High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

So people today think they know what it was like too live back then,,,,i should say not,, of course u needed a gun,, most everyone or thing was trying too kill u,,lol,, ya its for Snakes!
"The distant English king could scarcely imagine the depths of passion and fear that Bacon’s Rebellion excited in Virginia; Bacon had ignited the unhappiness of landless former servants and he had pitted the backcountry frontiersmen against the haughty gentry of the plantations"
so i guess they needed there guns, right?

Those saying this was just a short rendition of the various amendments and no ill intent is meant, then why didn't the writer say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You see, that is about as succinct as it can get. They chose to talk about militia because that is what the anti-gun crowd has pushed. I don't think this was just an innocent editing issue of synopsis, but a directed effort to indoctrinate.

What a joke, the book was first published in 2003. Only took 10 years for a vigilant citizen to make it known and 14 of the 15 pages of negative comments on amazon are dated on or after the publication date of the dailypaul article.

reply to post by benrl


Education Is Slavery !


Harpo Marx

reply to post by TDawgRex


The wiki link that you provided mentions that Plato "provided a comprehensive analysis of the social and political consequences of individual ownership of arms versus a state monopoly of arms. ... individual possession of weapons by sane individuals was ethically acceptable to Socrates." and this was basically what was presented as the American ideal. The Greek philosophers and the Romans were heavy inspirations for the Founders.

In regards to the Jstor article that you linked, I had to laugh. That article is 20 pages long and spends about 18 1/2 pages discussing gun laws in the colonies while under British rule. It's titled "Gun Laws in America: The Regulation of Firearms Ownership from 1609-1794" but I think it would be more aptly named "Gun Laws in British Colonial America with a slight nod to Post-Revolutionary America". The early gun laws, from what I recall and from what the article you linked states, was in regards to who could own guns. States made the sale of guns illegal to "Indians" and "colored slaves".

The funniest part is where the author used Madison's fear of faction in a defense against a lack of individual right to gun ownership. It's funny because it ignores the Federalist #46 If you read the Federalist #46 by James Madison, you'll see that he does not emphasize individual ownership of arms but, instead, focuses primarily on the concept of a standing army. Federalist #46 is considered to be the paper that indicates the rationale behind Madison's authoring of the 2A.

The debate back then was not so much against guns, especially considering that hunting and the fur trade were a very large and important part of the early American economy, but the idea of a federally controlled standing army and the ideas of militia. In fact, Madison said this:

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

So "half a million citizens with arms in their hands". The population counts used in the Convention of Pennsylvania had a rough estimate of around 2.2 million people living in the newly formed states (not including so-called "colored" populations as they would've not likely been allowed ownership of arms). dcte.udel.edu... Shave that in half (female birth rate is slightly higher than male but not going to be that sticky about it and women did not necessarily count as full citizens) and you have 1.1 million white males. Large family sizes were common back in the days so it'd be reasonable to assume that that "half a million citizens" that Madison references would've been nearly every adult white male American. An armed citizenry to stave off of a federally controlled standing army by sheer number alone.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Given that good ole Publius was fighting to get his way, it wouldn't seem that the argument in regards to the 2A was in so much about guns but about the formation and control of standing armies and militias.

Oh and from the Jstor article:

The Indian Peril also affected regulations applying to the Colonists. From their first settlement, the colonies required all freemen to own a gun in defense against external dangers.

If they did not have a gun, then the British government provided them with them.

reply to post by crazyewok


You are right, the exact wording is.... " 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 are wrong in your assumption that it was geared toward organized entities. Our founding fathers recognized the only way to prevent tyranny was for THE PEOPLE to take the responsibility for their security onto their own shoulders. Most people had to tend to farms or businesses and other daily pursuits and were expected to be ready to be called to serve their country and community at the drop of a hat. This did not only mean e people in the organized militias of the day. It was intended for all people to be able to answer the rally call, organized or not. It was intended for the people to protect themselves. It was geared toward personal responsibility!

This shorthand version that is being passed off as advanced education is a joke. Most of our Constitution is based on individual rights and responsibilities, as well as states right s and responsibilities. People have gotten lazy. The federal government was never intended to be the end all be all. It has become too easy for people to rely on the handouts and protections that are coming from where they never should have in the first place. This may be a bad example, but still one at I stand by. How dumb would it be for me to wander off into the woods unprotected, with small children, where there is no cell service, and say to myself, I don't need a gun, there are police in my town. Knowing full well that they are at minimum a half hour away, with no method to contact them. It would be dumb and irresponsible. Should I give up my right and ability to my wild harvest every year because the organized police can't protect me from the bears? That would also be irresponsible in my eyes.

Proper education is the only chance we have left to hold on to these rights and freedoms.it is our duty as Americans to speak up when they get it wrong. Though I am sure they rather nobody noticed in the first place.

the entire premise of the argument offered by the anti gun crowd is absurd.

We have the right to have weapons first and foremost for SELF DEFENCE.

You see there exists a plethora of court cases and legislation saying so. Most of it made shortly after slavery was abolished here. The rights of former slaves were written out, and of them the right to weapons was included....FOR self.defence.

We all have the same rights as former slaves since their claim to these rights was based on the fact that all others enjoyed them.

Militias or not.....we can have guns to protect ourselves. Even if you don't like it...tough crap.

That's why we can own weapons....self defence.

So forget about all this militia talk.

tadaman

So forget about all this militia talk.

Then why is it there? A typo of the founding fathers ?

And I wouldnt call myself anti Gun Im pretty neutral. Im pro responsible gun ownership (IE training) but I would not call that Anti gun!

Anti Gun is saying the 2nd amendment need getting rid off or saying ban guns!

daskakik
What a joke, the book was first published in 2003. Only took 10 years for a vigilant citizen to make it known and 14 of the 15 pages of negative comments on amazon are dated on or after the publication date of the dailypaul article.

Ah yes Holmes !!

Maybe this is why we have seen the sudden onslaught against the right to bear arms !!

Perhaps all the 'educated' people are actually just 'mis-informed' !!

Hmmm.

Well Watson ?

reply to post by crazyewok


no dumb dumb. because it is yet another reason for them. that gives the states the right to form armies for self defense ...get the trend yet?

There is no monopoly on force In the US, You can by law defend yourself, as a state or civilian.

That is your right.

Got it, or will you feign ignorance of that fact....

reply to post by WhiteAlice


u sir left me ,,thinkless,, well done A+

reply to post by xuenchen

I have no idea what you are talking about.

One thing I am sure of is that you seem to have a problem addressing the facts.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Well, as I said, the list goes on and on when it comes to those who want to defy our 2D Amendment rights.

American history is chock full of it. Those who want to defend the 2nd vs. those who want to see it redacted. It's been going on since the founding of the U.S. Just saying...it is history and while the battles may be fought, the war continues.

thank u Homer.

To everyone participating in this thread.If you want to truely know how the founding fathers interperted the constitution they had written,then I recommend reading the federalist papers.I will provide a link to the Yale law school avalon project which has published the papers.

Avalon Project

These writtings were done by Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison.There are quite a few papers here and they will take some time to get through.However this link I think will clear up any confusion as to what exactly they ment by what they wrote.

Just worded differently.

" 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. "

Same thing A well regulated militia for the purpose of security of the State. hence people can not be barred from owning weapons .

I just thought I would throw this in here since it would seem that the 14th amendment must then be rewritten.

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to eradicate the black codes, under which "Negroes were not allowed to bear arms or to appear in all public places..." Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 247-48 &n.3 (1964) (Douglas, J., concurring). In his concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 166-67 (1968), Justice Black recalled the following words of Senator Jacob M. Howard in introducing the amendment to the Senate in 1866: "The personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as ... the right to keep and bear arms .... The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

The Supreme Court has never determined whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms from state infringement. However, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1,5 (1964) states: "The Court has not hesitated to reexamine past decisions according the Fourteenth Amendment a less central role in the preservation of basic liberties than that which was contemplated by its Framers when they added the Amendment to our constitutional scheme.''

The same two-thirds of Congress which proposed the Fourteenth Amendment also passed an enactment declaring that the fundamental rights of "personal liberty" and "personal (p.17)security" include "the constitutional right to bear arms." Freedmen's Bureau Act, §14, 14 Stat. 176 (July 16, 1866). This Act, and the companion Civil Rights Act of 1866, sought to guarantee the same rights that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to protect.

No court has ever considered Congress' declaration, contemporaneously with its adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the rights to personal security and personal liberty include the "constitutional right"--i.e., the right based on the Second Amendment--"to bear arms." Until now, this declaration in the Freedmen's Bureau Act has been completely unknown both to scholars and the courts.

www.guncite.com...

Major points

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was intended to protect the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, particularly the individual right to keep and bear arms, from State infringement.

Far from being limited to protection of the State militias, the right to keep and bear arms in Reconstruction encompassed the right of freedmen to armed self- protection from violence and oppression committed by State militias and, later, the Ku Klux Klan.

Firearms ownership by blacks, previously prohibited by the slave codes and then by the black codes, was perceived as an instrument of liberation during the civil rights revolution which began in 1866 and ended in 1876.

www.stephenhalbrook.com...

also if you really feel like this issue is of such concern to you, then look into the Freedmen's Bureau Act. That should clear up any doubts you had about the reasons for our weapons. Its nice to inform yourself before taking a stand on the soap box.

The main reason we have weapons is for self defence. All else is Secondary, (militia related nonsense meant to trivialize the issue and its supporters). End of story and end of trivializing the fact. There is no logical reason to say it is "outdated"....have we overcome our human condition and live in a happy happy nonviolent world yet? No?...then I guess the reasons for an armed population are still valid today.

reply to post by lonegurkha


but you are going to forget that the US has ALWAYS had a draw when it comes to federalists and anti federalists?

I mean come on. The founding fathers were themselves in these two mindsets divided on how to interpret their vision. The bill of rights was written as a safeguard DIRECTLY against federalist encroachment on civil liberties. It is said to arbitrary but anti federalists INSISTED on it since they didnt like thought of federalists down the road changing the nature of their intent or the language of its interpretation....as is always done by federalists....animal farm could have been written about them.......

The status quo minded usually support the federalists. Those who advocated true democracy and power residing in the people´s hand are usually anti federalists.

Really? The federalists are the "real founding fathers"?

No....Just no.

I have read the federalists papers some....and they are about as wrong in certain aspects as doctors in the 50´s telling you to smoke lucky strikes for a good pulmonary exercise..

I am pro-gun, but I don't get what the outrage is all about. If you read the page it clearly says that these are summarized. I don't agree with the writers interpretation of the summary, but it's not like he didn't mention that it was summarized. With a summary it is implied that a human made a decision to leave out words. People here are complaining that words are left out. WTF?

I imagine that somewhere else in the book these bullet points are revisited. That's usually how textbooks work. It lays out the chapter with a quick introduction or summary, elaborates on each topic in detail, then gives a post-chapter summary for studying. This picture is taken out of context. What else is in the textbook? Find out if the author does due dilligance elsewhere where the amendments are not indicated as being summarized. Get the book, read everything pertaining to the 2nd, then post your outrage if you are still unhappy with how the book covers it. It's not like it's left out, or rewritten as something COMPLETELY different. It's not like the other amendments weren't summarized either. But whatever, you don't need no dang edjumication from no fancy skoolz.

Now before I get flamed from those who are outraged about a picture of a half of a page of a textbook, that clearly says it is summarized.... Think about how you would summarize the 2nd personally if you had to for textbook format. What would you leave out? The words arms, keep, bare, right, and people?? At least those are still there, and save your energy for when those words begin to get left out ... in context.

I think the author kinda warped it a bit with the "in a state militia" part though. It's funny that the writer saw the words "free state" and "well-regulated militia" from the original and came up with "state militia" for the summary. If your pissed about that one, I won't argue. The dude's just dumb, or perhaps.... Maybe they're trying to rewrite it with this summary, to limit the people's right to arms exclusively to that civilian defense force B.O.'s always yakkin about.

reply to post by TDawgRex


However, that particular gun battle didn't seem to exist in early America. You really should read The Federalist #46 sometime. It is a doozy. Btw, TDawgRex, I don't come to this particular "battle" as a gun owner but simply as someone with a respect for the Constitution and the ideals behind it. The entire constitution was created in such a way that each portion of the document frequently not only acted as a rule of law or simply an administrative feature, but also through providing a check and balance against possible tyranny from wherever it may spring. Each of the Bill of Rights acts as a check and balance against governmental abuse. If we allow these amendments to be tattered into submission through dialogue and reinterpretation, then how are we not threatening destabilizing the entire system further?