Gun Enthusiasts Take Aim at Denton Guyer Over Innocuous AP History Texts

Thumbnail image for USHISTORYPREPARINGFORAP.jpg
Don't let the faux-patriotic American-flag cover fool you.
Denton, despite the best efforts of the UNT student body and its lefty professors, has managed to hold on to the attributes of your typical small Texas city. A lot of people there still enjoy pickups, which they drive to high school football games while listening to country music and eating barbecue.

Liberals, known despisers of freedom and barbecue, can't stand this and are quietly redoubling their efforts to wring the last hints of Texas out of Denton. The always indispensable Guns 'n' Freedom provides the evidence:

As more schools try to revise US history, it has been found that Guyer High School in Denton, Texas is using an AP History book that completely changes the 2nd amendment in an attempt to try to "simplify" what it says. But with more educators trying to brainwash kids into thinking that gun owners are "evil" and guns are the real problem in the world, it's clear that these changes to the 2nd amendment is not a mistake.

Watch. Here's the actual Second 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.

And here's the bastardized version that appears in United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination:

The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia.

See? The Blaze, Glenn Beck's mouthpiece of truth, does.

Based on the book's interpretation, citizens only retain the right to bear arms in a "state militia," a case where citizens are called upon during emergencies to protect the state. Not surprisingly, many would take issue with that interpretation.

It could certainly be an accidental misinterpretation by the textbook's author, but people are clearly unhappy with the language and there is already an effort under way to make school officials at Guyer High School aware of the discrepancy.

That effort is being led by a San Antonio blogger RobHino, who posted a (figurative) call to arms on a Ron Paul fan site.

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. ... 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.

He urges readers to complain to the school via letter and show up at Denton ISD's September 24 school board meeting.

"It is our duty to stop stuff like this," he writes.

Denton ISD spokeswoman Sharon Cox, audibly weary either from repeatedly fielding the same question or being forced to defend a liberal brainwashing campaign, said that the textbook in question isn't really a textbook but a supplement that is kept in AP History classrooms in case students want an additional resource. The Constitution, she says, is taught using source documents.

It doesn't seem like that happens very often, and she's not really sure how the current controversy got started.

"One parent posted it, or someone posted it on a Facebook page, and then a gun group saw it and then sent it to all their gun members," Cox said. "It's been totally taken out of context."

She described the response as a "trickle."

[h/t Frontburner]


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
88 comments
americanvalues
americanvalues

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” 

MattL11
MattL11

As much as I hate to admit it, the gun nuts have a point. There's no real reason to print the "shortened" version as opposed to the real thing, and it does potentially change the meaning quite a bit. I'm not sure I'd ascribe motive to it, but it's a pretty significant change.  

Anonamouse
Anonamouse

The freedom speech and assembly shall not be infringed... it will just be relegated to fenced-off areas well away from cameras or anyone who might hear it.

observist
observist topcommenter

"it's clear that these changes to the 2nd amendment is not a mistake."

Apparently Guns 'n' Freedom has some issues with the AP English text as well.

Sotiredofitall
Sotiredofitall topcommenter

It's a freakin' AP History Class text book and they don't print the full language for discussion? Makes me wonder what they reduced this and the rest of the constitution to in the "regular" text book.   It's just lazy

leftocenter
leftocenter

I'm an avowed "libtard" according to many posters here...but, I have to object to paraphrasing the bill of rights.  It's a fine document, well-written, and concise.  It clearly states the reason the right to bear arms is included, although most pro-gun types ignore the first half of the sentence.

Let's not paraphrase our founding fathers' words...let's just continue to disagree about what they mean.  That's a fair discussion.

americanvalues
americanvalues

why do yall only care about the 2nd ammendment?  I see a roadside search every day by troopers without a warrant, the nsa spys on you, You should have your damn gun and I shouldnt be searched or spied on without a goddamn warrant.

John1073
John1073

sum·ma·ryˈsəmərē/nounnoun: summary; plural noun: summaries

  1. 1. a brief statement or account of the main points of something.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

Denton ISD spokeswoman Sharon Cox....said that the textbook in question isn't really a textbook but a supplement that is kept in AP History classrooms in case students want an additional resource. The Constitution, she says, is taught using source documents.

So this whole bruhaha is not about what is being taught to the students in a classroom, is not contained in a textbook, but is a single line from a supplement used by students as a prep for the AP exam? good grief.

so much for the "attempting to redefine the 2nd Amendment" and "educators trying to brainwash kids". what a load.

Holywood
Holywood

Three false premises in one paragraph:

"As more schools try to revise US history... (and) with more educators trying to brainwash kids into thinking that gun owners are "evil" and guns are the real problem in the world, it's clear that these changes to the 2nd amendment is not a mistake."


jagintx
jagintx

According to Sharon Cox, ISD spokesperson, they are not sure how the controversy started.  I'm sure how it started, people are fed up with schools pushing a liberal agenda on our kids.   

Liberals used the "well regulated militia" argument in the past as a way to try restricting personal ownership of guns and they lost.  They claimed the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to the citizens, just state militias.  Seems they have not given up their quest to rewrite the Constitution to meet their agenda.  They did not like the Supreme Court ruling that the 2nd Amendment applies to "people".  

This is NOT taken out of context, this is what some liberal wrote, published and pushed as fact.  Completely misrepresenting a Constitutional Amendment is wrong, a lie, and shows how utterly contemptible the left can be.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

Tim Covington has it right, but because he posted it first, it's lost in the nattering.

The big problem with the line is that is wrong.  Flat out.  Adding "in militias" is as bad as saying that the 1st amendment guarantees "freedom of the press for newspapers."  It's highly limiting to the amendment, and, even worse for a textbook, wrong.

This issue was decided decisively by the SCOTUS in Heller and affirmed in McDonald v Chicago and others.  The second amendment is an individual right, and it has no legal link to militias, just like how freedom of the press has no legal link to newspapers.

If you are arguing against the creationism in textbooks but think this is no big deal, then you are a disgusting hypocrite and an idiot to boot.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

Was it just too cumbersome to reprint all 27 words of the amendment? It seems like a pretty labored assumption that a 27 word phrase needed to be simplified to 14 words for the sake of brevity in this publication.

My question to the defenders of this rephrasing would be: Why not just print the amendment as the framers originally worded it? What is your agenda?

ruddski
ruddski

"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Hayley Miller / (212)854-2604

Americans Don�t Know Their Constitution

Columbia Law Survey Finds Confusion Over Founding Fathers vs. Karl Marx

Almost two thirds of Americans think Karl Marx's maxim, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was or could have been written by the framers and included in the Constitution, according to a nationwide survey commissioned by Columbia Law School.

observist
observist topcommenter

@leftocenter  I agree with everything you said except "well-written and concise".  If that were true, there wouldn't be anything in the 2nd amendment to disagree about.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

@americanvalues  

Back in the 30's the Supreme Court ruled that a police officer may search a vehicle based upon reasonable suspicion.  The Court decided that if the police officer were to go to the nearest judge to obtain a search warrant, it would be very likely that the owner of the vehicle would flee the scene as soon as the police officer left.  Of course this was in the days before police car to station 2 way radios. 

Just remember, if a police officer asks for permission to search your vehicle, politely decline.  If he insists on searching the vehicle, ask him for his reasonable suspicion for why your vehicle should be searched.

One time I was asked by a police officer if he could search my vehicle.  I asked him if my response made any difference.  He said no, and never mind.


The NSA is an entirely different situation and in my opinion way out of line.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @americanvalues I'm sure that if you look through these comments, it will be impossible to find anywhere where I object to the behavior of the police, mention the requirement to show actual probable cause or a warrant for searches, any displeasure of the NSA and its techniques, etc etc.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@americanvalues The comments concerning warrantless wiretaps, illegal searches and other non-second amendment rights violations will probably be found under blog entries/articles that pertain to warrantless wiretaps, illegal searches and other non-second amendment rights violations. This particular article is concerned with 2nd amendment-type concerns.  Get it?

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@John1073 

You don't really believe that a 27 word phrase really requires a summary.

To quote Andy DuFresne: How could you be so obtuse?

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@mavdog 

Fine. I'll accept that there are no ulterior motives for this if you can reasonably answer why they just wouldn't publish the amendment in its entirety.

The 27 word amendment that was paraphrased (poorly) in 14 words.

I'd dearly love to read or see an interview with the people responsible for this at every level, right up to publication.

pak152
pak152

@mavdog sorry but you're off-base here. and the spokeswoman is not earning her salary.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@mavdog I think the bruhaha is about the obvious intent of the paraphrasing: to redefine the 2nd amendment.  The SC has ruled several times, the latest being in Heller, that the 2nd protects an Individual's right to own firearms.  In fact, in Heller, the laws struck down by the SC didn't even ban all firearms, only handguns.  Still, it was deemed unconstitutional, as were the 'disassembled or trigger-locked state' for storage, which would render the firearm useless for its favored lawful purpose of self defense.

The valid question was already asked here:  If these are AP students, is it necessary to paraphrase (incorrectly) the 2nd amendment in order for them to understand it?  If so, I would submit that the AP program has set the bar way too low.

P1Gunter
P1Gunter

@Holywood Pretty sure that was sarcasm holmes. At least that's how I read it.

P1Gunter
P1Gunter

@jagintx What exactly is the anti-well regulated militia argument? It says well regulated militia in the fucking document. It's right there, clear as day. Did "liberals" somehow invent a time machine and go back in time to change it?

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

@jagintx Militias.  In 2013.  So, how in the hell does a militia from the 18th century have anything in common with today's paranoid, extreme White Supremacists?

observist
observist topcommenter

@everlastingphelps  5-4 constitutes a decisive decision?  Can you provide examples of indecisive SC decisions?

doublecheese
doublecheese

@everlastingphelps The problem is, you are saying that to "living, breathing document" types who actually dislike what is written in the constitution.  That's why they go with the "living, breathing document" approach, so they can make it mean whatever they want, rather than what is written.  

leftocenter
leftocenter

@observist Now, cut the founders some slack...our language was different back then.  For their time and purpose, it was pretty darned good...

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @observist @leftocenter There isn't anything to disagree with if you make an objective reading.  It's only when people project their desires to restrict arms on it (exactly what it prohibits) that the tortured readings start coming out.

pak152
pak152

@observist @leftocenterso what do you disagree about? read this blog post by a law school prof
"Let’s begin by noting that the amendment’s second clause can be preceded by any subordinate clause of your imagination without altering its meaning.  To wit: “A high net worth being necessary to date a supermodel…”  “It being necessary to keep your friends close but your enemies closer…”"
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/12/it-being-necessary-to-cut-through-the-blather-about-the-second-amendment-before-we-lose-our-rights/

ruddski
ruddski

How about summarizing the definition of summary?

Holywood
Holywood

@P1Gunter @Holywood I'm pretty sure the "Guns-n-Freedom" blog that authored those statements wasn't being sarcastic.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @P1Gunter @jagintx Okay, in addition to the right of the people to keep and bears arms, we also have the right to a well regulated (which, in the original meaning, means "well trained and equipped") militia.

Given the spirit of the Right to a Living Wage and the Right to Healthcare, we have a Right to a Well Regulated Militia.

When do I get my government issued M-16 and my ammunition allotments?

jagintx
jagintx

@P1Gunter @jagintx The liberal argument is the 2nd Amendment only applies to a well regulated militia.  The fact is, it applies to citizens and militias.  The right of the "PEOPLE" not the right of the militia. 

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@P1Gunter @jagintx It also says "the right of the People" in the 'fucking document', and that is how the SC interprets the amendment: a right of the people, not the State and not conditional upon membership in a Militia.

jagintx
jagintx

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz @jagintx You're really close to proving yourself an ignorant, narrow minded, liberal, uninformed, bigot.  You're making the claim that all gun owners are extreme white supremacists.  I'm a gun owner and NOT an extreme anything.  I'm a boring, law abiding citizen.  You might like to think that getting rid of guns will stop all the madness - WRONG!  You are an idiot if you think that.  Look at the countries that have outlawed guns,  Look at Chicago, they have some of the toughest gun laws in the USA.  Look at DC, same thing.  All you're going to do is take the guns out of the hands of people who know what a weapon is, accept the responsibility for owning weapons and are willing to use them to protect their families, their neighbors, friends, themselves and yes, even people like you.  I pray you are never in a situation where you need saving, but if you are, I hope a free, gun-toting citizen twill be nearby.  Here's something to consider: ""Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." --Cesare Beccaria.  Look him up,  read his stuff, might educate you just a little. 

l.s.m.f.t
l.s.m.f.t

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz 

If you're not paranoid then you must not be paying attention. Waiting for the day when you type 'paranoid, extreme (fill in capitalized non-Caucasian group here) Supremacists'. Ain't ever gonna happen though.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz @jagintx 

It just. Doesn't. Matter.

Unless and until such time as there is a legal change to the document, it must be interpreted as written.

Why not just reprint the entire text? Why eliminate those 13 words?

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @observist @everlastingphelps Decisive in that it said without equivocation, "the right to keep and bears arms in an individual right."  The end.

An indecisive vote is one like Bush v Gore, where instead of dealing with the underlying issue, they say, "oh, uh, we just don't have time to deal with this" or the Obamacare ruling, where they said, "you know, Congress doesn't have the power to make people buy something, but if you sort of squint at this sideways, it's kind of like a tax, so meh, go ahead."

John1073
John1073

A brief statement of main points

ruddski
ruddski

Karl Marx fathered 17 of Myrna's 38 cats.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...