oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Something like this has been here before but it hurts me, the old history and government teacher, to read what is being done with high school students these days. I would accept the words of the 2nd Amendment but when they get twisted like here I want to kick the butts of the writers along with any teacher who would use this book.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/16/wait-until-you-see-how-a-high-school-textbook-summarizes-the-rights-granted-in-the-second-amendment/

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Here is a chance to see what is happening with this definition of Amendment 2 in many textbooks that have to do with Common Core. I really don't think we need things like this and that Common Core is to blame for most of it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/17/publisher-of-ap-history-book-containing-questionable-second-amendment-summary-has-direct-ties-to-common-core-and-theres-more/

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Yep, if it comes from The Blaze it is nothing but right side lies. Yes, no.

Schuler Loc: Santa Fe NM

Hmmm-revisionist history at its best! I f your child is a student in this school and being taught this drivel -then ya needs to protest! Go to a school board meeting and demand the book be heh-heh-heh- burned--just kidding-just kidding. But parents, history and 'civics teachers' -(what's that?) -can find real purpose by taking issue with this sort of outright constitutional error. This sort of intellectual claptrap-if not deliberate historical distortion-- is exactly why the country is in such a sorry political condition. The kids do not need 'alternative interpretations' of the Constitution-at least not at this juncture of their education---they need some good 'ol fashioned book larnin' about the real thing. Save the alternative analysis/meaning for graduate school!!!

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Did you not see that the book this definition of the 2nd Amendment was for 11th grade history students? If I had ever had to teach from a book like that, and I did it for 28 years, I would have been in real hot water for buying books that didn't try to define the amendment like that. Oh yes, I would have bought them out of my own pocket because I will not take part in lies like that concerning the Constitution.

How will children be able to read the Constitution as it was originally written once they fail to be taught to use cursive writing? I have to wonder if that could be part of the dropping of cursive.

rumitoid

Please don't shot me. I am just asking an honest question about the 2nd Amendment. Don't infer anything. Okay? What does "a well-regulated militia" mean? And I should say I disagree with that textbook's corrupted definition.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I know that you disagree with that corrupted definition of the 2nd Amendment, but I can't tell you what a well regulated militia in the days when that was written was. I would surmise that there is a chance that they were thinking about groups like the "Minutemen" and so forth. What do you think they meant.

rumitoid

It seems to suggest an organized force of some sort, perhaps like volunteer firemen, but it may not have been limited to a strictly regimented group. I am going to do a little research.

rumitoid

Here are two interesting reads:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

The second one was, in my opinion, the better of the two.

"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."

A few things stand out from what I read. If we take it that nearly all citizens at the time had arms, why not just say "All citizens have the right to keep and bear arms and this shall not be infringed upon." Instead, it specifies what part of the citizenry has this right and who is protected by this right from infringement. Again, taking it that nearly all citizens at that time had arms, it also suggests the understanding that unregulated private ownership was necessary and acceptable and not to be banned but did not have the protection from infringement (meaning reasonable gun control, not taking away the guns).

Just my take but it should make for some firew...er, interesting debate.

rumitoid

It is hard to take the term "well regulated" and somehow think any and all gun control is wrong, an infringement. Regulated means controlled, the establishment of some standards and practices. Again, if it is clearly stipulated that protection of non-infringement is for the militia, and it is to be well-regulated, how does the unregulated populace get an unregulated right to keep and bear arms?

The state or federal government are in charge of any militia, giving both the regulatory powers.