High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

reply to post by Daemondoll


Abolition of slavery was appropriate, wonderful and in keeping with the founding document as all amendments must be. 16th amendment, not so much. Much as eliminating gun rights would be out of the question as it in no way was in the founders intentions. in fact it would be patently in opposition. Would be foreign invaders fear an armed populace and this govt. fears its armed populace as well it should.

reply to post by coldkidc

Actually I don't care one way or the other. The original is available and the SCOTUS has the final say as far as interpretations go. Everything else is just opinion.

reply to post by Daemondoll


Yeah - well it's a bit crazier over here than what you limeys are used to
We don't live on a perfect little island that has complete control of what enters & exits the country...

Besides...it's not like you don't have a warped world-view either - every Brit I debate refuses to believe that their violent crimes per capita is higher than ours...

Gun control doesn't work

reply to post by Daemondoll


So the measure of the effectiveness of gun regulations is weighed in odd school shootings?

How has your crime rate dropped since your permanent disarmament after those 1 or 2 school shootings? Has it? Has it risen?

Hows scotland doing on violent crime since?

Also these shootings happen in the states in gun free zones....so?

reply to post by benrl


The writers and editors should be fired and possibly sued for attempting to sabotage the education of our youth.

reply to post by Maxmars


Well, the way I see this...

If someone's going to paraphrase the amendments, they clearly have to leave out some words. I agree that the meaning of the 2nd has changed according to the writers choice of which words to leave out. He clearly didn't understand what it meant in the first place to knowingly rewrite it as such. So I'm with you there.

However, this is just like an analogy of the game telephone. If you get all of your information from a second hand source, you can't expect that you're learning the facts all the time. It should be clear to whoever is reading it that a human has summarized the amendments to their interpretation. That just goes with the territory of learning from a book about a document instead of reading the real thing. So we shouldn't expect a 100% accurate interpretation of something that was interpreted by a biased human. The supreme court can't even agree on everything, and they're the "experts".

If you ask me, I think it's amazing we don't see this everyday with a much more extreme slant. I'd say a backlash now over a book written 10 years ago is long overdue. If this is the worst of it, that's pretty good considering all the BS in the media, and how many people are brainwashed that hold positions of authority.

The section of the book is a summary of the constitution, and with that, it should be implied that there will be some misinterpretations here and there, simply because it's written by some guy. The writer is probably not a constitutional scholar, and if he is... That was definitely an intentional omission. Seriously though, I used to find errors in my textbooks all the time. For a book that cost $150+ you'd think the thing would be perfect.

I am definitely an advocate for truth, facts, and treating them respectfully. I just consider this another example of White People Problems .

ETA: I'm white.

tadaman
reply to post by Daemondoll

 

So the measure of the effectiveness of gun regulations is weighed in odd school shootings?

How has your crime rate dropped since your permanent disarmament after those 1 or 2 school shootings? Has it? Has it risen?

Hows scotland doing on violent crime since?

Also these shootings happen in the states in gun free zones....so?

edit on 9 16 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

Australia's violent crimes have been reduced to less than half in under 2 decades of the banning of firearms.

tadaman
reply to post by Daemondoll

 

So the measure of the effectiveness of gun regulations is weighed in odd school shootings?

How has your crime rate dropped since your permanent disarmament after those 1 or 2 school shootings? Has it? Has it risen?

Hows scotland doing on violent crime since?

Also these shootings happen in the states in gun free zones....so?

edit on 9 16 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

Australia's violent crimes have been reduced to less than half in under 2 decades of the banning of firearms. They also pay their citizens to turn in their firearms and guarantee that they will not prosecute anyone who is harboring a gun illegally - as long as they intend to turn it in.

We have a constitution? The only reason I ask is that from all possible observations I have been able to make since WWII, I don't see any time in recent history were our Dumb-Head politically elected overlords actually pay attention to it anyway! Why bother about a "constitution" when the people that get elected are of the opinion that "THEY" are the rulers and will write the laws as "THEY" see fit. After all, the reason we have 3 branches in the "feral" government is so they can CONSPIRE against the constitution, not uphold it. Why else would we get such famous political sagacity as "You'll have to pass this law to know what's in it" ! Don't worry about the constitution, it's as dead as most of Obama's and Beohners brain cells ! Also, kids don't need to know right from wrong these days, they have an APP for that !

reply to post by benrl


Figures is was in TX, they set the standard for the education for the rest of the USA.

coldkidc
reply to post by Daemondoll

 

Yeah - well it's a bit crazier over here than what you limeys are used to
We don't live on a perfect little island that has complete control of what enters & exits the country...

Besides...it's not like you don't have a warped world-view either - every Brit I debate refuses to believe that their violent crimes per capita is higher than ours...

Gun control doesn't work

edit on 16-9-2013 by coldkidc because: (no reason given)

It worked swimmingly for Australia.

Bully!

WhiteAlice
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen

 

That little difference is closer than what they did with the 2A. The idea behind the separation of the church and state and the prohibition against Congress to establish a religion is based on the concept that, by having religious influences/preference in the federal language, it's been argued that such behaviors create a implied establishment of religion. It's a tricky one.

The phrase "separation of church and state" came from a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church Association in 1802.
In the letter he spoke of "a wall of separation between the Church and the State". This is where the term "separation of Church and State" comes from and later led to the creation of the Establishment Clause.
Quad

Products of the education system write the books but are controlled by people with agenda. These two parts can and many time do yield biased and inaccurate books.

Texas?

Since the state is the first or second largest book buyer, the publishers go with the Texas approved books which then can end up in use in other states. Too often people want school to be teaching their view not reality if they differ.

Once again, it is all about money and the opinions of those in power positions. Typical world stuff.

I have no experience or qualified knowledge of the American education system but I've got to say it'd be naïve to the extreme to think that this sort of edited paraphrasing is either unique or without agenda.

Here in the UK we have an education system that encourages pupils to learn 'facts' by rote with little regard for personal opinion or perspective - I have no reason to think it's any different in the USA.

The result - a nation conditioned to accept rather than question.

daskakik
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

There is not much to say. You are making it out to be more than it really is, comparing an insignificant condensed version of the second to supreme court cases and debates that are hundreds of years old.

edit on 16-9-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

For a test that is supposed to be for "advanced placement". One would think it would require a little more forethought and a little less condensing. The argument is much wider than what the OP presented actually. The supposed page pointed out went the extra mile in regards to the First Amendment (the "separation of church and state" stab they took), but then severely limited and left out a crucial point of the Second.

So I believe there is much to say regardless if you continue to believe there is nothing at all to it; save merely a condensing matter for "cliff notes".

crazyewok

bigfatfurrytexan


"The rights of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

And as useal you left out the first part
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".
Was it some sort of typo? Or am I reading a diffrent consitution?

I am sure I will get to the BFFT's response after I type this but I feel necessary to address it. First, commas are used to separate independent clauses. In this case, the clause identifying the necessity of a State retaining its sovereign right to organize a militia -- and -- the Peoples' right to own arms (which leads us back to the basis of the whole idea of what led to the creation of the Constitution of the United States of America; the Declaration of Independence.)

By identifying and consolidating our inalienable rights into "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", we can derive that to secure those Rights, we must be able to defend ourselves.

He quoted the first bit....so what is your point? Typically a comma is used to separate clauses (even though Madison originally had a semi-colon; which would have quashed this silly debate in the beginning on the two separate and clear points being made) and such with the Second Amendment, it is clear that the first clause is the weaker, as it was already understood. The second clause is the stronger and receives more emphasis and clarity.

If it was not designed to secure the Right of the People to defend themselves, why even put that portion in there?

Actually well Regulated could mean alot of things! Be lucky you not forcefully constripted into a state militia and made to practice ever day after work and at weekends!

We are held to force in these terms really -- save it is the Federal Government that has done this, not the States.

All I see is another fake constitutional supporter IE a Ameican that claims he values the consitution but picks and chooses what part he follows!

I think he has displayed a much deeper knowledge than you have in this case. What was picked apart?

reply to post by tadaman


So the two people who wrote the Papers and were involved in the writting of the constitution are wrong about what they wrote. Hmmmm. How interesting that two of the people who wrote the document are wrong.

Oddly I don't think that you are correct.I think that they do a fairly good job of explaining their position.Since they were among the founding fathers who wrote the original document.I think that just maybe they know a bit about what they are talking about.Certianly there were two sides involved in the writting.Take a look at what Thomas Jefferson thought about the constitution.

The document was intended to keep the feds under control.

Another thing about what the founding fathers were trying to accomplish with the constitution (ensure the federal government ONLY had limited and restricted powers) was they were educated men, and had seen and experienced many different forms of government, and correctly deduced that once you create a government, it would have but one purpose, self preservation AT ALL COSTS. So they created a federal government with enumerated and specific powers. And what history has demonstrated to us is that the "governing" body IMMEDIATELY began granting itself powers not granted to them under the constitution, and by default, began turning the office of president from a "Chief Executive" position to an "Imperial Presidency" position, and here we are in 2013, and they are still doing it, and there you are. So instead of 50 states and a constitutionally "correct" feral, sorry, (NOT!) I meant federal government, what we have is 50 States and the Washington D. C., were the D.C. actually stands for "Dictators Central" ! So as of right now, the constitution and the dollar bill are pretty much the same thing, worthless. I don't blame the meglo-maniacs in the upper and lower houses, the SCOTUS, and the Executive branch. I blame the State governments and governors who have the ability to reset our Lords & Ladies in D.C. at any time, but are to timid, and to attached to the Federal Money train to do the right thing. Anyway, if the entire federal government disappeared tomorrow, in light of what they accomplish on a daily basis, how would we even notice ?

CarbonBase
I don't blame the meglo-maniacs in the upper and lower houses, the SCOTUS, and the Executive branch. I blame the State governments and governors who have the ability to reset our Lords & Ladies in D.C. at any time, but are to timid, and to attached to the Federal Money train to do the right thing.

Which was severely neutered with the inclusion of the 17th Amendment. Effectively removing all power from the State Sovereignty to the hands of the "people", the Federal Government has ensured complete control over the Legislative Branch.

Anyway, if the entire federal government disappeared tomorrow, in light of what they accomplish on a daily basis, how would we even notice ?

At first yes, as much has been controlled by the Federal Government for decades. As things settle, my view is that it would either be the same or better if they would be removed and held to only serve the purposes in which they have been allowed to serve in accordance to the Constitution.

Off topic, sorry.

This is really sickening what these liberal/progressives are trying to do to our country.

It's borderline treasonous.