The authors of United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination have taken it upon themselves to change the Constitution of the United States. The high school textbook contains a summary of each Amendment that alters the initial intent in which they were created.
The textbook notes the Second Amendment as, "The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."
The actual Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Guyer High School and numerous others have assigned the book for an "Advanced Placement History" course. By assigning anti-factual literature, the only advanced placement the school has ensured for their students is in the world of biased academia.
Sadly, parents now have to fact check textbooks to be sure their students are being taught accurate history. High schools and universities should focus on being a marketplace of ideas, not force-feeding leftist theories.
Not only does it differ from the actual grammatical meaning of the amendment, it differs from the meaning as affirmed by the Supreme Court.
IP: Logged
08:30 AM
PFF
System Bot
blackrams Member
Posts: 33124 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Well, I guess that's one way to start changing what you want folks to believe. Makes one wonder if it's a typo or some liberal owned publisher. God forbid, don't tell me that book was published on a government printing press.
------------------ Ron Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
It only takes one pebble to over flow a pool, if all other pebbles before it go unnoticed. I just made that **** up! But, damn if it isn't a great representation of our world.
IP: Logged
11:45 AM
FriendGregory Member
Posts: 4833 From: Palo Alto, CA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
Sort of a cliff notes for the constitutional Amendments, by an idiot with a degree, so it has to be right, right. Hey he has a degree so he is smarter than the rest of us poor common folks with no higher education.
Does anyone now understand why an education doesn't mean you are smarter than everyone else.
Sort of a cliff notes for the constitutional Amendments, by an idiot with a degree, so it has to be right, right. Hey he has a degree so he is smarter than the rest of us poor common folks with no higher education.
Does anyone now understand why an education doesn't mean you are smarter than everyone else.
the other shmuck wrote this one book and no others. Steve
Question, do you ever get tired of beating that horse?
Steve, an education doesn't make anyone smarter than any one else but, what it does is open doors to a better life. Not necessarily a happier life but, one that will generally pay better. I haven't figured out why you hate educated people so much but, beating that horse so often isn't proving a thing except your dislike or envy for those that have chosen to try and enrich their lives by getting an education.
I have an education and I'm no smarter than the average bear (borrowed from Yogi). But, that education has enable me to do things I would have never had a chance to do with out that sheepskin. I've been near the top of the mountain and been at the depths of the valley in opportunity, I'm not afraid of or unwilling to do just about any job but, that sheepskin allows me to expand my horizons in the job market.
That's not saying there aren't some smart folks who don't have an education but, beating that horse only makes you look envious. Posted with the best intentions, I hope it's taken that way.
------------------ Ron Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
How do you figure that a book written by one author is a "High School Textbook?" Edit to note that upon closer scrutiny the book plainly states that it is summarizing the amendments; what it says is actually a summary of the amendment. I see no foul there.
[This message has been edited by carnut122 (edited 02-14-2014).]
IP: Logged
06:40 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 33124 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
How do you figure that a book written by one author is a "High School Textbook?" Edit to note that upon closer scrutiny the book plainly states that it is summarizing the amendments; what it says is actually a summary of the amendment. I see no foul there.
If that's a summary, then it leaves out way too much of the important stuff and leads the uninformed reader to a misconception. That was not the intent of the founding fathers. It's so foul, it stinks to high heaven.
------------------ Ron Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 02-14-2014).]
IP: Logged
07:30 PM
MidEngineManiac Member
Posts: 29566 From: Some unacceptable view Registered: Feb 2007
How do you figure that a book written by one author is a "High School Textbook?" Edit to note that upon closer scrutiny the book plainly states that it is summarizing the amendments; what it says is actually a summary of the amendment. I see no foul there.
What do you require for something to be called a "High School Textbook?" The authors are listed as: John J. Newman (Author) , John M. Schmalbach (Author). Last time I checked, two wasn't one.
The article also mentions "Guyer High School and numerous others have assigned the book for an "Advanced Placement History" course." Does a book published by a "school publications" publisher and assigned as part of a high school class not qualify as a High School textbook in your mind?
That's your argument? It must be okay because it's not a "real" textbook? Oh, right, it's just a "summary." A "summary" that changes the meaning of the text it's summarizing. That's a grammatical failure that should reject any book purporting to be suitable for teaching anyone.
IP: Logged
10:23 PM
Feb 15th, 2014
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
What do you require for something to be called a "High School Textbook?" The authors are listed as: John J. Newman (Author) , John M. Schmalbach (Author). Last time I checked, two wasn't one.
The article also mentions "Guyer High School and numerous others have assigned the book for an "Advanced Placement History" course." Does a book published by a "school publications" publisher and assigned as part of a high school class not qualify as a High School textbook in your mind?
That's your argument? It must be okay because it's not a "real" textbook? Oh, right, it's just a "summary." A "summary" that changes the meaning of the text it's summarizing. That's a grammatical failure that should reject any book purporting to be suitable for teaching anyone.
OK...two authors. The reading teacher across the hallway from me assigned "The Giver" to her/my students. It is a work of fiction; not everything in it is to be taken literally. Just because she assigned it, it doesn't make it a textbook. It is clearly a book written by an author, but not a textbook. My county hasn't adopted a textbook in about 6 years. Our math text-books are from 3 generations of state standards ago. My accelerated students are sometimes assigned work out of a textbook published 13 years ago. Every day I go in and put together 4 different lessons for my students. Very little of that is based on a textbook. I use virtually anything I can get my hands on that is relevant to what I want my students to learn. In other words, I'm so busy scrambling to find materials that I don't have time to read every word/problem in a book. There are maybe 4 textbook companies still in business; Amsco Publications is not one of them (upon further review they seem to publish a lot of books for playing the guitar). This book is obviously a "Cliff's Notes" summary designed to narrow students' focus as they prepare for a college level test (yes, AP is college level). I thought it was a valid summary of the second amendment which states that citizens have the right to bear arms in a state militia. Is that a false statement? What was untruthful about the summary? The meaning has been open to debate for a long time (that's what the Supreme Court gets to decide). So, you want to limit freedom of speech based on a factual statement?
IP: Logged
07:28 AM
84fiero123 Member
Posts: 29950 From: farmington, maine usa Registered: Oct 2004
Question, do you ever get tired of beating that horse?
Steve, an education doesn't make anyone smarter than any one else but, what it does is open doors to a better life.
tell them that, how many times have I been called an idiot for not going to college and gotten one of those nice clean sit behind a desk jobs? sure I could have gone to school, didn't want to, wanted to build things with my hands
Originally posted by The Framers of The Constitution of The United States of America:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
quote
Originally posted by carnut122:
This book is obviously a "Cliff's Notes" summary designed to narrow students' focus as they prepare for a college level test (yes, AP is college level). I thought it was a valid summary of the second amendment which states that citizens have the right to bear arms in a state militia. Is that a false statement?
Yes
quote
Originally posted by carnut122:
What was untruthful about the summary?
Everything. The Second Ammendment is already a 'Cliff's Notes' version of the entire idea that "To guarantee that a Free State will have the armed manpower available to organize for its defense whenever needed, no form of government, be it Federal, State or Local, shall dictate any law, ruling or other such regulation that impedes the Natural Right of its citizens to possess and use their privately owned firearms".
quote
Originally posted by carnut122:
The meaning has been open to debate for a long time (that's what the Supreme Court gets to decide). So, you want to limit freedom of speech based on a factual statement?
Yes
IP: Logged
09:46 AM
Fats Member
Posts: 5577 From: Wheaton, Mo. Registered: Jan 2012
tell them that, how many times have I been called an idiot for not going to college and gotten one of those nice clean sit behind a desk jobs? sure I could have gone to school, didn't want to, wanted to build things with my hands
Steve
You do know that the people that go to school can also build things right? Not all "educated" jobs are sitting behind a desk. lol
Brad
IP: Logged
09:54 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37837 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by carnut122: ... the book plainly states that it is summarizing the amendments; what it says is actually a summary of the amendment. I see no foul there.
Well, 'cept, heh ... it seems to be a study guide for advanced placement, which, would leave one uneducated on the true facts.
A summary keeps the facts and relevant information without changing the meaning of the text. Kind of like the 'Readers Digest' or Cliff's Notes versions of the classics. That "summary" of the second amendment is not a summary because it altered the meaning. How many of the other amendments were butchered this badly?
IP: Logged
10:15 AM
Tony Kania Member
Posts: 20794 From: The Inland Northwest Registered: Dec 2008
A summary keeps the facts and relevant information without changing the meaning of the text. Kind of like the 'Readers Digest' or Cliff's Notes versions of the classics. That "summary" of the second amendment is not a summary because it altered the meaning. How many of the other amendments were butchered this badly?
This statement ends the discussion. One can call it a "summary", but is an inaccurate description altering the meaning of an extremely important American document. It misrepresent the meaning of the written word. Therein lies the issue. False information. If you never read the Constitution, then it's true meaning would escape the young mind reading it.
IP: Logged
11:24 AM
Old Lar Member
Posts: 13798 From: Palm Bay, Florida Registered: Nov 1999
The current administration wants to insure the proper indoctrination of your children from pre kindergarten through college with their propaganda media, just like they do in other socialist countries. Get used to the change.
IP: Logged
11:36 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by carnut122: I thought it was a valid summary of the second amendment which states that citizens have the right to bear arms in a state militia. Is that a false statement? What was untruthful about the summary? The meaning has been open to debate for a long time (that's what the Supreme Court gets to decide). So, you want to limit freedom of speech based on a factual statement?
Your statement is false, as the Supreme Court has already said, specifically from D.C. v. Heller:
quote
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
So your statement isn't factual and pointing that out does nothing to limit your right to free speech. I'm not sure how you equate saying you're wrong with Congress passing a law to limit your speech. It's alarming to think you see no problem with that text and are in a position to teach our nation's children. They deserve better than a teacher putting forth their own personal opinions and agenda.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 02-15-2014).]
It's alarming to think you see no problem with that text and are in a position to teach our nation's children. They deserve better than a teacher putting forth their own personal opinions and agenda.
Why don't you do it then?
IP: Logged
11:59 AM
olejoedad Member
Posts: 19893 From: Clarendon Twp., MI Registered: May 2004
I used to snicker at this scene from an old Star Trek episode. Yet the world today, and the people in this country specifically, may be just a few generations away from completely losing the "holy words" of our great nation's documents AND their meanings.
As previously stated, the textbook's "summary" completely changes the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
[This message has been edited by Flamberge (edited 02-15-2014).]
IP: Logged
12:10 PM
PFF
System Bot
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
So your statement isn't factual and pointing that out does nothing to limit your right to free speech. I'm not sure how you equate saying you're wrong with Congress passing a law to limit your speech. It's alarming to think you see no problem with that text and are in a position to teach our nation's children. They deserve better than a teacher putting forth their own personal opinions and agenda.
I think if you reread what I wrote, it in no way equates with what you fantasized that I wrote. We agree that the supreme court decides. Where did you get anything about Congress out of any of my posts on this topic? I'm just saying that the authors have every right to publish their summation of the constitution. I also said that the summation was not patently false. The community in question has every right to use (or not use)the AP prep guide if they should so choose to do so(freedom of expression). The plain English version places gun ownership within the preface of a militia being necessary. As for personal agenda, how can you surmise if anybody besides yourself has a personal agenda? Unless you helped write the constitution, how can you be sure what the authors meant?
[This message has been edited by carnut122 (edited 02-15-2014).]
IP: Logged
03:09 PM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
Originally posted by Formula88:[/b]Once again. I'm OK with the Supreme Court's interpreting the Constitution (reread my first and last post). All I wrote was that it was a summation of the 2nd Amendment. The fact that the author didn't throw in the Supreme Court's interpretation doesn't make it an invalid summation. I'm not sure why you want to start banning books?
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:It's alarming to think you see no problem with that text and are in a position to teach our nation's children.
In the past 28 years I've seen a lot that's alarming when teaching this "nation's children." Personally, I feel it's alarming not to give my students various perspectives to whatever we're studying. I don't feel one group should be in charge of the only perspective that my students are presented. If I'm doing my job, they will not know what my personal views are. I'd like them to grow up seeing problems and solutions from a variety of perspectives. As for "that text," you seem to take it as a personal assault on your sense of what you think other people's children should learn. So, explain to me why you feel they should only learn what you think they should be exposed to?
[This message has been edited by carnut122 (edited 02-15-2014).]
IP: Logged
03:14 PM
Blacktree Member
Posts: 20770 From: Central Florida Registered: Dec 2001
There's a difference between a summary and an interpretation. The book mentioned above does not summarize the 2nd amendment. It offers an interpretation. And from what I can see, the authors are offering their own interpretations of some of the other amendments, as well.
If they want to write a book offering their own interpretations of our Constitution, no matter how far from the truth they may be, that's their prerogative. The problems start when this book is used as a teaching aid for school children, who are then taught that these interpretations are actually fact. The kids end up carrying these misinformed ideas of how our government is supposed to work. Then they go vote.
IP: Logged
04:07 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 33124 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
I wouldn't begin to speak for Formula88 but, that text is not accurate and everyone knows it. It leads the reader to believe something which is not true and is therefore invalid even as a summation. It is misleading and definitely left leaning politically speaking. That may be what the author intended for his readers to believe but, that is not by any stretch or the imagination what the 2nd Amendment says. It provides a linear thought process that states only a state militia has the right to bear arms.
------------------ Ron Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
IP: Logged
04:13 PM
pokeyfiero Member
Posts: 16233 From: Free America! Registered: Dec 2003
I thought it was a valid summary of the second amendment which states that citizens have the right to bear arms in a state militia. Is that a false statement? What was untruthful about the summary? The meaning has been open to debate for a long time (that's what the Supreme Court gets to decide). So, you want to limit freedom of speech based on a factual statement?
I think this should qualify as treason.
IP: Logged
04:20 PM
pokeyfiero Member
Posts: 16233 From: Free America! Registered: Dec 2003
In the past 28 years I've seen a lot that's alarming when teaching this "nation's children." Personally, I feel it's alarming not to give my students various perspectives to whatever we're studying. I don't feel one group should be in charge of the only perspective that my students are presented. If I'm doing my job, they will not know what my personal views are. I'd like them to grow up seeing problems and solutions from a variety of perspectives. As for "that text," you seem to take it as a personal assault on your sense of what you think other people's children should learn. So, explain to me why you feel they should only learn what you think they should be exposed to?
So one perspective being a Michael Moore interpretation and the other being the actual fact as it is written.
IP: Logged
04:23 PM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
