lowest common denominator for publishers of textbooks- that's how kids are getting dumber everywhere....

Liberals have had a stranglehold on education for 40 years.

It's not conservatives' fault kids are getting dumber.

 

[daveman]

Is this actually true...seems awfully dumb...like RW history books...

Let's see...progressives **** up the Constitution to indoctrinate schoolkids with their bullshit...and it's CONSERVATIVE'S fault.

Go be stupid somewhere else with Black_Label. You two can get lost together.

a- example, dupe...Oh, THIS- not progressives, and just plain dumb interpretation...

It would be nice if you could manage to not be incoherent every once in a while.

b- stupid talking points and insults, impressive...

 

[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.

This is an unabashed and shameful editing of the 2nd Amendment. I am quite surprised to see that the high school which has these textbooks for their students is located in Denton, Texas. Texans should know better than this!

Bullshit.

It's a paraphrase. They're all paraprhased (all that are visible), translating 18th century English into modern speech.

By the way you realize that the comma after "Militia" (in the original) makes no grammatical sense, right? That is, with the comma intact it does NOT say that a well-regulated militia IS necessary to the security of a free state. It would say that were the comma not there. As it is it's two dependent clauses swimming around independenty.

So much for literal readings.

My stars and little fishes, some of y'all will swallow any conspiracy theory no matter how cheap.

That's nice. Run along, now.

 

[Darkwind]

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

In My world, a summary does not equate to outright lie. It is a highlight of the actual text.

The 2nd Amendment is brief enough that it requires no summary. Why not just use the actual text?

 

[daveman]

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

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

 

[daveman]

Progressives lie. All the time.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Polk]

Progressives lie. All the time.

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.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

This is an unabashed and shameful editing of the 2nd Amendment. I am quite surprised to see that the high school which has these textbooks for their students is located in Denton, Texas. Texans should know better than this!

Bullshit.

It's a paraphrase. They're all paraprhased (all that are visible), translating 18th century English into modern speech.

By the way you realize that the comma after "Militia" (in the original) makes no grammatical sense, right? That is, with the comma intact it does NOT say that a well-regulated militia IS necessary to the security of a free state. It would say that were the comma not there. As it is it's two dependent clauses swimming around independenty.

So much for literal readings.

My stars and little fishes, some of y'all will swallow any conspiracy theory no matter how cheap.

Text books are to be written with facts. Not paraphrasing which is used to change the meaning of words.
Spin spin spin... You libs are so desperate here.

 

[Pogo]

This is an unabashed and shameful editing of the 2nd Amendment. I am quite surprised to see that the high school which has these textbooks for their students is located in Denton, Texas. Texans should know better than this!

Bullshit.

It's a paraphrase. They're all paraprhased (all that are visible), translating 18th century English into modern speech.

By the way you realize that the comma after "Militia" (in the original) makes no grammatical sense, right? That is, with the comma intact it does NOT say that a well-regulated militia IS necessary to the security of a free state. It would say that were the comma not there. As it is it's two dependent clauses swimming around independenty.

So much for literal readings.

My stars and little fishes, some of y'all will swallow any conspiracy theory no matter how cheap.

Text books are to be written with facts. Not paraphrasing which is used to change the meaning of words.
Spin spin spin... You libs are so desperate here.

The meaning hasn't been changed. The empty claim has been made that it's been changed but no proof has been offered.
Just because some internet wag goes "Boo- scary monsters" it doesn't mean they exist on his say-so. Reality doesn't work that way.

 

[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?

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.

 

[Clementine]

haa!!!!

that's funny. Good thing we can expect students to actually READ the Bill of Rights.

If they do, the teacher will declare them disruptive and refuse to teach them until they are doped up on dangerous drugs.
They must comply!!

I don't think it's by accident that so many children can't read and too many children were tagged as having ADHD and drugged. They don't want students reading, they want them listening.

 

[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.