Textbook EDITS the Second Amendment!

[michiganfan]

I totally agree. This is liberal propaganda.

 

[TennJed]

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 .

I would be curious to see all the edits before I completely make my mind up. The OP stated there were other edits not just the 2A. It is quite possible that editor is a low paid undereducated employee working on a deadline not an agenda

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

Actually, it looks to me like an accurate statement.

Actually, it looks like an inaccurate statement to me.

The 2nd Amendment was placed there for the reason you stated, not for military reasons. The edited book leads people to believe that guns should be for the military purposes only, not because the People (I.e. civilians) Have the Right to own them for their own reasons.
.

 

[Certaindeaf]

"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."

Were this to be construed that we have the right to keep and bear arms for military purposes (I don't think it does.. I think it's brainwash speak for only the military), it also says/means, that since it's only "for military purposes", that daily carry and even hunting are excluded/not allowed.

 

[Sam1911]

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.

Not quite. "e.g." (exempli gratia) means "for example." Here is one example, there may be more. "Polymer-framed pistols, e.g. Glocks."

"i.e." (id est) means "in other words." That's a little more exclusive. "Winchester's quintessential lever-action rifle, i.e. the Model 94."

 

[Sam1911]

Actually, it looks like an inaccurate statement to me.

The 2nd Amendment was placed there for the reason you stated, not for military reasons. The edited book leads people to believe that guns should be for the military purposes only, not because the People (I.e. civilians) Have the Right to own them for their own reasons.

If you read the 2nd Amendment literally, it gives ONE reason for being included: "...militia being neccessary to the security of a free state, ..." It really does protect, expressly, the right of the people to bear arms in defense of freedom and security. Those, to my mind, are military -- combative -- purposes.

The 2nd really doesn't speak to hunting, target shooting, gun collecting, or other recreational persuits. Obviously it DOES NOT prohibit, forbid, or restrict them either. It just doesn't list them as foundational socially compelling reasons for protecting the right of the people to bear arms.

But I do agree that this edit adds the term "military" in a way which could be easily construed to somehow indicate, "part of a standing army." (I guess. Not my definition, but perhaps others'.)

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

Ignition Override seemed to have it right.

The 2A was not edited. The use of brackets to insert commentary are indicative of stand-alone statements not part of the original text. This would be no different than a hyperlink being used, but you can't use hyperlinks in textbooks (printed). This isn't an uncommon thing do. In fact, the brackets are there to indicate that the purported clarification is NOT part of the original text and so is to not to appear to be a change or edit.

The commentary could have been saved for other text above or below the amendment text. You may not like that the commentary was placed in the text as it as and you may not agree with the commentary, but it is not an edit of the text.

 

[siglite]

(I guess. Not my definition, but perhaps others'.)

I believe that's how most people would interpret the inserted text. Sometimes, us liberty loving gunfolk tend to forget that the rest of country doesn't see things through our (liberty) lens. I believe most folks would interpret it to mean standing army and national guard. How very 1960's.

 

[Skribs]

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.

While I agree with what Sam said, the point is most people are going to read "2nd ammendment" and "military" and think that it only applies to a militia, not to "the people" (forgetting that the people are the militia).

 

[Certaindeaf]

^siglite
True. Sixteen years of public schooling here - finally got through the sixth grade.. thanks, Mom! - and every time the second amendment was discussed, the brainwasher loudly and repeatedly declared it as describing/affecting only the military, not "the right of the people".

 

[Jinx D'jinn]

"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"
Hanlon's Razor

 

[beatledog7]

The use of brackets to insert commentary are indicative of stand-alone statements not part of the original text. This would be no different than a hyperlink being used, but you can't use hyperlinks in textbooks (printed). This isn't an uncommon thing do. In fact, the brackets are there to indicate that the purported clarification is NOT part of the original text and so is to not to appear to be a change or edit.

The commentary could have been saved for other text above or below the amendment text. You may not like that the commentary was placed in the text as it as and you may not agree with the commentary, but it is not an edit of the text.

Double Naught Spy is technically correct, but this editing convention is beyond the training and understanding of the typical high school student. Most don't understand how the brackets apply and will presume the bracketed section is part of the original document. I'm sure the editors know this and did it in this way so they could claim the same defense that DNS expressed in the above quoted material.

 

[481]

Double Naught Spy is technically correct, but this editing convention is beyond the training and understanding of the typical high school student. Most don't understand how the brackets apply and will presume the bracketed section is part of the original document. I'm sure the editors know this and did it in this way so they could claim the same defense that DNS expressed in the above quoted material.

I agree with you and DNS. While subtle, the effect, if not the intent, of altering the Second Amendment's meaning is present.

 

[481]

"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"
Hanlon's Razor

Perhaps, but stupidity can result in the propagation of further error- intentional or not- the degradation of the text is apparent.

 

[Certaindeaf]

It's not like these snotnosers are supreme court justices, learned in and of language and who's sole job/function is the interpretation of the bill of rights etc. They look at every comma and period and debate original intent based on that/those.
This is an obvious and underhanded ploy to undermine the original document and its meaning.

 

[hso]

[i.e. for military purposes]

That sort of commentary is seen on both sides. We have people here who clearly and strongly say the 2A has nothing to do with hunting or self defense and only looks at the arming of the population for military purposes, including removing existing governments through military action.

 

[Formula94]

Had they used "eg" instead of "i.e." I would see no problem in it. i.e. is used to specify or clarify a statement while "eg" is used to show an example. Shame on the publishers of that book.

 

[230RN]

Eric M

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

Let's lay off bandying the "tin foil hat" stuff around, huh? As I have in my sig line on another board, "Eternal vigilance is not clinical paranoia."

It's cheap and easy to throw out that tin foil hat meme, but we are in a long-term battle to preserve our rights, and if some folks can't see that, I feel naught but pity for your blindness.


awgrizzly

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.

Fine words, but these "natural rights" have been, are, and will continue to be, eroded, trammeled, limited, and denied by those organizations and individuals who do not want you to have these "natural rights."

Most younger folks today do not remember when you could walk into many hardware stores, department stores, bait shops, and whatnot and pay your money and walk out with a firearm.

Nowadays, with innumerable restrictions gradually and subtly imposed on us, this natural individual civil right has been turned into the equivalent of being required to sit in the back of the bus --and we now take this "discrimination" as the natural state of affairs.

It ain't.

The subtle addition of that "i.e." remark cited in the original post is a small but significant example of precisely how these natural and immutable and self-evident civil rights have been eroded through the years through subtle semantic manipulation.

Concern about that little tiny "i.e." is not tin foil hattery. The original post demonstrates a legitimate concern for this kind of subtle semantic manipulation of our young minds....

"As the twig is bent, so grows the tree...."

"Give me a child until he is 6 (or 8, or whatever), and he is forever after mine..."

Eternal vigilance is not clinical paranoia, and casually dismissing stuff like this with the tin foil meme is merely burying your head in the sand.

Terry, 230RN

 

[Skribs]

Fine words, but these "natural rights" have been, are, and will continue to be, eroded, trammeled, limited, and denied by those organizations and individuals who do not want you to have these "natural rights."

This is why I cringe whenever a gun owner points to the 2A and says "this is what gives me my rights, I don't need to worry about legislation/ruling."

 

[Yoda]

i.e. is not the same as e.g.

"i.e.," = "that is," a restatement of the original premise for purposes of clarity
"e.g.," = "for example," an illustration of the application of the original premise

Thus, if someone inserts "i.e., for military purposes" into the original text of the Second Amendment, they are in effect limiting the scope of the amendment to "military purposes."

Even so, it would not have been much of an improvement if they inserted, "e.g., for military purposes," as this would still have been an unnecessary and limiting qualification.

The preamble to the Second Amendment (i.e., "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...") says all that is necessary, and only a union teacher (e.g., one of those in Chicago) could imagine that any more explaination would be necessary.

- - - Yoda

 

[230RN]

^ Small clarification: 2A has no specific preamble. The Bill of Rights (BOR), as a whole, has one, though, and it reads in part:

(Preamble specifically for the Bill of Rights --not the original Preamble to the constitutio itself.)

Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

Repeated for truth:

...expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added...

These 10 clauses of the BOR, or amendments, were added because those several states mentioned had a collective "tin foil hattery" paranoia that unless the rights were specifically spelled out in these 10 Amendments, the federal government would usurp them.

As, in fact, the federal government has anyhow.

Terry, 230RN

NOTE (The Preamble to the whole Constitution, which we were required to learn in grade school in a galaxy far away):

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[paramedic70002]

Militia ARE NOT the military. Militia are the PEOPLE.

Here's the textbook:

http://www.cengage.com/search/productOverview.do?N=0&Ntk=P_Isbn13&Ntt=9780495903468

...The 14th Edition places an even greater emphasis on the global context of American history through a new feature, "Thinking Globally."...

That's all I need to know right there.

The book is Copyrighted 2011 so the Heller and Chicago decisions should have been mentioned.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Militia ARE NOT the military. Militia are the PEOPLE.

Here's the textbook:

http://www.cengage.com/search/productOverview.do?N=0&Ntk=P_Isbn13&Ntt=9780495903468



That's all I need to know right there.

The book is Copyrighted 2011 so the Heller and Chicago decisions should have been mentioned.

I/we (well some) understand this. The crux of the matter and what is at issue is, in these tens or hundreds(?) of thousands of textbooks, it is now interpreted and taught as "military". Also, in one of my prior posts, my first-hand experience bears this out.

 

[Manco]

I don't like this edit because it makes the 2A even more subject to misinterpretation, as demonstrated in this very thread by gun enthusiasts, let alone the general public.

Here is an edit that I would prefer:

"The right of the people [e.g. individual civilians] to keep and bear arms [e.g. carrying a weapon for the natural right of self-defense] shall NOT be infringed, period."

As for "e.g." versus "i.e." the militia clause is a lot more like the former than the latter, and that's how the current SCOTUS has, fortunately, interpreted it. The edit being discussed gets it wrong in this respect, in my opinion. In an even broader sense, the whole 2A is really an "e.g." for natural rights that we should have anyway--it's only enumerated explicitly because the Framers knew that it would be a prime target for government infringement.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Brackets or not, it's an in-line edit.

It changes the way the text reads.

Injecting new text into the original work is meant to alter its meaning.

Arguing that it can "plausibly" be read to conform with originalist thinking misses the point: it invites an interpretation -- it biases understanding away from "individual" right in the direction of "collective" right.

Add to this Cass-Sunstein-style "gentle nudge" in comprehension a little "help" from the teacher's "study guide" that typically accompanies textbooks, and the words "for example, the National Guard" don't actually have to appear in the text, they can be spoken verbally when the material is reviewed. It won't matter that the Nat Guard didn't exist back then, just as it hasn't mattered in gun-grabber arguments for the last twenty years.

This edit is subversive, not "clarifying." It furthers an agenda.

It is bad juju and needs to be corrected -- on the publisher's dime.

It may not be "illegal" per se, but it is definitely a worthy "cause of action."

I wonder if the SAF will deem it worthy of a lawsuit.