Textbook EDITS the Second Amendment!

[CmdrSlander]

In a textbook which is standard for high school students in some parts of Kansas, California, and throughout the east coast, the Second Amendment has been edited. Yes, edited. Its meaning has been changed by the writers of the textbook.

This textbook includes copies of our founding documents (which is pretty much standard procedure) with some commentary in the margins by 'experts' that helps the student wade through the often archaic language. This is not really a problem... until you get the Second Amendment to the Constitution. It reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms [i.e. for military purposes] shall not be infringed.

To me, this appears to change the meaning from 'People can have guns and this shouldn't be infringed' to 'Soldiers and militiamen can have guns' which is the reverse of how the Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment! Nowhere else in this textbook is any founding document altered inline with the text, all other annotations are made in the sidebar. Only the Second Amendment gets bastardized in this way! Furthermore, only brackets set this off as an annotation, so a student, especially one unfamiliar with the exact use of brackets in English syntax could very well assume this was part of the original text, especially since such an annotation is made nowhere else in the book. Other textbooks have handled this properly, for example, take this annotation from a middle school textbook:

"[the 2nd Amendment] ...affirms and protects the right to bear arms [people can have guns]. However, courts have held that is not an unlimited right, with laws limiting the sale and use of firearms being upheld at times, but dismissed at others. The Second Amendment continues to be debated today."

What are your thoughts on this? Am I misinterpreting this?

 

[newfalguy101]

Actually, it looks to me like an accurate statement.

It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms for "military purposes" shall not be infringed.

Sounds like the same context the founding fathers had in mind, NOT hunting, NOT target shooting, NOT games, BUT for the purpose of stopping a runaway government......such as they had just dealt with

 

[230RN]

Who's the publisher?

Sounds like the same context the founding fathers had in mind, NOT hunting, NOT target shooting, NOT games, BUT for the purpose of stopping a runaway government......such as they had just dealt with

But the implication to young uncritical minds is that only the military should have arms. To me, this is a pure propoganda effort. The "other side" is very adept at semantic manipulation. Hence, "assault weapons," "loopholes," "cache of ammunition," etc. I could go on.

Sounds to me like the local school board reviewers in these largely anti-gun areas (NE coast, CA, etc.) were successful in injecting their propaganda into the texts. That's why I'd like to know who the publisher is. I'd like to inquire as to whether the source of that "i.e." was from the author, or wherever.

Ain't the first time local districts have injected their personal world-view into texts, ain't gonna be the last.

Terry, 230RN

 

[Tim the student]

What is the book?

 

[Ignition Override]

newfalguy101: It appears to be so, but high school students might easily read it in a literal way, using the words in parentheses as a guide.

Whoever published or edited that textbook seems to have their own agenda, even if a bit subtle.

 

[Hardtarget]

I see it as an effort to alter the way the "2nd" reads. It should be printed exactly as found in the original constitution. Make the comments after or to the side. Parents of students should get vocal about this.

Mark

 

[481]

I see it as an effort to alter the way the "2nd" reads. It should be printed exactly as found in the original constitution. Make the comments after or to the side. Parents of students should get vocal about this.

Mark

I agree. Anytime you add text (or in this case the disclaimer- "i.e. for military purposes") to a statement no matter how subtle, you effect what is being communicated.

It seems that an agenda is being pushed.

 

[Eric M]

I don't see it? Maybe my tinfoil hat is busted.

 

[Bhi curamach]

Okay, look here. I take mild umbrage with Kansas being right next to kaliforneee I aye..
Ridiculous. I don't really like the state, nothing going on here, no oceans, no mountains. No...no nothing!! Its quite horrible really. Especially NE area where it touches MO.
Despite that, from what Ive seen KS likes the guns. The only redeeming quality really.
For you to just throw it under the bus with that penal colony of weirdos is just not right!
We likes our republikins and our guns!
Well, outside the suburbs of KC, them beige loving fools are WEIRD!
Tongue in cheek here boss. Sort of. Mostly.
I find it a little odd Calif and Kansas use the same text books. Given Kansas proclivities to ignore evolution vs. creationism requirements ....
Any ways, Id second the fellow who said it was an explanation of the country's need to repel tyrannical government.
Besides, teenagers don't really read these big ol boring books any more, do they?

 

[siglite]

Besides, teenagers don't really read these big ol boring books any more, do they?

The ones who will be future leaders do.

 

[awgrizzly]

Actually, it looks to me like an accurate statement.

It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms for "military purposes" shall not be infringed.

Sounds like the same context the founding fathers had in mind, NOT hunting, NOT target shooting, NOT games, BUT for the purpose of stopping a runaway government......such as they had just dealt with

Not quite in my opinion. We have the natural right to have guns for whatever reason, whether it be defense, hunting or decorating our walls. This is important... it is no body's business what we own and why, as long as we don't harm others. The Constitutional amendments do not grant us rights, it restricts the government. In the second amendment it specifically forbids the government from abridging our right to own guns because we must be depended upon to provide security for a free state (note here it does not specify only against enemies from without). Note: We have a right to own guns without regard to national defense, it is for national defense that the government must not interfere with this right.

I strongly believe the term "i.e. for military purposes" is wrong and is specifically what the Supreme Court was called on to clarify. I suppose the book may have been written before the judgement. But it is important to steer people away from this terminology because even with the court's decision such language can be used to obfuscate and adjust reality.

The Supreme Court also allowed that some reasonable restrictions can be applied, without specifying what was or was not reasonable. This is now the battle line. I'm sure more devious methods to circumvent will be contrived... many laws going through congress, like an internet security law, have had various amendments with gun restrictions hidden in them, such as a high capacity magazine ban. I think our only hope to put this sort of stuff to rest is for the Conservatives to gain absolute power and pass a law against Progressivism. :banghead:

 

[CmdrSlander]

Who's the publisher?



But the implication to young uncritical minds is that only the military should have arms. To me, this is a pure propoganda effort. The "other side" is very adept at semantic manipulation. Hence, "assault weapons," "loopholes," "cache of ammunition," etc. I could go on.

Sounds to me like the local school board reviewers in these largely anti-gun areas (NE coast, CA, etc.) were successful in injecting their propaganda into the texts. That's why I'd like to know who the publisher is. I'd like to inquire as to whether the source of that "i.e." was from the author, or wherever.

Ain't the first time local districts have injected their personal world-view into texts, ain't gonna be the last.

Terry, 230RN

"The American Pageant" 14th Edition, published by Cengage Learning.

It was authored by several professors from Harvard and Stanford and published in Boston, Ma.

 

[TennJed]

I don't see it? Maybe my tinfoil hat is busted.

I agree. There is too much "they are out to get us" and "you either with us or agianst us" mentality in the gun circles and this does NOT help our cause. Most people are stuck in the middle and do not have nearly as strong of an opinion of guns as we do. Don't get me wrong I know the antis do exist, but not to the extent a lot of people claim. What we need to do is educate the uneducated. My bet would be this was some editor or writer that has little knowledge or opinion one way or the other on gun rights. They added it based on the first part of the statement (militia). It does not make it right and it needs to be addressed, but it would be more benificial to contact the publisher and inform them, then jumping to conclusions of an agenda

 

[mnrivrat]

then jumping to conclusions of an agenda

And if there was no agenda, why would they put that misleading statement in the text ? I don't need a tin foil hat to pick up the purpose why it is there, and its not there by accident .

 

[MedWheeler]

I agree that the editors of the textbook either intended to sway the reader's thinking, or to at least limit the spectrum of thought on the subject, or were under orders from someone else to do so. I would hope (okay, wish) that further education of the students would get across the idea that all able-bodied male members of the citizenry were, at that time, considered members of the militia, ready to be deployed against any enemy, foreign or domestic.

 

[Certaindeaf]

^
True. Much of the apathy conveyed in this thread will lead to our ruin. Beware of the enemy within.

 

[Kynoch]

Okay, look here. I take mild umbrage with Kansas being right next to kaliforneee I aye..
Ridiculous. I don't really like the state, nothing going on here, no oceans, no mountains. No...no nothing!! Its quite horrible really. Especially NE area where it touches MO.
Despite that, from what Ive seen KS likes the guns. The only redeeming quality really.
For you to just throw it under the bus with that penal colony of weirdos is just not right!
We likes our republikins and our guns!
Well, outside the suburbs of KC, them beige loving fools are WEIRD!
Tongue in cheek here boss. Sort of. Mostly.
I find it a little odd Calif and Kansas use the same text books. Given Kansas proclivities to ignore evolution vs. creationism requirements ....
Any ways, Id second the fellow who said it was an explanation of the country's need to repel tyrannical government.
Besides, teenagers don't really read these big ol boring books any more, do they?

Apparently they can't spell in Kansas either...

 

[beatledog7]

Such an edit is clearly meant to sway the thinking of students in a particular direction; otherwise no edit would be there at all.

I don't think it is meant to confer that the people's RKBA exists so that they can become their own military establishment in a time when defense against tyranny is needed: such an interpretation would be in keeping with the Founders' intent. I think it was meant to convey the ideology that gun possession was intended to be limited to military personnel.

That's not a tinfoil hat perspective. This edit was made in a book for high school students, not Constitutional scholars. The "guns are for soldiers" angle, not the "people must be ready to stand up to tyranny" angle, is what most of them will see. And given who runs the public schools, that's the angle that the majority of their teachers will almost undoubtedly reinforce.

 

[Ryanxia]

My tin foil hat must be working just fine. Slippery slope I say!

 

[HOOfan_1]

The ones who will be future leaders do.

Hopefully the ones who WILL become future leaders are smart enough in high school to have already formed their own opinions and can see through BS opinionization.

 

[Sam1911]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms [i.e. for military purposes] shall not be infringed.

Reading this literally, I actually rather like it. The right of the people to bear arms for military purposes... That says something TRUE that a lot of folks don't get.

Unfortunately, it is appalling that a textbook would add anything to the text of a founding document like this, regardless of intent.

 

[Nushif]

Not entirely sure I want my future leaders to lead a country based on ideas they made up before they hit high school, to be honest. I like my ideas a bit more refined.

As for the text injection, definitely sounds like something that was intentionally put there. Believe me, when dealing with this kind of writing no word is left un"smithed."

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Anyone who believes a group with the intellect of the founders would believe it necessary to put in writing the necessity of the military to be armed is not too sharp anyway. I can't believe those opposed to protecting liberty have chosen that direction as a way of neutering the Second Amendment and I also am sad that the intellectual level of the population has fallen to the point that the argument is likely to work.

 

[Hypnogator]

Unfortunately, it is appalling that a textbook would add anything to the text of a founding document like this, regardless of intent.

Agreed. What some apparently don't realize is that "i.e." means "for example." Thus the added phrase "for military purposes" is only an example of the purposes for which the people may keep and bear arms. We've burned a lot of literary gunpowder over the placement of the commas in the original Amendment, so lets scrutinize the literal meaning of the added clause.

I'm with Sam, though, in that a history textbook should faithfully print the original language of the Bill of Rights.

 

[siglite]

These kinds of edits are quite Orwellian. The barn wall is a living document, you know.