CmdrSlander
Member
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?
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?