High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

So much for it being an AP class.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Believe and say what you want. In the end it's much ado about nothing.

Well, after researching that particular book, I noticed many comments saying that it does an excellent job preparing for the AP test. That fact has me wondering how many of the AP history books are written like this and is the AP test in agreement with the explanations in the book. Apparently there are also issues of how it addresses the American Revolution asking if it was radical and branding those who fought for America as mobs. It paints them as bad people.

I just wonder if we have only noticed the tip of the iceberg here. I am disappointed in myself for not paying attention to what my son learned in that class. I will be more alert when my next child takes the class.

Condensed vs Genuine.

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."

The clear intent is to mislead people into believing *"The People"* don't have the right to bear arms.


Anybody that doesn't see this is clearly all in favor of eradicating:

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed "


Is anybody *not* seeing the intent ?

HairlessApe

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.

That is not what your own governmental statistics say:
www.aic.gov.au...

Australia more violent after gun ban.

Your current murder rate is twice that now with guns bans than it was in the 1950's without any gun bans.

Daemondoll
We still have guns in the UK but they're heavily licenced hey presto, no shootings in schools, go figure! So many Americans going waaaa waaa I need my toys! Who are you protecting yourselves against? Other people like you with guns, yeah we still have gun crime but like other countries where guns are regulated more heavily it's at a minimum. And yes still no school shootings. Wake up Americans and stop being so selfish, new amendments can and have been added like the abolishment of slavery (the thirteenth) you're probably against that too right? No wonder you're a laughing stock.

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

Nonsense. This incident was done in a gun free zone that had armed guards--exactly the situation you wish for. Guess what? I didn't work. And, it seems that the perp took a shotgun, available throughout the UK for sporting purposes and land management and in almost every farm in the UK, and used it to kill the armed guard to take his assault rifle. It is laughable to think that this, an example of gun control in action, is an example to ban guns from private citizens and it is laughable to consider it an example of the greatness of the UK's laws as no law in the UK currently could have prevented this scenario either.

When I was in high school I took AP US History.

My teacher spent a REALLY long time on the Constitution. We had to know the jist of virtually every part of it.

Want to know what the sad part is? He told us in advance, that he was going to spend a considerable portion of time on the Constitution in comparison to other topics, despite knowing that the Constitution wouldn't come up on the AP Exam and that the Constitution wasn't even a part of the curriculum for AP US History, because knowing about this document is so important.

As if he were a prophet there wasn't a single question on the exam about our founding documents.

Just to add: when I think about how some in the US today say that liberals are trying to destroy the Constitution, I have to chuckle because this man was about as liberal as them come.

This reminds me of a page from an ACLU published textbook on the constitution calling gun rights outdated and unneeded.

Also, check out: www.amazon.com...

Akhil Reed Amar's "America's Constitution" is the textbook recommended by Common Core State Standards as the reading material for learning about American Government. It says the Founding Fathers were all white land-owners, creating a flawed constitution and the "slaveocracy."

And for lulz check out www.amazon.com...

Anything that prevents globalism and gives power to the people over government gets butchered and paraphrased. What I have also noticed is that new lesser important words have been created in an effort to help political correctness and downplay the corruption element that has always existed within government.

*not guilty* read during verdicts instead of innocent. *incorrect* instead of wrong. *scandals* instead of crimes. understand(a pawn of someone) rather than comprehend. conspiracy theory meaning crazy, instead of a crime.

subliminal and surreptitious programming, to add to the mass media propaganda of cover-ups and/or half-truthful stories.

reply to post by benrl


They might as well have been refering to the national guard in this paraphrased version of the second amendment. That is exactly what I got out of it. Meaning individuals have no rights for self protection and to form their own militias to prevent and fight tyranny.

And this is advanced? I guess just as "advanced" as the pedophilia rings run by the elite.

daskakik
Meh, condensed content for studying for an exam.

Some people have an uncontrollable itch to cry wolf for every little thing.

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

Certain things cannot be condensed without losing meaning in translation-our constitution is one of these things and should not (ever) be condensed. One cannot study for, and pass an exam with only limited information. The Constitution is not a little thing and this becomes a problem when folks start thinking this way.

Some things are worth the extended [or initial] version. There is only one reason to condense our Constitution, and it's not for learning purposes. After all, one wouldn't really be learning it if they don't learn it in it's entire and true form.

reply to post by benrl


One definition for militia is the reserve militia, which is pretty much all of the citizens in the United States. Good job, people, you ruined a perfectly good textbook.

Also, the people saying the author wrote the First Amendment wrong, and that the First Amendment has nothing to do with religion, are just as wrong as they think the author is when writing the summary of the Second Amendment. From the Constitution:
"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."
And then people say the book is not completing saying what the Constitution is saying by saying it just talks about freedom of religion, when it still talks about freedom of press, etc.

reply to post by benrl


You lost me at the severely agenda driven Penn & Teller. Great magic acts, poor Herritage Foundation representatives.

OK someone spell out the exact difference for stupid old me

reply to post by PsykoOps


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

daskakik
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Believe and say what you want. In the end it's much ado about nothing.

Much like your responses....much ado about nothing really. Yet I am intrigued as to why you are so flippantly passing this over, without even a thought. I do not seek extremism or ardent support from many who have already shown how this can be dangerous.

I seek your stance; yet so far it has been just little quips that are "much ado about nothing". Explain, what is nothing here? Nothing in the fact that the text book clearly stated a position that doesn't actually explain the Second Amendment?

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.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Truth is that I am not a US citizen, although I grew up in the US, and I am all for gun ownership.

Honestly I think the 2nd is poorly written. After reading, The Commonplace Second Amendment I see that it was just following the style of the times which was to include a justification clause. I think the justification clause was probably a consession just to get the right to bear arms into the bill of rights, and is what all the debate is about, but since

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

it really doesn't matter how anyone interprets or resumes the amendment, the interpretation above is the one handed down by the SCOTUS and it pretty much did away with the justification clause.

The ironic part of all this is that the SCOTUS pretty much chipped away at the Bill of Rights but you won't hear the pro-gun side complaining about it this time.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter how one side or the other interpreted the 2nd and it wouldn't have mattered any more or less had the decision swung the other way.

Why reword it, why not use the original words...they work well BTW...

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.

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?