High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

[Long1MD]

What a crock of s**t! That wasn't what I was taught in school. It's this type of crap that leads people to think that they were never allowed to own an AR15 in the first place. I had a guy shocked and amazed when I told him that if you went through the proper paperwork and passed the background check, he could own a suppressor. He was stunned. This is where it starts in the schools. Anything to make the next generation more submissive than the last. Seems to be the NEW "American Way".

 

[BigToe]

They got it backwards. You need guns to form a militia, not a militia to posses a gun.

A better summary would be:

"The people have the right to keep and bear arms in preparedness to form a militia."

 

[parksd70]

I find it curious that as a teacher you are not troubled that students might lose test points on an AP exam for a correct answer that could be improperly marked as wrong because the test compiler was either incorrect or biased. Or on the other hand be penalized because the student relied on incorrect answers in the preparation study materials he was given assuming the test question has the correct interpretation.

I was being facetious. Thought that much was obvious. Some AP test questions are great, others are terrible. World History, Gov't, pretty much every one I've taught. I just don't see any way I can change it, so, meh, I make light of it.

Hey sep 2013.. welcome and thanks for the input.

There are NO constitutional Scholars, living or dead who ever claimed that the 2 a rights had anything to do with militias.. let alone state sponsored ones.. Of course there are a lot of political hacks that do...

But no matter.

and as for the nonsense that slavery was a-ok, please ... read the debates at the convention--- it was never a-ok it just could not be resolved.




And since you are a teacher you know or should know all this....

All I'm saying is, there is a reason the Constitution is open to interpretation. Slavery wasn't ruled out until well after ratification. I agree that it was a touchy subject at the convention that no one wanted get off the fence of...however, that doesn't change that it was enforced law for a long time. It's a favorite example of why the Constitution can be changed and re-interpreted.

I wouldn't be on the board if I didn't support the absolute freedom of 2A (well, maybe some are, I don't know). If I could leave Maryland, I would in a heartbeat. I came from Pa...I miss it so much

I just think blowing little things like this so out of proportion isn't helping the cause. Never once did I say Constitutional scholars hold the view of "bear arms for militia," but some people do. In my experience, it's better for kids to learn early that people are going to disagree. This certainly doesn't excuse the error in this text, but is also doesn't go so far as to contribute to some great ploy to force certain ideas on students. And even if it did, it doesn't matter. A teacher doesn't need a textbook to try and impose their ideas on children (I'll reference a teacher at my former school who told kids they're going to hell if the read Harry Potter, watch The Office, or hang out with non-Catholics, especially atheists.)

EDIT: BigToe, I really don't think any summary does any amendment justice. That's the nature of AP unfortunately. The focus is on the Macro, and individual concepts get left behind. I sucks, but I think this book's error is a testament to it, not an indication of any anti-2A movement.

 

[jrumann59]

I am sorry a text book should be as accurate as possible because when I am not in class and I need clarification I am going to the book or the internet. If you as a teacher do not recognize the fact that a text book is a tool that provides an answer I sure as hell do not want my child anywhere near you as a teacher relying on your interpretation of whatever subject.

 

[Brooklyn]

I was being facetious. Thought that much was obvious. Some AP test questions are great, others are terrible. World History, Gov't, pretty much every one I've taught. I just don't see any way I can change it, so, meh, I make light of it.



All I'm saying is, there is a reason the Constitution is open to interpretation. Slavery wasn't ruled out until well after ratification. I agree that it was a touchy subject at the convention that no one wanted get off the fence of...however, that doesn't change that it was enforced law for a long time. It's a favorite example of why the Constitution can be changed and re-interpreted.

I wouldn't be on the board if I didn't support the absolute freedom of 2A (well, maybe some are, I don't know). If I could leave Maryland, I would in a heartbeat. I came from Pa...I miss it so much

I just think blowing little things like this so out of proportion isn't helping the cause. Never once did I say Constitutional scholars hold the view of "bear arms for militia," but some people do. In my experience, it's better for kids to learn early that people are going to disagree. This certainly doesn't excuse the error in this text, but is also doesn't go so far as to contribute to some great ploy to force certain ideas on students. And even if it did, it doesn't matter. A teacher doesn't need a textbook to try and impose their ideas on children (I'll reference a teacher at my former school who told kids they're going to hell if the read Harry Potter, watch The Office, or hang out with non-Catholics, especially atheists.)

EDIT: BigToe, I really don't think any summary does any amendment justice. That's the nature of AP unfortunately. The focus is on the Macro, and individual concepts get left behind. I sucks, but I think this book's error is a testament to it, not an indication of any anti-2A movement.

The truth is not infinitely plastic. I would bet that some controversial opinions are bared from the debate. This is exactly what it appears to be. And since I know better I call foul.

Can't wait till they deal with the controvesy of the 10th amendment..

Defund the schools if this is the best you can do.

 

[HiballHiside]

my son got in trouble in 9th grade for writing the second amendment as i told it to him because it didnt match what was in the school books. they wouldnt even let him bring the book home for me to look at. he wrote it down and brought it home to me and it basically said the army and police have the right to keep and bear arms. i made a seen at the school and was not allowed back. that was about 8 years ago so if you live in md check and see what they are teaching your kids. you would be amazed.

I have some friends back in Illinois where they are issuing IPADs instead of books. This worries me! It's almost like we need need to take an active roll in our childrens education... I can hear the teacher now...Oh...yeah umm I was just making sure the parents were paying attention!

 

[Bel Air Guy]

I said many not all teachers. You may not expel but you send them to an administrative office where removal happens. I have respect for any teacher that is skilled in his/her craft. I have no tolerance for those that impart their personal views as truth to young minds. Please do not take this as a personal assault, I thank god that we still have some teachers that are skilled and concerned about education. The future of our nation will be determined by the generation of young Americans now in school. Again I hope you didn't take this personally but this is America and I get to voice my opinion.

 

[Indiana Jones]

I had ONE pro gun teacher in high school. The rest were bleeding hear morons.

 

[hvymax]

Remember Hitler said that if he could control the text books he would control Germany. I wonder where this re-write would propose to lead?

There you go Godwin. No matter how complete and true the parallels are.

 

[parksd70]

I said many not all teachers. You may not expel but you send them to an administrative office where removal happens. I have respect for any teacher that is skilled in his/her craft. I have no tolerance for those that impart their personal views as truth to young minds. Please do not take this as a personal assault, I thank god that we still have some teachers that are skilled and concerned about education. The future of our nation will be determined by the generation of young Americans now in school. Again I hope you didn't take this personally but this is America and I get to voice my opinion.

Absolutely not!! I just didn't want the misconception out there that teachers can expel students. I really think you'd be surprised though, because in my experience, it's the minority of teachers who try to impart their own personal views on students (I will admit I've worked with them though). The majority are well intentioned, educated, and civil. In my mind, it's only fair that teachers present every viewpoint that a student is likely to hear. They don't have to say which is right or wrong, or even what they believe. Students are intellegent and can form their own opinions. However, to not afford students the opportunity early to be exposed to varying views is a disservice. Again, I my reference Catholic students who did not know other faiths existed. Simply not preparing them for the real world.

However, this still doesn't excuse the text error the OP brought up. The point I'm making is that teachers don't blindly follow texts, they generally don't impose their views heavyhandedly, and the tests (such as the AP exams) do an okay job overall. I don't think this error (or intentional misquote, we can't say either way) is going to brainwash masses of students.

Someone earlier said children are sponges and will soak up whatever they hear/read. I wish this were fully true, because I know a lot of students don't soak up textbook reading. Though I still assign it, I know if I don't cover something in class myself, students will not learn it. Research does support this idea.

 

[Long1MD]

MOST teachers that I have met are Liberals. I am not speculating...this is first hand knowledge. Also, thevast majority of teachers in K-8 are women. Sadly, women on average, seem to take an anti-gun aproach when you speak to them. I am not sure if this is because of lack of knowledge or general maternal instict, but I'm doing my best to calmly educate anyone who is on the fence...male or female. I wonder how they vote at the poles.

 

[parksd70]

I had ONE pro gun teacher in high school. The rest were bleeding hear morons.

Right, and I'm sure you took the time to sit down with the 35+ teachers you had throughout high school and individually pick their brains about their views on gun control? If not, then who are you to say they weren't pro-gun?

If most of my students made an objective judgement of me, they'd realize pretty quick that I am pretty Liberal. If they leave it there, they'll assume I'm also anti-gun. Which, as I think I've made plenty clear, I am not.

That the problem with a strict two-party split...we too easily place mass labels on people, most of whom are probably rather moderate. There are Liberals who support gun rights, and Conservatives who are pro-life. Saying someone is liberal or conservative is far too broad and doesn't describe people accurately.

EDIT: @ Indiana Jones...Personally, I think most teachers are Liberal because they almost all are union. Anyone union is likely going to lean Liberal. I know plenty of teachers who vote Democrat and yet are social conservatives.

@Long1MD...I agree with what you said. Most teachers are in fact generally identify as Liberal. I'm just saying the Liberal label, just like the Conservative label, don't describe a person well. Like I said, I consider myself Liberal, which most would think means I don't support 2A rights, but that couldn't be further from the truth. As to the poles, I really just don't think gun control is a major deciding factor for a lot of people. This is just speculation, however the lack of informed people I've met here in Md, Conservative and Liberal, is astonishing. Guess I just rolled in the right circles back in Pa.

 

[Atlasarmory]

SOABBMF

 

[6-Pack]

Also...where in the 7A does it say you have the right to a trial by 6 people?

And for 6A, why are you quoting Miranda Rights? No where does it say you'll be appointed an attorney. It says you have the benefit of the "Assistance of Counsel" for your defense.

If you're going to quote, at least quote right! Zero points for citing sources!

I apologize, I learned court cases interpreting the Constiution. 7A guarantees you a right to a jury trial for civil cases exceeding $20 - 6 jurors have been found to be constitutionally sufficient and 5 have been determined to be unconstitutional.

As far as 6A, the "Miranda" Rights stem from the 5A and 6A. In the Miranda case, it was determined that police has to advise detainees of their 5A right against self incrimination ("you have the right to remain silent"). Another case (the name escapes me) determined that police had to provide you the right to an attorney during an interrogation ("you have the right to an attorney"). Yet another case established the public defender system and police had to advise detainees of those rights as well ("if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you"). Everything except the first part against self incrimination comes from 6A - it's just "dumbed down."

 

[Hopalong]

If the book in question was published pre-Heller, it's actually a valid summary of how the Second Amendnent was interpreted at the time. Sad but true. If it's post-Heller? Yeah, no excuse.

Of course, I think summarizing the Bill of Rights at all is a bad idea, especially given how succinct it is.

 

[briwayjones]

Just read the 1st amendment, it does not say anything about the separation between church and state, this was Thomas Jefferson's opinion as he described it in his letters to Danbury. It did eventually become what we understand today.

Actually there is not a concept of a separation of "church and state" as it is used today, from the founding fathers. The Constitution does not talk about such a thing. What it does say is that the government can't declare a national religion, or impose religion on the people, or restrict religion. In that letter Jefferson when saying "separation of church and state" was saying that the government can't or shouldn't be able to interfere in Danbury's religious practices. He was not using it as it is used today.

If I remember correctly the concept of separation of church and state came from a Supreme Court judge, not base on anything but her opinion. And it just stuck around.

 

[Bel Air Guy]

Geez, sorry everyones getting so angry about our kids education. I wasn't trying to push anyones buttons, just voice my opinion. Why don't we agree that there are great, good, not so good and bad people in every occupation (mine included). Now lets go kill some paper, that always takes my mind off everything else.

 

[press1280]

It seems this book has been around for a while now. I went to Amazon and the comments go back to 2003. I don't know if the version referenced is pre or post-Heller. Pre-Heller I can believe what they wrote about the 2A. Post Heller either they're pushing an agenda or they didn't do any updates.

 

[omegared24]

I'd go ballistic, bring the constitution, Heller and McDonald cases and demand they teach what it currenty is, not some bullcrap propaganda. Seriously, I'd not back down on this one.

You would?

Why don't you. It is a free country. As a tax payer you have every right to do exactly what you are saying. Maybe you will even get credit in a book for your efforts.

Keep us posted on your progress.

 

[pilotguy299]

Absolutely not!! I just didn't want the misconception out there that teachers can expel students.
....

Principals and vice principals are teachers.

Principals and vice principals can expel or suspend students.