High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

Why did they even need to paraphrase the amendments,why didn`t they just quote them word for word directly from the constitution?
This is an AP book,surely an AP student can read and understand the constitution without having it paraphrased,if they can`t then they probably shouldn`t be in an advanced placement course.

TDawgRex




Your in the UK. Why do you care? Many of your previous post have made it clear where you stand on firearms.

But I am curious, just how do you interpret "both" parts?

International Forums

Dont like a UK perosn comenting then go to a US only forum.



But do you really know were I stand or do you just see UK and think im 100% anti gun?

How I interpret both parts?

Well I think the orginal idea was that gun owning men would all orginise themself into town militia that were under local control in the event of Invasion, native trouble or the Govermnet became corrupt.

Now the situation has changed somewhat since 1776.... And you cant have groups running around playing army and acting as vigulantes not in the 1776 sense anyway.

So I guess in a modern sense I view it as everyone has the right to own a gun BUT one should do so in a orgnanised and non goverment regulated way. IE Each state would have some sort of Gun ownsers club (IE militia) that all gun owners would have to register with and conduct safty training with once a year. The goverment would only be able to pull a name of that register if a gun club member uses a registerd gun in a crime. Also club members would be encouraged to train and help in emergancy situation.
All a gun owner would have to sacrifice is 1 weekend a year in safty training, but that to me comes under the repsonibility of gun ownership.

So no my view is hardly gun grabbing or Anti gun. More like repsonsible gun ownsership.

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?

bigfatfurrytexan
It is as plain as day.

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.
Yeah I know but why do you keep missing the FIRT BIT.

bigfatfurrytexan

No other qualifications are made. It does not say, "so long as....". No limitations are placed. Flat out, our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It completely lacks the weasel words that would allow for loopholes.

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!

bigfatfurrytexan
If gun owners were smart, they would balk at government required or sponsored training.

I never said goverment sponsored I said non goverment local training like with your NRA or with a group of Vets.

bigfatfurrytexan
Those scumbags have nothing of value to share with me, and I don't care to show them any kind of loyalty.

Yeah cause a couple of hours training 1 weekend in a year is such a dear and heavy price!


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!

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.

Yes Yes of course !!

Don't fret, the progressive agenda is well on it's way.

btw, out of curiosity, which edition of Saul Alinsky are you utilizing?

The full version or the "advanced placement" condensed cliff notes?

reply to post by crazyewok


I didn't say I didn't like you. I asked why do you care since it really doesn't affect you?

Big difference.

reply to post by xuenchen

So 14 is not less than 27?

Giggles affecting the way you perceive facts?

TDawgRex
reply to post by crazyewok

 

I didn't say I didn't like you. I asked why do you care since it really doesn't affect you?

Big difference.

Im intrested in other culutures and how they tick. Im also doing a secound degree in History and hope to do a module in American colonial History so its just a museing of mine really I guess.

Those are ideas people would be willing to fight and die for so you can see why they would slowly implement the changes within the young generation to disillusion that will.

reply to post by crazyewok


So what you're explaining is that the founders' intention of the right to keep and bear arms from the 18th century was, in fact, only for the usage in a militia? Was not further colonization and expansion of the lands on which they resided yet another thing that was aimed at? As weird as it is for me to personally say this, you're talking about a time where settlements had a tendency to be remote, expansion into new areas of wilderness were common as well as dangerous interactions with both the tribes and large wildlife. So, if the second amendment was implied as being only for a well regulated militia, that would mean that every single settler that ventured outside of the colonies would've had to do so totally unarmed. That would be yet another rationale for the allowing of citizens to own a firearm. Correct me if I'm wrong but the first actual gun control laws didn't exist until 1934 and that was in response to criminal activity during the Prohibition.

The inclusion of a "well regulated militia" was to avoid the formation of independent militias outside of state or federal control. The major reason why the US Constitution didn't come into being immediately after the American Revolution was because it was the second constitution. What originally was in place were the Articles of the Confederation, which basically had individual state-run militias. The Continental Army was largely disbanded with only a very small reserve unit remaining. Unfortunately, the veterans serving in it were promised pay that Congress didn't have and well, they weren't too happy. Enter Shays' Rebellion years later that was largely comprised of veterans of the Continental Army and led by Daniel Shays. In other words, an unregulated militia. This rebellion was one of the death knells for the Articles of Confederation and I suspect had a probable amount of influence on the debate on militias.

Between the expansion into wilderness areas and an expectation of being able to preserve one's life and property through the bearing of arms to the control over the formation of militias, that's how I read the Second Amendment.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


No that is a good point. Those on the frontiers needed guns and such too. The same was on the British Frontiers too as not being armed is sucide!

So yeah star for you for a good point.

reply to post by crazyewok


That's cool. But as a student of history, Cliff notes or minimal text should drive you up the wall.

I'm a history buff and I always seek out both sides of the story and any other info when the stories conflict each other.

From my experience when I lived in Europe. Most countries of the now EU (which didn't exist when I lived there) were way above US educational standards, and the US has continued to slip since as well.

reply to post by TDawgRex


I have to admit the stated text in the OP is pretty dire and should only be used at pre school level. Anyone above 5 should be capable of learning the whole thing. At age 8 we were all pretty versed in the English civil war so most young American should be expected to be the same on there own country.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

Actually no. There has always been a anti-firearms movement within the U.S. It's as American as Apple Pie.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Racist Roots of Gun Control
www.firearmsandliberty.com...

Gun laws in early America; The regulation of fire arms ownership. 1607 - 1794
www.jstor.org...

And there is oh...so...much more.

Thank goodness for the 2D Amendment.

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?

bigfatfurrytexan
It is as plain as day.

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.
Yeah I know but why do you keep missing the FIRT BIT.

bigfatfurrytexan

No other qualifications are made. It does not say, "so long as....". No limitations are placed. Flat out, our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It completely lacks the weasel words that would allow for loopholes.

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!

bigfatfurrytexan
If gun owners were smart, they would balk at government required or sponsored training.

I never said goverment sponsored I said non goverment local training like with your NRA or with a group of Vets.

bigfatfurrytexan
Those scumbags have nothing of value to share with me, and I don't care to show them any kind of loyalty.

Yeah cause a couple of hours training 1 weekend in a year is such a dear and heavy price!


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!

You may be missing it, but the constitution is not affording me rights. Rather, it is limiting the rights of the US Government. Thus, I do not wait for the government to tell me its ok to do something. Instead, I do what I feel is prudent.

Thus, the "well regulated militia" is more an edict as to how the government should exercise its own 2nd Amendment right. But it in no way allows them to curtail mine. Because, a bit later in the Constitution we have the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Now, to point out: i have been very polite with you. Please be the same to me in return. As an Englishman, you are poorly equipped to spot "fake constitutional supporters". And as a noob, you are poorly equipped to know much about my viewpoints on matters relating to the constitution.

I wouldn't say the 2nd amendment was being rewritten here. Look at the other amendments as well. None of it appears as it does in the bill of rights. None of it.

One problem is the school choosing to use this book without proof reading it. But the bigger problem is with John J. Newman and John M. Schmalbach the people who wrote the book. Who are these people to think they can change our history.

MrWendal
I wouldn't say the 2nd amendment was being rewritten here. Look at the other amendments as well. None of it appears as it does in the bill of rights. None of it.

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.

That is the 2nd amendment. They rewrote it.

buster2010
One problem is the school choosing to use this book without proof reading it. But the bigger problem is with John J. Newman and John M. Schmalbach the people who wrote the book. Who are these people to think they can change our history.

Thats a good question and bares looking into.

On a side note while doing that I already see the Internet is already on this, looking at the books Amazon page ton of Negative reviews are popping up already.

reply to post by benrl


Americans SHOULD be unruly and difficult to manage.

It is good to see some being so. I think Ill go add my tuppence as well.

I have thought about this and here is what can be stated:

There has been a slow change in the way that the children are educated, this has been going on for years now, it is not just something that has happened over night. Could this be a typo, maybe, but then again what if it is not? Then what is it? Could it be a means to change the mindset of the very people who will one day run the country? After all we all say well students can go and read the original documents that this was written, however there is a slight problem with this, that is that the art of hand writing is on the decline. Cursive writing is no longer taught in the schools, so if a person cannot read script writing, then how can they read what is written? Many states no longer require it and ultimately while it may seem so insignificant as hand writing, it could be something that turns out that is the difference between determining what is and is not written by the very people.

I think that ultimately this is not a typo, but a growing trend that we will see more and more of as time goes by.