High School History Book Rewrites the 2nd Amendment

And this is for the "advanced placement" test?

Click to expand...

I am not an educator, and only have my "statistical sample of 1" to go by, but IME, "advanced placement" (it was called "Academically Talented Program" in my school district when I growing up) is to get the right kids into more focused classes with better teachers, while the rest of the hoi-poloi/rabble from the "wrong side of the tracks" were left in the standard overcrowded, underfunded school system.

It would seem Denton's ISD wants their "right people" to also have the "politically correct" mindset.

In another article on FoxNews.com they had a response from the authors. The authors say the summary was written before the 2008 Heller decision, and that it was "correct" (as defined by court rulings) when the book was written. The authors also said when the new version comes out, it will reflect the current individual interpretation, based on current supreme court ruling(s).

I think that while we are passionate about all our rights, it's a good idea to look for the whole story too. Sometimes things need to be updated, and the current version just reflects an obsolete view.

So the Advanced Placement kids are too stupid to understand the actual language our founders used? This hurts me to realize.

They were just as inaccurate with their description of the 1st amendment, with that "seperation of church and state" BS.

Click to expand...

I believe this has already been covered by an earlier reply, but a review of the 1st Amendment, and Supreme Court decisions related to it, show that separation of church and state is considered an important issue today and is far from BS.

Basically, as I understand it, everyone is free to believe whatever their religion teaches. However, there is not unlimited freedom to act, based on religious beliefs.

Also, neither the federal, or any state, government shall create a religion, or favor one over another, or make belonging to any particular religion be a requirement for holding office.

(I believe English history at the time of the American Revolution may have had a lot to do with this... )

While I am a bit pissed about inarguable meddling and twisting (however major or minor it may be) of the subject matter to fit a personal agenda in public schools, I think the majority of parents in this country are far too stupid to be trusted with the solely with the complete education of their own child... As a matter of fact, most people who have children are so stupid they probably shouldn't have reproduced in the first place.

In my opinion, public schools are an absolute necessity, but as with all things are subject to corruption and taint. We should always be vigilant about maintaining the integrity of educational institutions, and make sure they are as strictly non-biased and factual as possible. Furthermore, parents should supplement and correct a child's education at home, and be a good example of morals and make clear their set of principles for the child to glean from. School is a foundation and what you build on it (as the parent) is determined by the example you set.

Outlaw Man said:

I agree with one of the comments - this is straight out of Animal Farm.

Click to expand...

Or how about Animal House......that is where I learned that the "Germans Bombed Pearl Harbor"

Thread title should read something like:

"high school book poorly summarizes entire bill of rights"

because everything in it seems so poorly summarized I think it is a bit much to accuse it as an attack on the 2a. I wouldn't be surprised if the book was written in China or India by someone with poor translating skills. All other jobs have been outsourced there, why not textbook editing?

This is just great...A "Dumbed Down" Constitution intentionally perverted by the author who wrote this tripe to meet his or her personal agenda.
As pointed out...How come the ORIGINAL words can't be used...???
It's not like we don't have them available. Of course, when we turn our children over to the State to be educated...we get the version the State prefers.

Well this is just one of the many, many reasons that my wife and I decided long ago that our kids would never set foot in a school building. Had to give up a lot of stuff, sacrifice our own lives for the sake of our kids and plan it out right. There's no way I'm going sit idly and allow someone to force my kids to believe lies.

I'm willing to bet it's not just the 2nd amendment thing, I'll bet this book is chock full of inaccuracies and revision of history.

This is how it was presented to me in my senior year of high school. Why is anyone surprised?

The problem is that this book SUMMARIZES the first 10 Amendments. Unfortunately for the authors, the amendments are short, sweet, and to the point already; so changing ANY of the wording for ANY of the Amendments changes the way they read...no matter how you do it.

Hence the problems with the other Amendments summarized in that book.

I would rather any history book encapsulate the ENTIRE wording as-written because of this, rather then try to "summarize" it. After all, it's not that difficult to copy wording that already exists, especially when it's so short in the first place.

We already have enough problems with people misquoting and misinterpreting these Amendments as it is. People already have a tendency to interpret things the way they WANT to interpret them instead of the way they were written. No need to contribute to this problem.

For example, how many times have you run across people complaining on a website that the site moderators are trampling all over their "freedom of speech" by "censuring" their posts? That's a prime example of a gross conceptual error right there.

Where has everyone been? I have been in education for 29 years. This is not new and has been progressively getting worse. This actually is pretty mild compared to other stuff that is going on. The pres does not want you to have a choice in where to send your kids, he hates the voucher system. Wise up everyone, schools are nothing but a propaganda mill.

you could call it a pro strong, cradle-to-grave centralized government

Click to expand...

I'm the opposite. Federal government has far exceeded it's authority by intruding into areas of our lives that are none of their business.

Congress is populated by self-serving hypocrites who are willing to forfeit America's future so long as they can keep their useless, meaningless lives. Were it not for the fact they're on the public teat, they'd be the ones on the road with signs, "Will pimp for food."

They have no right to dictate if I can smoke pot. (I don't, btw.) They have no right to say if I can, or can't, drink akihol. (I don't drink btw.) They have no right to say I cannot own a machine gun which was manufactured after 1986 at reasonable prices. (That one, I would really like.)

Everything they interfere in, turns to crap, and modern public education is absolute proof positive of this. If it looks like a dung heap, and smells like a dung heap, then it's a fair bet it ain't Thanksgiving turkey.

We need smaller, much smaller, government. Small enough in fact, that the POTUS and Congressboobs could work part time at a fraction of their current "salaries."

SunnySlopes said:

I'm the opposite. Federal government has far exceeded it's authority by intruding into areas of our lives that are none of their business.

Congress is populated by self-serving hypocrites who are willing to forfeit America's future so long as they can keep their useless, meaningless lives. Were it not for the fact they're on the public teat, they'd be the ones on the road with signs, "Will pimp for food."

They have no right to dictate if I can smoke pot. (I don't, btw.) They have no right to say if I can, or can't, drink akihol. (I don't drink btw.) They have no right to say I cannot own a machine gun which was manufactured after 1986 at reasonable prices. (That one, I would really like.)

Everything they interfere in, turns to crap, and modern public education is absolute proof positive of this. If it looks like a dung heap, and smells like a dung heap, then it's a fair bet it ain't Thanksgiving turkey.

We need smaller, much smaller, government. Small enough in fact, that the POTUS and Congressboobs could work part time at a fraction of their current "salaries."

Click to expand...

Soooo...by extension they have "no right" to set limits of any kind for the good of society?

Hmmm...

Soooo...by extension they have "no right" to set limits of any kind for the good of society?

Hmmm...

Click to expand...

Government has no "rights" at all. It has "powers."

The only federal powers that are legitimate are those specified in the Constitution--as written, not as summarized by some textbook editor. For many decades we've been allowing the federal government to do things they convinced us are necessary "for the good of society," and look where it's gotten us.

Take 2A as an example: Government has decided that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed" unless legislators or bureaucrats think it needs to be infringed "for the good of society." Now we have NFA, various state bans, and the like. Are these the limits to which you refer?

Simply put, government can't legally do something outside its enumerated powers, not even "for the good of society." If Federal government wants to do something it is not legitimately empowered to do--in other words, that power is not enumerated in the Constitution--and society overwhelmingly agrees, then it should be easy to amend the Constitution to allow for it to be done. That's why the amendment process is there.

So when the federal government strikes off into new powers territory because it's "for the good of society" or because most people support the idea of government having this new power, but at the same time neither government nor this supposed overwhelming majority of the people is seeking to amend the Constitution, you can bet that 1) said new power is unconstitutional, 2) they know they don't have the votes to get an amendment passed and ratified, and 3) they want to get it done really quickly before we all realize what it will actually do to us.

In short, government power is strictly limited, on purpose.

(Some might feel compelled to cite the "general welfare" or "commerce" clauses do refute this. Those clauses were not meant to grant broad power over and above the enumerated limits--if they were, why would the rest of the Constitution even need to exist?)

I read a news article on this yesterday. The publisher "apologized" for the printing, stating that the summary was written before the Heller decision and that a revision would be issued, probably regarding ownership of bear arms.

Well, obviously, First Amendment Free Speech and Right to Assemble is for the compulsory morning Two Minute Hate to gather to express hatred for Emmanuel Goldstein and love for Big Brother.

Why not present the text of the Bill of Rights and encourage their growing minds to think for themselves?

Soooo...by extension they have "no right" to set limits of any kind for the good of society?

Click to expand...

Yeah, cause thus far the feds have done such a stellar job with the trillions of dollars and endless opportunities we, the people, have given them.

They took the greatest nation on earth and are flushing it down the toilet. I can't go into specifics since this is (ostensibly) a politics neutral web site.

Set limits? What kind of limits? The limits with which you agree?

Sooooo....by extension, you accord them the "right" to set limits. Since you accorded them that right, then you agree to abide by whatever limits they set. Whatever limits.

Are you sure about that, hoss?

It seems I remember Germany "setting some limits" for its citizens once upon a time. You ok with that?

?

?

To make everyone feel better, a teacher in my high school has a colored/Scholastic looking poster of the Bill of Rights on his wall. There are summaries of each Amendment in the side bars. It says "American citizens have a right to own weapons to defend against government tyranny." That made my day.

Of course, my government textbook has a whole paragraph about how our interpretation of the 2A is wrong and unconstitutional. It says the Supreme Court has always ruled this way, even though the book was written well after the Heller and other recent decisions.

I would be very upset it that was in my child's text book. What text book specifically? In what school district?

It is all part of the pervasive brain washing of our children to eventually achieve political objectives whether it be about religion, sex, or history.

The publisher "apologized" for the printing, stating that the summary was written before the Heller decision and that a revision would be issued, probably regarding ownership of bear arms.

Click to expand...

That is not good enough.

According to this, it isn't actually the AP textbook but a supplemental study guide. The full text book just lists the Bill of Rights as written.

http://austin.culturemap.com/news/l...roversy-has-gun-rights-advocates-shootin-mad/

. . .Except for one thing: It isn't actually the AP history textbook.

"We don't teach from that book; it's just a supplemental aid," says Denton ISD director of communications Sharon Cox. According to Cox, AP history teachers use the textbook American Pageant in the classroom, and that book has the full text of each amendment.

"The book in question, U.S. History: Preparing for Advanced Placement Exams, is a supplement instructional aid and not the official textbook for any history classes," says Cox. "In this supplement, it states that the following is a 'summary statement.'"

This supplemental aid, however, is not regulated to Texas alone. It's used in AP U.S. history classes around the country.

Back in Denton, however, Cox says, "Please be assured that Denton ISD history teachers are disseminating the correct information on the Second Amendment."

Click to expand...

And this article says the book has already been corrected, post Heller, for the newest edition:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/1...-over-edited-definition-second/#ixzz2fTGEyFEg

. ..
John J. Newman, the book's co-author, told FoxNews.com that the text of the book was written before the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, which protects individuals' rights to possess firearms. He said the book's only intent was to summarize the Second Amendment and admitted that the current definition is incorrect. But he said a revised and corrected edition is set to be sold in May 2014.

"There was no devious intention in the definition," Newman said.

The book is a supplement to the actual text book, "American Pageant." The school says the text book gives the exact Bill of Rights.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/1...-over-edited-definition-second/#ixzz2fTGEyFEg

Click to expand...

That is not good enough.

Click to expand...

What would you like them to do? They admitted it is wrong and they are fixing it. What would be good enough?

I produce documentary videos as part of my work. My latest project is about one room schools and how the government set out to close them so they could get students farther away from their parents and teach them things without the interference of their parents. That was the whole point of school consolidation (i.e. close all the small, one room schools and send all the kids down to the big school a long way from where the parents live). In the old system the parents not only knew the people teaching the schools they ran the schools and hired teachers on a yearly basis. There were no lifetime teaching jobs. There was no tenure. Those things exist to protect teachers from angry parents upset at what the government wants to teach their children.

The claim was that consolidated schools would mean a better education. It has been just the opposite. The one room schools required students to be exceptional at all disciplines before they ever graduated from grade school. That's why jokes about people not graduating the sixth grade in rural settings were started (think Jethro on The Beverly Hillbillies). The fact is that very few high school graduates today could have passed those grade school graduation tests (if you didn't pass you didn't get a diploma). In fact very few college graduates could pass them.

The education system doesn't care about that. They only care about imparting their views on students and they are taught by universities (owned by the state) to believe certain things and they don't get jobs teaching unless they agree with those teachings. It's a corrupt system from top to bottom and it was taken directly from the fascists and communists that both believed that you can control entire generations by controlling the schools. And they are right. That's why is is essential that we fight these battles against propaganda mills (schools).

Here is the history section of a test for an 1889 graduation from the 6th grade in a Kansas school. Keep in mind they also had to be able to compute compound interest and be able to figure out square roots the hard way on this test.