Textbook EDITS the Second Amendment!

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

And in practice, if the 2nd applies to both a individual right, and a military purpose, then how do we view laws such as the 1934 NFA which places a restriction on weapons in common use by military. Or the ban on importing firearms that have no "Sporting Purpose" ?

I agree the 2nd does not speak to usage , it simply gives one reason as an example.

To highlight that reason in such a manner as to imply that is the only reason is what I suspect the edit is all about.
 
The book is Copyrighted 2011 so the Heller and Chicago decisions should have been mentioned.
Click to expand...

Wait...this is a highschool Civics text book and you thing that the Heller and Macdonald cases should be included? I mean to say I would LOVE to see that as well, but I've seen few such books that managed to cover more than a fairly short list of SCOTUS cases at all -- Dred Scott, Marbury, McCulloch, Plessy, and Brown are about it.

Maybe its a sad thing, but I can't really imagine a time when an entry-level textbook would get into more modern cases like that.
 
And in practice, if the 2nd applies to both a individual right, and a military purpose, then how do we view laws such as the 1934 NFA which places a restriction on weapons in common use by military. Or the ban on importing firearms that have no "Sporting Purpose" ?
Click to expand...
Well, how do you THINK I'd view such laws? ;) Not in a good light, that's for darned sure! But I doubt we're disagreeing, there.
 
One thing that I noticed in reading the US Constitution again and again as part of the team that typeset Levy's Encyclopedia of the American Constitution is that the States, the United States, the President, the Congress and the the Courts are not described as having Rights: they are described as having Powers or Authorities. Government is not described as having rights in the US Constitution.

My home state Constitution treats RKBA thus:
Article I Section 26: "That the citizens of this state have
a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense;
but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate
the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime."

State attorney general opinions and court rulings have held that specific protection of a citizen's right to arms for defense does not in any way negate the citizen's right to own or use arms for other lawful purposes, such as hunting, target practice, defending livestock, or collection of arms as curios, ornaments or keepsakes. Furthermore, the Legislature's power to regulate "with a view to prevent crime" must serve an actual crime control purpose and not present an undue burden to prevent lawful ownership or use of arms for traditional, lawful uses.

(What I don't get is the anti-gunners' idea that since there is (in their view) no protection of a citizen's right to keep and bear arms, we must outlaw arms. That's like arguing that since there is no Constitution amendment protecting a citizen's right to own or use croquet sets, we must outlaw croquet sets. No, without a constitutional protection for X, we must have a rational social utility argument to justify banning X, other than "I don't like it" or "It scares me.")

The Founding Fathers actually did view an armed citizenry as a last resort against a tyranny: when the tyrant blocks the soapbox, the ballot box, and the jury box from protecting the rights of the people, there is always the last resort: the bullet box; but, I suspect that a clever tyrant would foreclose the bullet box, then do away with the others last.
 
Had they used "eg" instead of "i.e." I would see no problem in it.
Click to expand...

Right, it would be okay not because you thinking editing would be okay, but because you agree with what is included.

It isn't an edit. It is a standard clarification writing practice to use brackets inside of quotes. The MLA and other style manuals specifically discuss its use. The information is WRONG, no doubt about it, but the way in which the text is presented is not inappropriate. In fact, Biblical scholars even do it with Bible passages, for crying out loud. If you have a problem with bracketed text inside of quotes, then no doubt you have a problem with hyperlinks in quotes as well...which is all the bracketed comment is...an antiquated way to make a hyperlink in print.
 
Originally posted by 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.
Click to expand...
Exactly! It's really hard for me to understand why some folks don't get it. Instead, they argue square brackets vs. round brackets to show mastery of the English language, while ignoring the true agenda of the antis. Yes, "they are out to get us", like it or not. And they did exactly what they did, in this case, so that we gun owners can sit around and argue about proper English usage.:rolleyes:
 
Just a little more context as well:

The book is, in my experience, fairly anti-american, or at least very pro-european. It argues vigorously that, for instance, the revolutionary war was motivated by the greed of the rich white merchantmen and landholders. That the United States was 'a bad child' to Great Britain. Every military or sociocultural achievement, throughout history, it downplays, every American indiscretion or misstep, it hypes up. Now, I really like history, and I am willing to have my ideas challenged, I am not a conservative and I am not a jingoist or war hawk but the extent to which the text attempts to portray the US as a blundering, hypocritical nation that was founded and built on greed and exploitation, with its only redeeming qualities coming from the use of European Enlightenment ideologies by its founders goes far beyond reasonable commentary and is academically dishonest. When the book is simply being informative it is well researched and well written, but whenever it gets a chance to take a stab at the US or give a teacher an opening to launch into a diatribe about our nation's follies, it does so.
 
I hate to swear and stuff but heck (the mods just love me!), who has oversight of these purchases/agendas?
You'd think and hope that textbook candidates would be approved by a steering body comprised of not the fox.
 
How about some historical context.

They should add the following to the 1st amendment:
[Only applies who white males]

And for the 4th, 5th and 8th amendments
[Not applicable to negroes. Since they belong on the planation.]
 
I wonder what other second amendment commentary is included in the book. If the text of the book explains the meaning of the second amendment consistent with current supreme court opinions, the edit is less offensive. If other commentary is anti-2a or silent, that is more problematic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
DNS said:
It isn't an edit. It is a standard clarification writing practice to use brackets inside of quotes.
Click to expand...

It will be perceived as part of the text by anyone who does not understand the editing convention, which includes 90% of the students for whose use it is written. In fact, it doesn't clarify anything; it adds meaning that is not supposed to be there.

Using this technique is a legal cloak for an anti-gun agenda.
 
As someone who only recently escaped the CA public schooling system (now in college) I can tell you that such "annotations" are common, and usually much more blatant in their agenda-pushing.

Its is not learning that I saw in my school. With the exception of a very few remarkably gifted teachers, most of the classes were indoctrination to the ideal of the liberal utopia. the majority of learning I received was of my own accord and in spite of the school. And I went to the highest-testing high schools in the county, if you can believe it.
 
I would literally rip the page from the book and confront the school about such indoctrination, then I would've probably realized that i shouldn't have ripped it out of the book, which then i would engage in a intense but professional discussion. I know that the 2nd amendment was designed for the people to take up arms against tyranny, but i think the way it was injected into the sentence would confuse some young minds, and allow the "educator" to twist it.
 
Hypnogator said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but you are mistaken about the abbreviation "i.e.".

The abbreviation i.e. means 'that is to say', a specific reference. The abbreviation e.g. means 'for example', which is not necessarily all inclusive. Thus this edit states with specificity that "military purposes" is what the right to bear arms applies to. This is not at all what the original wording intends and has been so ruled by the Supreme Court. Being in a text book I will not accept that this is some kind of mistake, especially in light of the controversy of the court ruling.

Not directed to the author I am replying to, I also have to say right here and now that I am offended by the careless use of the term 'tin foil hat', and I expect this to be significant to the purveyors of PC who constantly dictate my expression and actions based upon its offensiveness to others. It seems when some do not agree with something said they often use a throw away term like that to denigrate the other party and dismiss their statement as unworthy. This is a cheap and disgusting way to participate in a discussion. The idea that some, predominantly of a particular political persuasion, actively seek to interpret the second amendment to their liking is a fact not a hair brained conspiracy theory. If some are shamed by this practice they should cease practicing it rather than deny and turn it against someone more innocent than they. :p

I believe Sam1911 is correct that any edit of the wording of the Constitution is appalling... it injects someone's opinion into something that must stand alone.
 
Well, how do you THINK I'd view such laws? Not in a good light, that's for darned sure! But I doubt we're disagreeing, there.
Click to expand...

Well we have no disagreement I can see.

I guess part of my point is that the folks who would imply the 2nd was there only for military (such as this edit seems to) , should explain why then military grade arms are restricted in the manner they are.

Of course that speaks to their mindset of no individual riight, which they proclaim even after scotus rulings, as well as other documentation that supports protection from infringement for the individual .
 
The textbook quote in the OP:

"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."

I had my 7th grader read this.

He interpreted it as people can keep arms only for military purposes. And he loves to shoot.

Maybe have your children read it and see what they think.

We could argue this indefinitely, but this textbook WILL influence future generations. What will THEIR interpretation be?
 
They have been making textbooks, especially history and government ones, more PC since LBJ and his Great Society in the 1960's. California and Texas decide the criteria and content for just about everyone else as they are the two largest and publishers aren't going to make multiple versions of the text book.

And Texas is just as guilty as California in making things PC
 
It all matters little what some may or may not agree with about the military application of bearing arms. The Supreme Court has made it absolutely clear, and if it did not apply to all gun ownership regardless of purpose before it certainly does now. So guard, protect, and make known this ruling against all argument, in the same way others cite Roe vs Wade.

And mark this well, we have the right to own and bear arms for any legal purpose; the necessity of a militia is only the reason this right has been carved in stone along with free speech, press and the others. So let's not prattle about it, that textbook is quite wrong and no text should be inserted in the original wording be it to edit or explain. It screws up the meaning of it in favor of what some ideologue thinks it should mean.

that's all
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
New Law School Textbook on the Second Amendment and Firearms Laws
Replies
10
Views
1K
danez71
danez71
C
  • Locked
What are US students learning about the 2nd Amendment?
2 3
Replies
65
Views
3K
History Prof
H
J
  • Locked
Government subsidized textbook teaches no rights reserved to the states or the people
Replies
4
Views
620
Chrontius
C
SharpDog
  • Locked
Organized attack on 2A
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
GEM
G
S
  • Locked
Putting the Second Amendment Second
Replies
4
Views
559
myrockfight
M
Back
Top