This is straight up indoctrination of our American kids. I believe whoever authorized the Constitution to be misinterpreted in this classroom history book is going have a lot of calls to change it. http://www.dailypaul.com/299365/high-school-ap-history-book-rewrites-the-2nd-amendment?from=lbp Guyer High School (and obviously several others) are complicit in attempting to condition students to interpret the 2nd Amendment in a clearly opposite manner in which it was intended. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th are also misinterpreted as several commenters below pointed out. This textbook, currently being used by Guyer High School, is attempting to redefine the Second Amendment to impressionable young minds. Parents, you must speak up and demand action. Investigate your child's history book ASAP, and post more pictures in the comments below. Call your school and demand that revisionist history books like this are removed from the school district. Textbook version: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia." Actual 2nd Amendment: "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." Did you catch the sleight of hand? A militia is a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. It's a common man army of citizens, NOT soldiers. The citizens are called up in emergencies to protect the free State. The 2nd Amendment says that a militia is necessary to protect a free State, so in order to be able to have a militia, the citizens have a natural right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot infringe on that right. The textbook version implies that we're only allowed to keep and bear arms if we're in a State militia, a clear misrepresentation of the 2nd Amendment.
Wow, that's completely (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up. The third especially as it completely defeats the purpose of the amendment. This can't be real, no one can be this (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up.
Oh it's real alright. Apparently it will be a showdown tonight. From another source it states: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 6:00 PM The Denton ISD Board of Trustees will be meeting at 6 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 24, in the Board Room at the Dennis Stephens Central Services Building. UPDATE: Just got off the phone with Kim Stevenson, Admin to the Superintendent. 1. Board members will not address any speaking on an item that is not part of the official agenda. 2. A community member could not add an item to the agenda. 3. You must sign in at Kim's desk in order to speak. You can speak up to 2 times and for 3 minutes. If a large number of us are attending we can assign a person to be our spokesperson and they may possibly give that person extra time. The state adopts the textbooks every couple of years. She advised that besides attending next week's board meeting that we also speak with Darrell Muncy, Director of Student Services or speak with someone in the curriculum department.
Tell them they need to print the amendments word for word rather than give a summation. Even if they insist on the summation they need to print the amendments word for word and then be ready to answer students when they ask why the summation is entirely different than the text of the actual amendment.
I would have to see the actual book to give a firm opinion. But based solely on that one page it does appear the authors have taken too many liberties. First, the Amendments aren't long so why summarize them? Print them in their entirety. It is a freaking Advanced Placement (i.e. college level) book and exam so the students should be able to interpret it for themselves.
The sad thing is that summation is very much in line with the ACLU and even worse Justice Stevens and the 3 other Justices that dissented against the Helller and McDonald decisions. Stevens interpretation of the Miller decision was either crooked or he severally lacks reading comphension skills. While I have some issues with the majority decision in those cases. Compared to the alternative it is a vast improvement.
Wow. I didn't catch they wrote in 'separation of church and state' in parenthesis in the first amendment.
That is completely irrelevant to what the original Constitution states and what we are discussing here.
USSC also approved Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson once too. - - - Updated - - - BTW, we all know what a hot bed of liberalism ....Texas is.
nope............. - - - Updated - - - irrelevant. the US constitution supersedes any state laws or state constitutions.
He bases his opinion off the federalist papers. As well as the fact the bill of rights was originally only a barrier to the federal govt. It is no longer the case so beating a dead horse in my opinion. I might be giving him too much credit but think that is what he argues. His version would have some benefits in the more red states. Since we would not be exposed to federal firearm restrictions. Which is the greatest threat to our right to arms. It would make it worse in most blue states. So it is more favorable for state rights. That is if I understand his POV. There are dangers with the majority decisions in McDonald and even Heller. If the supreme court becomes more liberal it allows for fairly draconian restrictions. The thought of the country being under the same laws as Chicago or DC should scare any person that supports the 2nd. It was however far better than the dissenting opinion was. If they had their way only the national guard would have been protected.
I am suggesting that neither Texans nor Illinoians need to appeal their State Constitutions for recourse to our Second Amendment.
