High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

camaro68ss
only gives you more ammo, pun Intended, to home school your kids.

Home schooling your kids won't help when the other 95% of American's educated in the public schools think differently than your kids. You'd be better off to add your influence where it matters and to put your kids in the public schools and teach them to counter the lies.

I have no doubt it was intentional. The Elites have been indoctrinating the youth for some time now. In the 70's it was called "Values Clarification". The Order of Skull and Bones started this indoctrination process, bringing the Statist ideas of John Dewey into play. The children are believed to be owned by the State(where have we heard that recently?) and are trained to behave as controlled cogs in the social wheel.
Today, the educators are using a new version called "Common Core Standards". They say that it is just a list of standards and that it does not control curriculum. But of course the curriculum has to measure up to the federal standards. Interestingly, federal standards override the Constitutional rights of individual states. To pass the SAT tests, the students have to pass the tests developed by federal bureaucrats and their puppets.

I am surprised they didn't put in parentheses

2nd amendment: Some thing about guns or something (the right for Diane Feinstein take guns away from law abiding citizens)


AP must stand for Advanced Peon

MsAphrodite

camaro68ss
only gives you more ammo, pun Intended, to home school your kids.

Home schooling your kids won't help when the other 95% of American's educated in the public schools think differently than your kids. You'd be better off to add your influence where it matters and to put your kids in the public schools and teach them to counter the lies.

I have met a few kids that actually knew what was going on outside the social bubble of public school lie life. I was a zombie when I was in public school. The good thing about home schooling is that it can be done while the child is in public school and I think that is where parents may miss the mark.

benrl

bigfatfurrytexan

camaro68ss
only gives you more ammo, pun Intended, to home school your kids.

I dont homeschool. But i do educate them at home. Then send them back to reeducate their teacher

'

I was the bain of my teachers because of my father, He taught me how to entertain a thought with out accepting it.

You can't imagine how well that went over in public education, question everything attitude is frowned upon...

Its been 10 years since I stepped foot in any kind of classroom, I can only imagine how bad it is now.

I know that too well. I wasn't exactly taught to be a freethinker but I was one naturally. I'd question everything my teachers would say and ask them about anything that I would find out of place or contradictory. You can guess how well that turned out when I would do this frequently at a Catholic school.

Needless to say, the lesson learned is that unless you get an open minded teacher, you're going to be going through hell throughout each and every year of school. The best thing to do is that if you absolutely have to send your kids to public school, then teach them to let the teachers do the talking, and do the homework as asked but explain to them how wrong their teachers are. Otherwise, attending school will be hell and detention will happen all the time.

reply to post by benrl


The fact that it took so long for this to come to light is rather telling of its effectiveness. The youth are unsure of what should be questioned so who knows what other little mind snares are littered through out their education.

Actually, I just realized that people misunderstood the second amendment entirely. They are talking about bodily arms, not weapons unless of course you're a registered black belt See, back then they were recovering from war, therefore they implemented the right to bare arms, meaning you were allowed artificial limbs.

(yes I'm being funny but sadly somewhere out there a liberal will rephrase it to become "the truth")

reply to post by benrl


now that makes my blood boil...

not only are they glossing over the fact private citizens have the right to bear arms..

but stating only a militia can.. but the feds have cracked down on militia as home grown terrorist groups..

grr.. very grr...

ownbestenemy

1104light
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

I am pretty sure it does not say anything about guns either.

It says "arms"...which is all encompassing. Looking to the definition of the word "arms" in the day when it was written, it clearly identify the means in which individuals defend their right to self-preservation; or rather, the Right to Life.

In fact, "arms" is "arms" as it is today. A means to defend ones self; a bat, shovel, firearm, knife, fork, etc.

Arms is all encompassing? Really? So it guarantees me the right to patriot missles, nuclear warheads, switchblades, knives longer than 12 inches? Really? NO, wrong. It is not all encompassing. It was apparently pretty specific to the time when "arms" meant a lot fewer things than it does now. So I guess I will ask again where it says guns.

reply to post by 1104light


Arms always meant a gun one person could shoot. A handgun, a rifle, a small machine gun, etc.

A well regulated militia refers to the national guard today. Back then it meant the rebels fighting off the british occupiers. It was a revolutionary war.

It COULD ALSO mean civilians using their guns and banding together to overthrow a tyrannical government. I think this is where the dilemma lies, is it only national guard troops or civilians as well?

Guns should be regulated but few of us will agree to what extent, especially since so few people trust the government lately. How can anyone trust a government that is hellbent on starting so many wars while on the verge of bankruptcy?

EarthCitizen07
Arms always meant a gun one person could shoot. A handgun, a rifle, a small machine gun, etc.

Since when? You made that up.

A well regulated militia refers to the national guard today. Back then it meant the rebels fighting off the british occupiers. It was a revolutionary war.

The SC did away with that part anyway.

It COULD ALSO mean civilians using their guns and banding together to overthrow a tyrannical government. I think this is where the dilemma lies, is it only national guard troops or civilians as well?

So you never even read the SC decision on this?

Guns should be regulated but few of us will agree to what extent, especially since so few people trust the government lately. How can anyone trust a government that is hellbent on starting so many wars while on the verge of bankruptcy?

edit on 18/9/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)

I trust the government to do lots of things well. Do you do everything in life perfectly? Perhaps you should not be allowed to have any types of arms until you are perfect. Please go educate yourself though and get back to me.

Xtrozero
To bare "arms" is what a single person can use to shoot. A bat is not "arms" nor is a shovel...they all might be weapons though. Back then they had arms (single person firearm) and cannons...multi person.

Please link where they referred to any weapon as arms?

Where are you finding the inference that it means "what a single person can shoot"? Let us start from there...

As for the defintion of the word "arms" of that time, here is Samuel Johnson's Dictionary, the one that was widely used in the era in which the Second Amendment was written.

Samual Johnson Dictionary

It speaks nothing to a "firearm", but rather the means to defend one self.

To Arm:
To furinsh with armour of defense, or weapons of offense....

So you think it only pertains to a firearm? Nothing else? Let us discuss...

1104light
Arms is all encompassing? Really? So it guarantees me the right to patriot missles, nuclear warheads, switchblades, knives longer than 12 inches? Really? NO, wrong. It is not all encompassing. It was apparently pretty specific to the time when "arms" meant a lot fewer things than it does now. So I guess I will ask again where it says guns.

Uh, yes it actually is and no...it isn't "pretty specific" to the time; show me where. Where is it specific to the means and not the limitation of the Right.

It doesn't say guns. It never has; never even inferred really. Assumed maybe, but never focused upon the type of arms upon which we were recognized to own.

Knives longer than 12 inches? As if an 11 inch knife does less damage than a 13 inch knife?

So yes, really and no...not wrong. Read the above where I linked the dictionary of the time. Tell me where the connection between "firearms" and "arms" was made....it wasn't. That is modern day speak to make a point and put down the natural right to defend and protect one self.

ownbestenemy

1104light
Arms is all encompassing? Really? So it guarantees me the right to patriot missles, nuclear warheads, switchblades, knives longer than 12 inches? Really? NO, wrong. It is not all encompassing. It was apparently pretty specific to the time when "arms" meant a lot fewer things than it does now. So I guess I will ask again where it says guns.

Uh, yes it actually is and no...it isn't "pretty specific" to the time; show me where. Where is it specific to the means and not the limitation of the Right.

It doesn't say guns. It never has; never even inferred really. Assumed maybe, but never focused upon the type of arms upon which we were recognized to own.

Knives longer than 12 inches? As if an 11 inch knife does less damage than a 13 inch knife?

So yes, really and no...not wrong. Read the above where I linked the dictionary of the time. Tell me where the connection between "firearms" and "arms" was made....it wasn't. That is modern day speak to make a point and put down the natural right to defend and protect one self.

I said it never said guns before you did and in some states knives are illegal depending on the length. Where are you 2nd amendment types on that?

daskakik
reply to post by xuenchen

 

The second amendment has 27 words. The entry in this book has 14.

So condensed and simplified, even if not in the way many would have prefered.

You mean in the way James Madison intended it?

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

Both are in the post I was repying to.

Why would I mean something that was not even mentioned?

reply to post by 1104light


Maybe through confusion we are circling the same argument? My clarification is that arms are just that; objects used to defend ones self or used in the capacity of offense -- as quoted from a dictionary during the late 18th century. Even the arbitrary restrictions that Government places on knives is silly, as I was trying to point out, given that a blade 11" long is no less deadlier than one that is 13" long; so why even place such a restriction? A pen can be just as deadly and in and during the use as a mechanism of self-defense, it becomes an "arm".

I stated, in which you replied in a questioning manner, that the word "arms" in the context of the Second Amendment was all encompassing. I felt you were questioning that logic and I responded accordingly.

LewsTherinThelamon
You mean in the way James Madison intended it?

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

His original words, before being parsed through Congressional debate were as follows and it really shows the true intent of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Notice the semi-colon? It is clear the intent was to separate two clauses, of equal importance, and that the two were held equally by each entity: The Individual and the States.

ownbestenemy
reply to post by 1104light

 

Maybe through confusion we are circling the same argument? My clarification is that arms are just that; objects used to defend ones self or used in the capacity of offense -- as quoted from a dictionary during the late 18th century. Even the arbitrary restrictions that Government places on knives is silly, as I was trying to point out, given that a blade 11" long is no less deadlier than one that is 13" long; so why even place such a restriction? A pen can be just as deadly and in and during the use as a mechanism of self-defense, it becomes an "arm".

I stated, in which you replied in a questioning manner, that the word "arms" in the context of the Second Amendment was all encompassing. I felt you were questioning that logic and I responded accordingly.

I asked a simple question and I guess I can ask it again. Where does the 2nd mention guns?