AP History Textbook Rewrites the Second Amendment

An AP history textbook has rewritten the Second Amendment. Here’s the Constitution’s wording:

“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.”

Here’s the AP history textbook’s reworking of the text:

 “Second Amendment: The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia”AP_Second Amendment

The revision interprets the Second Amendment in a way that concludes that the only way it’s constitutional to “keep and bear arms” is for a person to be part of a “state militia.” United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination gets it backwards as the following article points out:

“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.

High School history textbooks have been used as propaganda props for decades. Mel and Norma Gabler scrutinized textbooks and wrecked havoc on the textbook industry for nearly 50 years. They got involved in reviewing textbooks when they found factual errors in their 14-year old son’s textbook, in particular, the absence of the phrase “under God” from the text of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

Further study showed interpretive bias on economic, political, and religious subjects. Their most famous find was a 1973 fifth-grade American history textbook that devoted more attention to Marilyn Monroe than to George Washington. Norma Gabler remarked, “We’re not quite ready for Marilyn Monroe as the mother of our country.”monroe_washington

In 2001, Time magazine reported that their “scroll of shame” of textbook mistakes since 1961 was 54 feet long. In the early 1990s, Texas fined publishers about $1 million for failing to remove hundreds of factual errors the Gablers had found in 11 history books. An example: A textbook said that Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina had supported the tariff of 1816. He opposed it.1

The public schools have done a great job in shifting worldview thinking from theism to humanism right under the noses of parents who extol the virtues of America’s government education system. Consider how some textbooks handled the subject of religion in the founding of America prior to the Texas TEKS guidelines.

One elementary school social studies book has thirty pages of material “on the Pilgrims,” Paul Vitz writes in his book on textbook censorship, “including the first Thanksgiving.”

“But there is not one word (or image) that referred to religion as even a part of the Pilgrims’ life. One mother whose son is in a class using this book wrote . . . that he came home and told her that ‘Thanksgiving was when the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians.’ The mother called the principal of this suburban New York City school to point out that Thanksgiving was when the Pilgrims thanked God. The principal responded by saying ‘that was her opinion’ — the schools could only teach what was in the books!”2

I suspect that the teaching of America’s Christian history has not improved much since Vitz did his study. School boards and textbook writers can’t hide the truth any longer. As Russell Shorto has to admit the following in his New York Times article “How Christian were the Founders?”:

“There is . . . one slightly awkward issue for hard-core secularists who would combat what they see as a Christian whitewashing of American history: the Christian activists have a certain amount of history on their side.”

What’s true on rewriting what’s true about religion is spilling over into every area of education.

  1. Douglas Martin, “Norma Gabler, Leader of Crusade on Textbooks, Dies at 84,” New York Times (August 1, 2007). []
  2. Paul C. Vitz, Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children’s Textbooks (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1986), 3. []



  • Chris M

    I presume your "personal code of honor" doesn't include checking facts. The page comes from a test-prep book that lists their interpretation of the bill of rights, and does not purport to be reproducing the text itself. Had you spent 45 seconds in Google, you would have figured that out. Instead, it's just another "fact" that fits your persecution narrative.

    I haven't reviewed the full text of the book. (It's a test-prep book, not a primary textbook, by the way.) If it's view on con-law is that the militia-only view is 1. what the founders had in mind and/or 2. the current state of caselaw, it would be wrong on #2 and making a misstatement about the various opinions of the founders on the subject.

    Consequently, if an AP student were writing an essay on the second amendment and failed to note relevant caselaw on the fact, such as Presser v. Illinois, it's quite likely they would receive low marks.

    Since this textbook is not published by the College Board, you also need to prove that they are complicit in this revisionism, rather than just the publisher failing to put out a quality textbook. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

    • Proud Texan

      My my my. These writers not checking facts and going bonkers. What a surprise. My replay was that was their I terpretation of an interpretation. But thanks for citing silly ings like sources. And a 45 Second google surely sent y to a communist site. THEY ARE EVERYWHERE.

      • 57Chevy

        Boy do we have some kooks on this site or what!!!!!

      • dstudie

        I've got news for everyone. You are all part of your state of residence's militia whether you want to be or not.

        • SnibboDmoT

          Yep...United States Code:

          10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

          (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
          (b) The classes of the militia are—
          (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
          (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    • MikeinOK

      I was going to say something about facts confusing the posters on this site but then the very first reply said it for me.

    • Fred

      If they are teaching history, then their opinion should not be included. The schools are not in the business of having opinions, they are supposed to teach facts only. the pupils do not deserve to hear the opinions of anybody, let alone a leftist activist. The children are supposed to derive their own opinion from the facts, without an incorrect twist to the left.

      • dwught

        History is not just facts but opinions of the facts. Opinion is what brings it to life. and everyone has opinions.

        • Jackie

          No. Opinion is not History. Only true facts are history. Things that really happened. Not someones biased or blurred opinion of events. Real events.

        • Frank

          Opinions do not bring facts to life. Opinion kills facts.

        • D

          That'll hold up in court. Since when are we free to interpret law? Wake up.

        • Fistdeyuma

          There is nothing wrong with stating an opinion of you also state the other side. What we object to is giving the student one side of the issue and them telling them to decide for themselves. The old computer GI/GO. Liberals depend on ignorance; as informed people would see your average Liberal hung for crimes against people.

        • Steve Ramsay

          You happen to be dummer than a rock if you think opinions are as fact. So if I say in my opinion obama is a moron that is true with your thinking, but by voicing that opinion, does not make it fact or to you maybe it does.

        • drew

          No. 'Opinions' of history are irrelevant, in teaching history.

        • Sue4tea

          Yes, everyone has opinions; and everone has an a$$hole; and they all stink! None is history. History is simply dry facts: who, what, where, when.

        • Patty

          "History is not just facts"??? Opinions have nothing to do with the FACTS, dude; facts are facts.

        • Barbara

          Fred is correct and your post is just plain ignorance dwught. History is history you moron!

        • kalamawashington

          Sue4tea says: "History is simply dry facts: who, what, where, when." This is true, but there is one very important "w" that was left out. "Why". That is just as important as the other four. This is where the "opinion" part comes in.

          There is a discipline called "Historiography". Here is a definition of it: Furay and Salevouris (1988) define historiography as "the study of the way history has been and is written – the history of historical writing... When you study 'historiography' you do not study the events of the past directly, but the changing interpretations of those events in the works of individual historians."(Wikipedia)

          If you study history in a serious way, you research primary sources, as well as the writings of people (historians) of the past about a particular occurrence. As you do this you will see that the context of the times that this "history" was written colors the telling of the tale.

          Naturally, any writer feels that "his" interpretation of the "facts" and "causes" is the correct one. I did some research for a paper in college about the early British Colonial period in the Americas. In doing so, I researched both primary and secondary sources. It was amazing to compare: 1) what they were saying in the British Parliament vs. the Colonist's view of the same actions, and 2) how the historians through the years from 1763 to 1971 view the happenings. It showed to me how one's own "prejudices" and changes in the culture of a nation or group of people color their writing of history.

          So, there is "History", as long as you get all the first four "w"'s correct (and sometimes that is even up for discussion", and then there is the "History" in which we get the "entire" story, but only in the view of the person who is writing it.

        • speedle

          That is the inane comment of the day. Someone has been completely brainwashed by Clintonista logic. Sorry pal, history is composed of FACTS, not opinons of what the facts might be. Opinions are reserved for the editorial pages.

    • http://www.endisfar.com Steve Morris

      A 'test-prep' book should get it RIGHT!. All this BS about interpretation is nonfactual as well. Contracts, which the Constitution is between the States and the Federal Gov't, are not open to Interpretation lest they be Null and Void.

      The reasoning behind the 2nd came from the Scots not being able to possess Arms (Swords, Muskets, etc) so they were easy to Rule.

      How can a contract that has two or more interpretations be enforced?

      • vistacharlie

        Many of the bill of rights were written because of british abuses that were done in the colonies. Many of our laws and rulings were influenced by british history. Among these were the 1689 BRITISH bill of rights where among many things all citizens could carry guns. Before this protestants could not carry guns but catholics could.

        I agree that the posted interpretation is a liberal farce.
        However under the militia act of 1792 i consider myself as part of the defined unorganized militia. under the militia act militia members were required to buy their own military equipment. So if we are dancing to their tune i guess according to supported documentation of the interpretered era i need a bigger garage for the F22, not merely equipment for personal defense. :-)

        • READER

          It is almost impossible to argue, based on the Constitution and the intents behind the 2nd Amendment, that there is much of any military hardware that would be out of the scope of the private citizen to own, provided they could afford it. Nuclear weapons, having no purpose in local and/or home defense outside a deterrent and retaliatory weapon would be out. It gets a little edgy on things like tanks and fighter jets, but to say they are can be legally prohibited under the Constitution, one must first confirm that private citizens in the late 1700s and early 1800s were legally prohibited anything larger and more powerful than a musket, especially things like explosives and cannon. Well, they had explosives, so that isn't prohibited under the Constitution. Now I'm wondering about cannons. (I think I'm going to buy me a Howitzer and a tank.)

      • Steven

        The Constitution is a contract, but the Federal government is NOT a party to, but a creation of, that contract. The PEOPLE, acting through the States, are the parties to the contract.

        • Jack Hanyak

          Steve,as you know a contract is a legal document that outlines a mutual agreement between two parties. Your assertion that the Federal Government was not a party to the contract is correct in that it did not exist. But it was one between the 13 signing states; and, remains such unto this day. I recently read about Texas and several other states are seeking to remove themselves from their ties with the other states and the government the Constitution established. I think that would be a mistake for it can only lead to an air of confusion and, perhaps, even another Civil War. In recent history we have witnessed the USSR and other nations made up of various "states" split apart and return to individual countries.. Which leads me to my question for you: Where is the clause in the Constitution that a state is able to "pull out" of it's "contractual" duty that they agreed to with the enactment of the Constitution; and how can we stop it?

        • chief

          true that the federal government was not an entity in 1787. The constitution written was a contract between the people in the states - not just the states but the people themselves - with one another to create a centralized government (to an extent) with limited powers - not an encompassing nightmare with unlimited power over the people.

          As it now stands the relationship between the federal government and the people is completely ass backward. The people are left powerless while the fedgov is the unstoppable force in their own pov. I'm not sure how this can be reversed, but to live under a constitutional government - as written - it must be changed.

          Mr. Obama is correct on one thing. Change is needed - just not the kind of change he so strongly desires. But in slightly modified words of Franklin - (we have had) 'a republic, Madam, if you can keep it.'

      • dwught

        Contracts are always open to interpretation. You want to write contracts so everyone agrees on what it says.

        • Steven

          Everyone DID interpret the 2nd amendment the same way for the first 100 years of so. Those of us that use ENGLISH still do.

        • gabrit

          I write contracts and I do my best to ensure that they are not able to be "Interpreted". If contracts are witten open to interpretation they are poorly written. There is nothing in the second ammendment that is open to interpretation. There are those that want to change it so they "interpret it" for their own liberal purposes.

        • Frank

          Contracts open to interpretation are no contract at all. Just bird cage liners

        • http://misssionoutreach.org Ray Downen

          Historical facts need to be presented as the actual facts they are, not as some today want them to have been understood. The publisher was writing what some professors wanted the texts to say.

        • john

          In order for any law or contract for that manner to be legal and binding it must not be ambiguous. If ambiguous and subject to interpretation, the law is useless without meaning.

    • Jesse

      Sounds as if you have bought to the leftist propaganda. Probably educated in our public schools within the last 20 years.

    • StrasburgParent

      You have to be so stupid as to write all this crap and don't think that the writer of the boock did not had in mind of changing perseption of the SSecond Amendment.

    • No Name

      You be listen to ole bill maher ,or is that mare? The only way a liberal believes anything he doesn't agree with, is with a 2 x 4 striking him/she {one and the same} which awakens them from their stupor of reading Marx and the speeches of Mao and Fidele. If you hate freedom, religion, faith, honor, patriotism so much, LEAVE!!!!

      • http://godfatherpolitics danimal

        Been saying that for years...LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!

    • loran

      You are a typical progressive. The author has stated that this was an AP textbook. As we all know, AP and google both are left leaning organizations. We also know what liberals believe and how they like to challenge conservatives with no empirical evidence or fact. Now just the idea of AP producing anything they call a textbook with twisted facts and wordings is proof that they are floating an idea for progressives to clamor onto. This will be written into a textbook at some point unless we conservatives set the country straight.

      • Sean


        I am a staunch conservative republican so don't take this the wrong way, but I think the "AP" was referring to "Advanced Placement" not the Associated Press. Please you are making us look like idiots. Can we all think for a second and breathe before we respond!!!

        • fatman45

          You are right of course about what AP means in this context but don't you think "idiot" is a little too harsh? Besides, Loran is not wrong about either Google or the Associated Press being leftist organizations with an agenda!

        • Roland

          Falling down laughing out loud

      • http://[email protected] Mecki

        You should look up what AP means in secondary education before you comment on it.
        Mecki, a retired teacher
        Ps: I had to teach author bias sometimes before teaching out of a text book and then comment on the bias in the book so the students were not so easily indoctrinated.

      • Chris

        While I agree with your basic point, I must point out to you that AP does not refer to the media organization, AP stands for "Advanced Placement" which is for students that are above average in a particular subject and also earns them college credit. My daughter was in AP Calculus, English, and Government, it used to be called "gifted & talented".

    • Roger

      Even if it is a prep test book, isn't that dancing closely to the flames?

      • Steven

        Actually, it is dancing IN the flames an AP (advance placement) textbook and a test prep book are two terms for the same thing.

    • Centurian

      Chris M, so your justification of this is that it is a test prep book. A study guide with a gross inaccuracy in it about a Constitutional Amendment. So providing false study information is the new excuse and that is somehow acceptable to you so long as it spreads the liberal lies. Then you try to spin it to try to make this site look inaccurate. Can't you liberals come up with better excuses. You are like your dear leader 0blunder who is blaming technology for his policies and the decline in job growth. Lame.

    • Doris

      The description of the book, United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination,on Amazon, states the following:

      "This text is designed for a one-semester or one-year United States history course for students preparing to take the AP U.S. History Exam. Teachers can assign the book as the course textbook or as a supplement to a college-level textbook."

      If you read the clip from the book, it clearly states it is a "summary of the rights guaranteed in each amendment."
      “Second Amendment: The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia”

      Clearly, this is a liberal, progressive summary of the 2nd Amendment, intended to mislead the reader.

    • john811c

      The Advanced placement study guide says exactly that and rewords the constitution as the right of the citizens to bear arms and puts a qualifier only if they are part of a militia. This is not what the constitution says. Since most high school students will take this as fact since it is for college entrance. This is the indoctrination that the schools are doing and most liberals want us to accept the re-written version as truth. It should be given as word for word as the structure clearl shows that the right to bear arms allows for the creation of a peoples militia and not the other way around

    • seeker_n

      sounds like a $400.00 / hour ambulance chaser posting FREE opinions. But you know what they say about opinions!

    • http://www.notone.com GM

      Any idiot can be on the internet...problem with the book is that some of the kids, when they are listening, will read this AP crap and get 'confused' and think its real History. My 10 year old is starting to think we came from some version of an ape! I told him Darwin's theory was just a theory and NOT settled science but first facts told remain cemented as facts and are hard to remove. Kids are easy to fool when in school. Jus' sayin'

    • C Marsh

      Sorry, this isn't just some "militia" Opinion. The Supreme Court ruled last year that the right for citizens to bear arms had nothing to do with formal militias.

      • Steven

        The AUTHORS of the Constitution, and all 10 amendments we know as the Bill of Rights, defined the militia as ALL of the people, and stated that they should be armed so they could be called to service when needed.

    • US Army (retired)

      You are a socialized, indoctrinated, brainwashed, self-deluded, lazy, cowardly, out-of-shape, overweight, cheese-eating, processed food consuming, don't-have-an-original-thought, never-read-a-real-book, historically ignorant, classless, clueless, tasteless, lack-of-any-principles, sitcom-fake-laughter-watching, trolling, idiot moron.

      • Bonney Bacon

        To whom are you referring? The author of the article or one (or many) of the people who commented? I like your comment but I don't know to whom it refers--please clarify.

      • jorgaone

        WOW! Now, THAT was a mouthful! Exactly who was it addressed to? (I REALLY want to know if I missed the post) ;o)
        Gotta love a true purveyor of true facts! Salute!

      • sc

        is that your honest opinion or is it a fact, and you should learn not to just shy around your feelings, say what you mean.

    • smoky dogbert

      OK, so it's an interpretation found in a test prep book. Why is the interpretation the test prep book WRONG. A deception is a deception. You get an F.

    • wilky

      The Founder's meant what they wrote not what you want it to mean.

    • Kalli

      And, of course, we all know that everything on the internet is true, right?

      Using google is your first mistake since its loyalty is to the deceiver-in-chief and NSA.

      Patriots need to have a book-burning of all the communist trash that has replaced the truth of this nation's history. Our youth deserve better than the propaganda from the those who are bent on destroying our freedom and liberty our forefathers fought so valiantly to provide this country.

    • Jim

      This is a classic example of assuming something to be true using reverse logic.
      When the Constitution says:
      “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.”,
      it does not mean:
      "The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia”.

      You have put the statements in opposite order.

      It's like saying:
      "In case you run into a tree with your car, you must wear a seat belt."

      That does not mean you can interpret it to say:
      "You only have to wear a seat belt if you plan to run into a tree."

      Or "My house is made of wood so all houses are made of wood, and you can only use wood to build a house, and nothing else."

      It means that you don't need to be in a militia to own a gun, but you can own a gun in case you someday are called to be in a militia.

      All of the rights spelled out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were specifically put there because the people lived in regimes that violated those rights, whether it was freedom of speech and press, quartering soldiers in your house, being tortured to obtain "confessions", etc. The Bill of Rights specifically were put in because they were not in the original Constitution, and people would not vote to ratify it unless those rights were in writing and attached as part of the document.

      There is a Pastor in prison in Canada because he wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper against gay marriage. They do not have freedom of speech in their constitution, and neglected to spell out those rights. Many of the postings in this blog would land you in jail in some supposedly civilized countries that you assume are "free" countries.

      The Constitution is our last line of defense against tyranny. Is it any wonder that the Progressives/liberals/communists in our country have decided to attack and violate the Constitution. Obama goes around the Constitution every chance he gets, and the Congress and the courts just let him do it.

    • SFS444

      Beware! Here is a perfect example of disinformation from Chris M. These clowns pop into to our boards to try to discredit true info.

    • http://GodfatherPolitics Mikey

      Sounds like a lot of liberal spin that proves nothing. Dazzle em with BS. We're not dazzled.

    • http://www.johansens.us Mark

      The author of the article doesn't say that the textbox claims to be quoting the amendment. He writes, "The revision interprets the Second Amendment in a way that concludes ..." That is, he clearly says that this is their INTERPRETATION and not that they claim to be quoting it. You yourself say that this interpretation is pretty clearly not what the people who wrote the second amendment meant, nor is it what the Supreme Court said that it means. So on exactly what grounds are you defending the textbook? If the textbook had said, "Some people believe that the Second Amendment should be amended to read ..." or "Some people wish that the Second Amendment said ..." then it would be accurate. But they say nothing of the kind. Their statement is clearly false.

    • Jim

      Couldn't help but notice the 172+ Thumbs Down on your comment. Does that mean your wrong, or does it mean 172 people who read what you wrote are wrong? Oh, and a grand total of 4 thumbs up.. way to go....

    • Grandpa David

      The sun comes up in the morning. The moon causes the tides. Liberals rewrite history. You have no clue.

    • SoWhatBubb

      Next, you're going to tell us that you are not a dumba$$.

    • tiredoflawyers

      Written in true "lawyer" speak. You must be one of the secular humanists who approve of revisionist history writing. The children can't handle the truth. We must take care not to teach them what they should know, but what we want them to know. The constitution says what it says. What does "Shall NOT be Infringed" mean to any who understand the words? To every one who reads it, it means the right to keep and bear arms shall not be taken away from ANY citizen by the state or the federal government. It also means, as people of the state we can if need arises, form an army to secure our freedom, liberty and defend our GOD given rights from tyranny. By the time a child gets to college, he has to unlearn all the bogus fantasy written by the so called publishers. I would gather a class action lawsuit against the publisher and writers of these fictions and falsehoods. I'll allow a few misspelled words in text books but not the blatant misleading paragraphs or whole pages designed to sterilize and indoctrinate students to think what their reading is the truth. Prentiss Hall is one of the worst offenders. Their books should be banned and burned.

    • mack

      Uneducated idiot. You may have a PHD but you are still stupid..

    • Chris M

      Wow, I point out that DeMar makes a basic factual inaccuracy, point out that I agree with him about the wrongness of the book's interpretation, and get a few hundred comments attacking me as a result.

      The facts are clear:
      What Gary wrote was factually inaccurate. As a Christian, he is called to not live by his "personal code", but the code laid down by God, which includes not misrepresenting facts, or allowing them to be perpetuated because he didn't feel like taking the time to check them.

      That's it. I'm not sure if I find the rest of the silly vitriol directed at me, most of which seems to be rooted in basic reading comprehension failure, to be funny or just pitiful. Enjoy your little echo chamber here and keep tilting at those windmills!

  • Warren

    Revisionist have been rewriting our textbooks for 50 years. The constitution is the constitution and not one word is to be altered . But when you have a President and Attorney General and the liberal left wing media striving to change our laws what do you expect. Amazing what changing a few words can do to the meaning !

    • Proud Texan

      Read the comment above. This is not from a textbook. Guy writing article doesn't believe in fact checking.

      • http://politicaloutcast.com Gary DeMar

        If the school system is using it, it's a textbook.

      • loran carlson

        The potential of it being a textbook is so great that we need to stop any of these writings of the left. You know they love to re-write history and re-define the meanings of words.

      • John811c

        The book is used for test prep any book used this way is in fact a text book.

  • http://politicaloutcast.com Gary DeMar

    I do give the name of the book: "United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination." You're right. Technically it's not a textbook. The article I read stated, "this textbook" is "currently being used by Guyer High School."

    In order to evaluate court cases like "Presser v. Illinois," a person would have to know what the argument is based on.

    The page states that what follows is a "summary of the rights guaranteed in each amendment." It should state, then, "an interpretive summary of the rights" because the summary gets a number of things wrong.

    Consider the First Amendment summary. It adds "separation of church and state." That's not a summary. The First Amendment doesn't have a thing to do with separating church of state.

    Anyway, thanks for your comments. It gave me an opportunity to clarify.

  • http://politicaloutcast.com Gary DeMar

    If the non-textbook is being used by the high school, then it's a text book. If it were a book that students were purchasing on their own, I doubt that there would be any comment about it.

    • okiebydc

      One of the long-standing rules/practices of contract law is that if more than one reasonable interpretation is possible, an ambiguity is created, and shall be construed against the author. That said, a whole lot of time and money can be spent separating the fly specks from the pepper as to what is REASONABLE. I would prefer to see both interpretations presented and let the reader research them and make up his/her own mind. Personally, I think the situation with the Scots was the main reason for the amendment, and still holds true today.

      • Reader

        The problem with most interpretations of the various parts of the Constitution is that we have not only historical language and context to fall upon, we also have the Federalist Papers in unedited form. These documents, written by the authors, backers, etc of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, give much more detail on what different parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights fully mean and were intended to mean.

        In the case of the 2nd, they make it abundantly clear that the amendment was protecting the natural right of all people to be armed and to defend themselves. To the writers of the Constitution, you could have removed all mention of the militia and had the meanings and protections of the amendment being completely unchanged. Of course, in the time, 'militia' was roughly defined as 'all able-bodied persons owning/posessing weapons that are not part of the military'.

        "Do you have a weapon?"
        "Then you are part of the 'militia'."
        "Even if I am not a member of the army?"
        "Yes, especially because you are not in the army."
        "Even if I do not belong to any state defense association?"
        "I have a gun, so I meet the definition of being part of the militia?"
        "Yes, I couldn't have said it better myself, except you would still be part of the militia if you only had a bow or an tomahawk."

        Of course, that conversation would never have happened, as nobody in that time, especially after the American Revolution, would have had any doubt who was or wasn't part of the militia.

        This right was protected for a few basic reasons. Three major reasons private citizens were to be armed (not necessarily presented here in order of priority) are as follows:

        1. Defense of self, family, home, property, town, country.
        2. To fight crime (remember that there was no police force at the time, not that the presence of a modern police force in any way negates this right).
        3. To protect the private citizen's rights to be armed and defend themselves against an oppressive and abusive domestic government, up to and including to overthrow said government.

        These reasons have not changed, nor has the Constitutional protection to exercise the right, and at least 95% of US gun regulations are illegal by the Constitution. Any book, textbook, or study guide that suggests Constitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms (including, but not limited to only if you are part of the army/police) is the most flagrant form of lie.

        • Steven

          Your definition of the militia is actually too NARROW. Owning a weapon was NOT a requirement to be in the militia. It was a requirement of everyone in the militia. If you were otherwise qualified to serve in the militia, you were considered a member of the militia and required to own a gun.

        • Reader

          True, I did narrow the definition too much. I had it a little backwards It was, indeed, everyone physically capable of serving for local defense and law enforcement, and the possession of a gun was mandated by law for some time. (Actually, the laws in various areas requiring guns in colonial times gave no exemptions for 'conscientious objectors' or pacifists, and required the demonstration of proficiency with the gun, too.) Everyone not in the military was part of the militia by definition and required to be armed.

  • Dwayne Oxford

    Almost exactly what apostate protestants have done to the 4th Commandment.

    • Ken Howes

      Apostates come in all traditions. Adherence to the bishop of Rome does not make one catholic or Christian. Nor does insistence that the bishop of Rome is the bishop of Rome and not the universal bishop does not make one apostate: Someone named Gregory I rejected the idea that there is a universal bishop. A number of Catholic bishops at Augsburg in 1530 were of the opinion that what had been presented there (the Augsburg Confession, which is the basic Lutheran document) contained "nothing that a good Catholic could not believe", in the words of Cardinal Campeggio, the papal legate at that assembly, "the plain truth, and we dare not deny it," in the words of the Catholic bishop of Augsburg. Would you rather have someone who teaches like the late Robert Preus or one who teaches like Gustavo Gutierrez? So apostasy is much more complicated than whether one is an adherent of the papacy or not.

    • Steven

      Last time I checked, the Catholic church observes the Sabbath in exactly the same manner as most Protestants.

  • 57Chevy

    Boy oh boy, do have some Kooks on this site or what!!!!!

  • 57Chevy

    Boy oh boy, do we have some Kooks on this site or what!!!!!!????

    • Burt Fisher

      @57Chevy Do you have some kind of repetitive disorder that causes you to insult people here without adding any value to the discussion? I am assuming that your question is rhetorical... otherwise I would have to answer 'yes' there is at least one kook on this site and I wish he would stop asking the question over and over. So I am wondering: do you have anything to comment regarding the article that was posted wa-a-ay at the top of the page?

      • MarilynBr

        @57Chevy was correcting his omission of a word in the first reply.

  • Jonathan T.

    Chris M - In what way does "their" interpretation rather than the original text help the student better understand the issue? or, Was the goal something less.

  • jb80538

    Homeschool your kids, keep them out of the liberal indoctrination centers. Homeschool materials are available that teach kids properly. No changes to the constitution and still teach the holocaust really happened.

  • allen goldberg

    Chris M: Gary reported and correctly depicted that a school was using a book to prepare for tests, selected by the high school. WHETHER, the writers or publishers incorrectly wrote the passage...it still remains WRONG. No interpretation necessary....because that is not the second amendment as written in our constitution.
    Your attack of the writer is an old worn technique by those who love to deflect the real reason the article was written. Saul Alinsky's technique if I have ever it.

    The interpreted passage in the adopted book , selected by the school...GOT IT WRONG! We have the right to keep and bear arms, in a militia or not.

  • http://politicaloutcast.com Gary DeMar

    I love this comment from another site about the same topic: "I guess [summaries are needed] ... because even AP students can't read well enough to understand the language of the originals...."



  • USA Retired

    Most likely more 'Common Core' mutilation of this nations real History, which will never pass muster, now or ever! This is evidence of the creeping Marxism/Communism entering this nation and our educational system! I say arrest the 'Muslim in Chief' in the Oval Office and it will all go away!

    • 848484


  • Howard Robinson

    When my children were young, I always reviewed the history they were learning and not only taught them what was correct, but brought the errors to the attention of the School. In the 1980s a group of leftist historians hijacked American History and changed it by emphIsizing certain events and persons and eliminating others. Amazingly most Black History Courses fail to mention the many contributions to the American Revolution only emphasizing slavery and criticizing many of the founding fathers.

  • GWY

    Clear intent to subvert the U.S. Constitution in a public school as this should result in confiscation of all publication company assets and a jail term of five years for company executives. That would solve the problem.

  • loran carlson

    Progressive liberals like you cannot be believed or trusted. You will lie to all to get your points across to an ignorant electorate. Honesty and integrity you are lacking. Tell the truth. You have not done that in your post.

  • T. Jefferson

    Another example of the left trying to modify history. The Constitution is like the Bible. You re-wright it, you go to hell.

    • Steven

      You don't go to Hell for rewriting the Constitution, but if you wish the change it, you should follow the process laid out in Article 5 and actually amend it. Claiming it means something other than what it says is fraud.

      • Reader

        Well, personally, I would claim that trying to change it by redefining the words of the document to mean something other than the original meanings and intent when the document was written (which we have enough clear documentary evidence to know exactly what the original intent and meaning were when it was written) is treason, not fraud. The meaning is changed to help both domestic and foreign enemies of the nation, so redefining words in the Constitution to mean the opposite of their clear meaning and intent is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. According to the Constitution, that is treason.

  • steve

    So some lib come to my house and try to take my arms. Let me know if you need the address.

    • VT Patriot

      Aw c'mon, I want first dibs.

  • Mitch

    Unfortunately this is a sign of the omes we live in, and the moral decay very present in Washington, D.C. This usurper in the White House doesn't give a dam- about black, white, yellow, or brown . He is out to destroy anything involving Judeo-Christian values,and beliefs which is what this country is founded on! What better place for the scumbags to instill their twisted beliefs.....our children's schools

  • 848484

    YOU ARE MISSING THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT. AND THAT IS: Time magazine reported that their “scroll of shame” of textbook mistakes since 1961 was 54 feet long.



  • Ron-California

    Would it have been that difficult for AP (America's Pravda) to print the text as it was originally written? The APs CEO is former head of McClatchy News Group which is a far-left leaning media group that owns several ultra-liberal newspapers such as the Sacamento Bee, Fresno Bee, etc. They like to use insidious methods to deviate from the truth like Bill Clinton did when he redefined the meaning of "is."

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org Ted R. Weiland

    Gary DeMar: "The public schools have done a great job in shifting worldview thinking from theism to humanism right under the noses of parents who extol the virtues of America’s government education system."

    MUCH WORSE is that most conservative Christian leaders have changed the Constitution's humanism into Biblical theism right under the noses of Christendom.

    There is hardly an article or amendment that, in some fashion, is not antithetical, if not hostile, to Yahweh's sovereignty and morality.

    Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our Constitution Survey at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ConstitutionSurvey.html and receive a free copy of the 85-page "Primer" of the 536-page "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective."

  • pysco

    The original documents need to be hidden and guarded, liberals will destroy them and rewrite history every time they get a chance...............

  • OldVeteran

    The "idea" of the original second amendment was for the purpose of each individual state could have a Militia to protect from the CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. The "part" about the PEOPLE BEING ALLOWED TO HAVE GUNS WAS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THE STATE! Dis-arm the people in the state, they are at the mercy of the state. The "militia" if disolved would be at the mercy of the Federal Government. As we have seen since 2009, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is in the process of DICTATING ABOUT EVERY FACET OF EVERY DAY LIFE. Look at the "liberties" that are being taken in some of the states. The power of the "VOTE" is proving to be useless.

  • TPM

    What ever A Hole took it upon himself to revise our Second Amendment, to his own liking, should be forced (at gun point) to eat his own GD text book. All of it.

  • icemancold

    The Gablers need to keep their noses in their own homes. The re writing of history for their own beliefs is as anti American as Barack Hussein Osama Obama is ANTI AMERICAN. Are these people ISLAMISTS??.

  • Joyce

    I don't know if you can also read the 1st Amendment in the pic, but the 2nd is not the only one getting a re-write!
    Original -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridgeing the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    pic in book -- Congress may make no laws that infringe a citizen's right to freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly or petition. Congress may not favor one religion over another (seperation of religion and state).

  • Rose

    This is why the Bible should be at the center of education! If it doesn't line up with scripture the THROW IT OUT! Home educate your children. If all they ever do is read the Bible, then they will still be better off than attending the indoctrination station!

  • http://superhunky.com Matt

    Anther Marxist ploy to turn citizens of a Republic into peons of a fascist state. What if we organized? What if the six million plus hunters and sportsmen make a stand? Would the military (the US Military that is) shoot law abiding citizens for enacting the 2nd amendment? I doubt it. But don't put that same scenario past the UN Troops in their little blue helmets and jeeps, kicking down doors looking for firearms. To quote Cuck Heston "out of my cold, dead hands." of course after those same hands have taken out a few hundred UN troops. Bring it on.

  • Rose

    This is why the Bible should be at the center of education! If it doesn't line up with scripture then THROW IT OUT! Home educate your children. If all they ever do is read the Bible, then they will still be better off than attending the indoctrination station!

  • wog1

    What amazes me is the concepts with which the liberals grasp reality. They never seem to have a grasp of the real situations all the time thinking every thing is always hunky dory. They never take the time to look at things and say you know what there are actually evil people in this world. This they do not realize leave them vulnerable to all kinds of misdeeds and mistreatment. That is why the Constitution is such a good thing because it protects one from being taken advantage of. We need the second amendment to protect our first amendments and our freedoms of religion and our other rights. Even the 5th amendment is included.

  • Dave K

    When someone wins a war they always rewrite history to a certain extent(Lincoln and the Civil War). That is customary and expected. However, when they rewrite the totally plain language in the constitution into a totally different meaning that is over the top!

  • http://html wog1

    What amazes me is the concepts with which the liberals grasp reality. They never seem to have a grasp of the real situations all the time thinking everything is always hunky dory. They never take the time to look at things and say you know what there are actually evil people in this world. This they do not realize leaves them vulnerable to all kinds of misdeeds and mistreatment. That is why the Constitution is such a good thing because it protects one from being taken advantage of. One last comment in order to get their points across they then become the perpetrator and odious ones.

  • David Jacobson

    The "misrepresentation" of the "known facts" as changed in the referenced textbook, reminds myself of the book "Animal Farm" by author George Orwell. Initially the rules of "Animal Farm" read, [on the "sign" (written on the barn?) at the "farm"], "all animals are equal." It was changed during the subsequent "animal uprising at the farm" (post-animals' internal rebellion; post-Animals' uprising against the "Farmer," owning the farm, therefore starting "Animal Farm") to, "All animals are equal, except(although?), some animals are 'more equal' than others." (nearly exact quotation). Please regard this important phenomenon, as linked to "schoolroom texts' 'changes' from 'the truth' to 'something else'."

  • CaptTurbo

    It's very sad to witness the death of the greatest country ever to rise on the face of the Earth at the hand of such filth and trash as the current mis-administration.

  • GiveAwayJimmie

    Guess I'm not allowed to reply

  • djw663

    Does **** like this really surprise anyone; what is one of the most prestigious journalism institutions Columbia University? Look at the leadership at that University, it is so far left that right doesn't exist. If journalist's are being considered the historians of today then our future is going to be far worse than our present.

  • charlie

    no excuses, it must be exposed as error. its intent of course is to support the liberals viewpoint and to try to change the wording of the second amendment and bend it to fit odumbo and his liberal followers genda. IT IS WRONG .....
    That is a blatant lie, is not the meaning or intent of the 2nd Amendment.
    ALL those that are and have been involved , in any way with the conspiracy to subvert the Constitution of the USA. should be immediately arrested, charged with all pertinent charges from conspiracy to treason, tried and if convicted given the maximum penalty prescribed by law. This includes ALL govt officials, past and present and future that have introduced, co-sponsored, and in any other way promoted gun control, in any form, and any and all other similar acts. ALL current Govt officials, starting in the WH that have and or are refusing to enforce any constitutional law of the USA, should be immediately removed from office and charged with every possible violation and convicted and the maximum penalty for each charge shall be applied to them.
    It is time to get back to being a nation of laws , not a LAWLESS nation as we have become through the actions and inactions of our elected idiots

  • SouthernPatriot

    “God alone knows the future, but only an historian can alter the past.” ― Ambrose Bierce

  • John

    This is an old and constant lefty view of the second amendment. As a retired high school teacher of 32 years, I have run into this view many times. The history teacher colleagues of mine always wanted to emphasize the militia part and deflect the shall not be infringed part. Claiming that it only applied to a militia not to the general public. Also claiming that the "well regulated" part meant any regulations were constitutional. That was the accepted interpretation among the history instructors at my school. I retired in 2003 so the new SCOTUS rulings might have changed things but I doubt it. They were all true believers of the miss reading of the second amendment to justify banning all guns.

  • CombatVet

    I guess all the previous comments said it all, seriously I'm about to cry seeing this once great country which i fought for and our beautiful Flag
    go down the drain with the worse administration in history.
    On a note about the DC Navy Yard shootings now Obungobo and his gang will go after the law biding citizens and try to destroy us, come and get them if you can my house is protected by God and Gun come in when your not supposed to and you will meet them both.

  • CombatVet


  • 2WarAbnVet

    History is supposed to be a record of events, on some occasions history is only what people think happened. All too often, history is what someone with an agenda wants us to believe, rather than what actually occurred.

  • [email protected]

    They can print it anyway they want, but the right stands as it is, in the Constitution! Until it is changed legally, the textbook is totally garbage.

  • dstudie

    I've got news for everyone. You are all part of your state militia whether you want to be or not. If your state of residence call you up to serve you better show up and be ready or go to prison or worse, be shot as a coward and traitor.

  • Ex-Educator

    As much as I HATE proposing laws that restrict people, I think it would be appropriate to write a law, that would "expire" in 100 years or 50 years after text book publishers have had a track record of 50 years of FACTUAL history in their offerings.
    Any publisher can print what they want, but any SCHOOL DISTRICT that was found to be using textbooks with factual errors would lose their public funding until they removed such books and for a period not to be less than 12 years after the LAST useage of such books. Furthermore they would be required to PAY BACK the entire amount of public funding commencing from the first day of such textbook useage.
    THAT would give them pause.

    • CharleiFromMass

      That's actually a brilliant idea. And one I would get behind.

      The First Amendment has never applied to things that can be proven to be factually incorrect or inaccurate, hence libel/slander, etc.

    • Reader

      You would have to place some kind of exception for simple and accidental mistakes and typos that managed to slip through the editing and review process. Such do sometimes occur, and I doubt you would want a school penalized for what amounts to an accidental typo. Yes, I'd get behind such laws for obvious cases of lies, misinformation, indoctrination, etc, like this book here. I would hate to see a school penalized because nobody caught a spelling error in some easily understood statement making an otherwise correct statement factually incorrect.

  • Roland

    Falling down laughing out loud

  • glock 19 fan

    @Fred: You are correct. When I saw the change in the @nd A my first thought was that the Overstreets were at it it again but it was obviously someone just as bad. The overstreets would be too old by now.

  • Charlie

    Don't care what publication the miss quoted second amendment was printed. This amendment is only twenty-six words , it should of been printed as written by our forefathers. Therefore the second amendment has fewer words than my post !!

  • http://delendam.wordpress.com Drik

    Since the state militia consists of all able-bodied adults that reside within the borders of a state, NOT just those that are formal members of a state-run, militia-titled organization, the prep-book is quite correct, although apparantly unintentionally so, and quite misleading.

  • Barbara

    Fred is correct dwught and you are a complete moron!!

  • mack

    You may have a PHD but you are an uneducated idiot.

  • v steve

    Sounds like the AP is Zionst, communist or socialist owned, spewing their propaganda trying to change the meaning of our 2nd Amendment to take firearms away form we the people to defend our self from a Tyrant government.

    Take the time to note the EXTREME percentage of people of jewish ethnicity that are in controlling positions. This takeover of our nation began with the Federal Reserve Act of 1912, coinciding with the advent of motion picture media and is now in full control of our economy, our media, and if you research who is responsible for the compilation of the text books for grades 1 thru PHD in this nation you will find, once again, a disproportionate number of the same controllers.

    • Dragun

      Dude get real. Those of "jewish ethnicity" are not the problem, nor even the Islamic extremists to an extent, it is people like you with a narrow worldview that have gotten this country mired in the idiocracy of political correctness.

      • v steve

        I understand your reply to throw the light off the jewish and the islamic, I would to if I were one but I`m not. The two groups are the problems in our Nation and in our government and in other parts of the world.

        All one has to do is look to the middle east. The jewish and the muslims (Islamic) what ever title you would like to put on them will bring their 1000 year war to USA. The eastern world it is exploding and you tell me we`re not on the eve of destruction. It is you and your kind of people that hate USA and want to bring war and distruction to the USA. No political correctness here Dude.

        For starters put this in your jewish ethnicity not the problem and this is just a very very little sample of jewish control. I don`t want to overwhelm you with their control.

        According to RENSE.com:
        "Today, seven Jewish Americans run the vast majority of US television networks, the printed press, the Hollywood movie industry, the book publishing industry, and the recording industry. Most of these industries are bundled into huge media conglomerates run by the following seven individuals:
        Gerald Levin, CEO and Director of AOL Time Warner
        Michael Eisner, Chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney CompanyEdgar Bronfman, Sr., Chairman of Seagram Company LtdEdgar Bronfman, Jr, President and CEO of Seagram Company Ltd and head of Universal StudiosSumner Redstone, Chairman and CEO of Viacom, IncDennis Dammerman, Vice Chairman of General ElectricPeter Chernin, President and Co-COO of News Corporation LimitedThose seven Jewish men collectively control ABC, NBC, CBS, the Turner Broadcasting System, CNN, MTV, Universal Studios, MCA Records, Geffen Records, DGC Records, GRP Records, Rising Tide Records, Curb/Universal Records, and Interscope Records. It has been said He who controls the media controls the culture. I say He who controls Education controls the world and the culture in it. And yes the jewish are in controling positions in education.

        • http://www.westvirginiaconservative.com/ WVStarkTruth

          I guess because of the increasing number of Indian doctors that they are going to control everything in the medical field, too. Your thinking is paranoid. A person's ethnicity has little to do with such conspiracy theories. What you need to do is use your brain for something more than a device to dampen the echo between your ears and think for yourself instead of listening to idiotic conspiratorial nutcases. Yes, DeMar was wrong in not identifying the specific books, but he also has a point in raising the issue of accuracy within textbooks...something that is seldom mentioned in the debate over why our schools have performed so poorly over the past 50 years. Perhaps, also, part of the blame lies in the failure of discipline, morality, faith in something greater than ourselves (or all of the above). About the time that it became popular to bash God and banish Him from our schools was about the time that school graduation rates plummeted and test scores began to fall significantly. Nothing to do with Jews...just the failure of this country and its government to uphold the Constitution and the country's Christian foundations of respect for the rule of law and God's wisdom.

        • v steve

          If you think I`m wrong about ethnicity then put any title on them you want.

          Paranoid you bet I`m paranoid when the below is going on.

          This is not a conspiracy theory:

          The ACLU is made up of jew attorneys that are relentless in their quest to censor every form of religious expression in the public square – especially in the nation’s public schools.

          The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has offices in all 50 states accommodating over 200 full-time jew attorneys and thousands of volunteers.
          According to their website, their “legislative advocates are a constant presence on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures.

          Do you see or hear any Indian doctors or any Indian people doing the above, I don`t and if they are I haven`t heard about it at this time, but jews are.

          Why is it that Israel has no other friends IN THE World, why are they focused on us, why aren`t other countries putting coins in their pockets like we give`em Billions every year without knowing what they do with OUR money. We DO know we have one of their jew Spies in our Federal Prison, his name is Pollard. He got security clearance and gave Israel our secrets for years and to date will not tell everything he stole and Israel, our GREAT FRIEND refuses to tell us what they received from Pollard.

          This is not a conspiracy theory:
          There are many jews and socialist in our government that do not up hold our Constitution. Here is a few of jewish people that do not up hold our constitution, Feinstein, Schumer, Blumenthal, Boxer, Jane Harman, Bloomberg, Ginsberg they want to ban firearms.

          This is not a conspiracy theory:
          Supreme Court Jewess Ginsberg who actually CAUSED THE WAR IN EGYPT. She met personally with Morsi and told him not to use our Constitution as a template for their new one because ours is old and no longer relevant AND she has a hard time working under it. SHE ACTUALLY SAID THAT, and not one politician called her out on it. Not the Pres, Senator, Rep, or any politician. THEY ARE ALL AFRAID OF THE JEWS...

          You bet I`m paranoid.

          Muslims spewing their sharia law for american courts.

          Where in the world are muslims living peacefully and in Unity? There isn`t anywhere. In the USA in New York they break the law everyday by blocking our streets at their prayer time several times a day.

          This is where is starts breaking a little law here and there before you know there is a whole bunch of not so little laws being broken by these so called peaceful or moderate muslims what ever kind of title you want to put on these killers to make them sound loving.

          Muslims do not assimilate they segregate their selves from everyone else. Muslims,
          Islam does not differentiate between religion and politics.

          Your failure to see what is going on in our Nation by these two groups is like a lot of people and it is just inexcusable.

          Israel/jews and muslims are not our friends, accept it.

          You bet I`m paranoid and for very good reasons.

        • Wolfy Ghalkhani

          You live in a fantasy world, Tom. The writing is on the wall. We are heading in the same direction as Russia. Guess what Lenin, Franken and trotsky were? they were Jews (not religious.) and they caused the deaths of over 20 million Russians and central Asians. Russia is still recovering from their communist tyranny. The Jew powers to be in America have the same mindset. Please take heed.

        • Wolfy Ghalkhani

          it has nothing to do with ethnicity. the jew who is the problem is the bolshevik jew. this type of jew has no love of Israel or the Judaic religion. they along with the Jihadis share a common goal. they hate Christianity and they want to bring America to its knees. Notice how they hid under the guise of Atheist. they have bashed Christian traditions and ethics for decades and pinhead Americans fell for it hook, line and sinker. its not only the entertainment industry that the bolshevik jew controls- they have their hands in the education system. The look at us as sub human. They believe we have no rights over our children. they want to indoctrinate our kids and turn them against their own parents, their faith and their country.

        • v steve

          Some would argue with, it has nothing to do with ethnicity (The practice of separating "race" and "ethnicity" as different categories has been criticized both by the American Anthropological Association and members of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights).

          If one doesn`t like the word ethnicity where used then it could be replace with race.

          What difference does it really make if they are bolshevik, Zionist or israelites they are jews. I`m not talking about irish, Dutch, Italian or Chinese etc. It doesn`t matter to me the title, it`s what they are doing and who is doing it.

          It sounds as if you are saying the jews that I` am talking about are bolshevik jews that are in United States like the ACLU and in the United States government and in controlling positions.

          Whether they be bolshevik jews, Zionist jews or israelite jews or any other jews their strangle hold on USA and in controlling positions is no less.

          It is not impossible or out of the question that two people of the same race/ethnicity but different titles to have the same goals of bringing America to it`s knees.

          Yes it is not only the entertainment industry and that is why Americans better wake up to the fact of jewish control in USA and abroad.

          The Federal Department of Education is a big one for them to control.

          It has been said he who controls the media controls the culture.

          I say he who controls Education controls the world and the culture in it.

          I say the Federal Department of Education needs to be abolished. Let states, parents, grandparents and teachers control Education.

          For what the Federal Department of Education is doing to Education and our children it isn`t worth their money.

          By abolishing the Federal Department of Education will be one of the biggest accomplishments for Americans taking back America.

  • 1baronrichsnot1

    Just another nail in the coffin of our leaderships' credibility. Every morning we wake up here in Fl., we wonder what they will screw up today! Yep, you guessed it, it happens daily.. seems like every thing they touch is left severely damaged, by their constant meddling in things they don't understand.

  • Jonathan

    Let's make sure we have something straight. When referencing AP - they are not talking about the Associated Press. This is an AP - Advanced Placement - course in school. I think "v steve" got confused on that point in his comment.

    Secondly, I find it odd that Gary DeMar didn't acknowledge which publisher had authored said textbook and more specifically which textbook. If this is a major publisher, shouldn't we be contacting them to complain and bring this publisher to public scrutiny? If this isn't a major publisher, than all this article does is to whip people into a frenzy without giving them an outlet to do something productive.

    I'm all about the second amendment, but to me articles like this that fail to acknowledge to provide all the facts are pointless emotional articles designed to rally or manipulate their base audience. Give me the facts so I can do something about it or else don't write the article.

    • juansantiago

      Totally agree, Jonathan. Without a way to address the issue, it is just an emotional tease.

    • v steve

      Yes you are right, I did read the article to fast and was bothered by the changing of the 2nd amendment thank you for bringing that to my attention. Dang it.

    • joe

      the book title is United States History—Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination by AMSCO publishing (2010)

  • KRM

    This would be more helpful if the actual name of the textbook and its publisher were included in the article so that we could verify on our own.

  • djazgirl

    School text books were horrible when I was in school, and they were horrible when I taught for 16 years, and no doubt they are much worse now. Lack of references aside, I think we all know this to be true.

  • QuisPercusit

    So who is going to sue the publisher on behalf of the entire nation?

    • JackFrancis

      The publisher is right in this case. That is the clear language of the amendment. We need a Supreme Court that will stick to the language of the second amendment instead of ignoring the militia clause.

      • QuisPercusit

        You are impressing no one with your liberal drivel. The 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
        It also happens to say that the militia is necessary to secure a free state

        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.”

        You need to comprehend the words individually as they were and or are defined, and then be able to comprehend what the little comma thingy is all about.

        • JackFrancis

          The comma thingy is a comma. It does not create a new idea as in a new paragraph, or even a new sentence. It is a modifying clause giving meaning to the rest of the sentence. MUST be taken together as good grammar dictates.

        • QuisPercusit

          As the writer of the Second amendment knew and understood usage of the comma he used it thusly: " An absolute phrase is always treated as a parenthetical element, as is an interjection"!
          An addressed person's name is also always parenthetical. Be sure, however, that the name is that of someone actually being spoken to. A separate section on Vocatives, the various forms that a parenthetical element related to an addressed person's name can take, is also available.

        • JackFrancis

          Yes, the example of a name as a parenthetical element is applicable. A parenthetical element is an explanation of the main theme. In this case, the militia is the explanation for the right to bear arms. Even the name as a parenthetical, as you point out, must be taken in context with the rest of the sentence. A parenthetical element MUST be taken with the rest of the sentence. It is not a totally separate idea. Good points. Thanks

        • Malcolm_Kirkpatrick

          The "militia" was every male old enough to bear arms. In the federal statutes, it still is. As someone else observed, opponents of the individual right to keep and bear arms make a logical mistake. By analogy: "Since strong bones are necessary for health, only children with strong bones may drink milk". Doesn't make sense, does it? Neither does your restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment.
          You can find further evidence that the authors of the Constitution expected that private citizens would own weapons in the body of the Constitution, in Article I, section 8. "Congress shall have power to ..... grant letters of marque and reprisal..." A letter of mark is authorization from a government to the owner of a warship to make war In the name of that government. Sir Frances Drake operated under a letter of mark from the British crown. A letter of mark makes the difference between a privateer and a pirate. The people who wrote the Constitution expect that private citizens (or, more likely, trading corporations) would have ships armed with cannon (and small arms when things got close).

        • JackFrancis

          I agree that a letter of marque (correct spelling) should be sufficient to bear arms. Get one from the Government. Your milk analogy is poorly and inaccurately made. Milk is used only for good health, it does not have a bad byproduct like guns. More accurately: Prescription medicines being necessary for good health, the public's access to prescription medicines shall not be infringed. Still includes restrictions (prescriptions), like guns and militia, but ensures access to them just as enrollment in the National Guard is available.

        • Malcolm_Kirkpatrick

          1. "I agree" with whom? A letter of marque is authorization to make war, which covers far more than "bear arms". And you missed the point: those (privately owned) ships were already armed (against pirates). The people who wrote the constitution expected that private citizens (trading companies, more likely) would own ships with cannon.

          2. The milk analogy is accurate. The parallel is exact: The public good __C__ requires __B__ and __B__ requires __A__, therefore, the people have a right to __A__.

          3. Furthermore, the Second Amendment cannot restrict the right to bear arms to participation in a State-organized militia (a "select militia") since it guarantees a right to bear arms __against__ the government. The colonists had just won a war against their government. The immediate cause of the battles of Lexington and Concord was an attempt by the Crown to disarm the colonists. One of the contemporary arguments for the 14th amendment was that southern States were disarming freedmen and depriving them of their right to bear arms. The Republican-dominated Congress insisted that the freedmen had the same rights as freeborn white citizens. See Dred Scott v. Sanford for Justice Taney's understanding of the scope of the "right to bear arms".
          "...(I)t cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them (blacks) as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens ...,It would give to persons of the negro race ... the right to ... (long list deleted) ... keep and carry arms wherever they went.
          Nothing about wearing a uniform or marching in step there.

        • JackFrancis

          It does not give a right to bear arms against the government. That is a ludicrous right wing statement that the Limbaugh types try to sell. Your aggressive efforts to spin this reek of desperation.

        • Malcolm_Kirkpatrick

          Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
          that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the __Right__ of
          the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their __right__, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."

        • JackFrancis


        • rick0857

          It seems you have been stifled finally "so" is that the best you can do or is this the point where you start calling everyone names?

          "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser."

        • JackFrancis

          You are right about Socrates. The name calling and slander by the right wingers on this site is awesome.

        • Malcolm_Kirkpatrick

          (Jack): "... name calling and slander by the right wingers on this site is awesome."
          Says the ... person ... who wrote:...
          (Jack): "... ludicrous right wing statement ... spin... reek of desperation."
          I guess if you had a reasonable argument you would make it. You don't. Therefore...

        • rick0857

          So you have been stifled then.

        • JackFrancis

          So, my arguments are valid and unrefuted.

        • rick0857

          Excellent points all. This a$$hat is not going to change his mixed up confused liberal thinking no matter how we prove it to him/her/it. They cannot and will not accept logic and reason.

          This is why the liberal democrat is constantly in turmoil, they are always angry and they do not think. They are more like animals than many of the animal species. They RE-ACT to stimuli, everything they do is emotionally instinctive not at all like reasoned, thinking, logical human beings.

          You my friend are talking to a life long loser who is jealous of you and your success. His attitude will never change until the day the democrats/communists/Marxists/Progressives break down his door and haul him off to the gulags in chains for his daily beatings.

        • JackFrancis

          I note that Starbucks doesn't allow guns in their stores. There is now at least one safe place in America other than churches. Some schools are now dangerous, allowing teachers to carry guns in school. The height of folly.

        • jag57

          Show me a place where there was a massacre, that wasn't a gun free killing zone, also show me the perpetrator of a massacre that wasn't slurping the Democrat Kool Aid?

        • JackFrancis

          All of America has access to guns by virtue of the loose gun laws in Virginia and some other states. There are really no Gun Free zones (unfortunately) in the US. None of these people were "slurping the Democrat Kool Aid" What other idiocy are you buying and trying to sell?

        • rick0857

          There have been exactly two in our history, though I can't cite a reference, it was proven not long ago on a documentary I was watching at the time. But other than those TWO INSTANCES you are quite correct in your statement.

        • rick0857

          They don't allow firearms in Starbucks because the guy who owns Starbucks is panty waste, limp wristed, effeminate liberal just like you!

          “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. …the idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural rights.” Thomas Jefferson

          “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Thomas Jefferson

          “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” Thomas Jefferson

          “One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.” Thomas Jefferson

          Now I know he was only our third President, so according to you liberal geniuses he is stupid and just a slave owner but he did write the Declaration of Independence and he was around when the Constitution was written...so I'll take him at his word when it comes to what HE THOUGHT THE 2nd Amendment MEANT!!!

        • JackFrancis

          No it is because the owner of Starbucks is a civic minded person who gives consideration to the welfare and safety of his customers. Thomas Jefferson had an opinion. It was possibly correct at the time, I can't tell. It is wrong now.

        • jag57

          Kicking this back and forth means absolutely nothing; you need to go back and read the writings of our Founders, 'like no free man shall ever be barred the use of firearms."

      • jag57

        Since we have a preexisting, God given right to own the firearms of our choice, to defend ourselves, our families, and property, our Founding Fathers only enshrined this in the 2nd amendment, so there wouldn't ever be any doubt as to what they believed about God given rights, pertaining to the ownership of defensive weapons.

        You probably don't pay any attention to the fact that in the 20th century alone, there was over 170 million men, women and children, exterminated by their governments, after being disarmed. Maybe you wouldn't mind becoming a slave, but I was born free, and will die free. We have more law abiding citizens legally armed now than any time in history, and crime rates have gone down dramatically. GUNS SAVE LIVES!

        • JackFrancis

          1. God didn't give you the right to own firearms. BLASPHEMY!!! You are a Godless soul using His name in vain. There is no threat of slavery in this nation. That is a figment being sold to paranoid individuals by those who wish to profit from it. You are a silly sheep (but not one of His).

  • http://www.westvirginiaconservative.com/ WVStarkTruth

    IT would be extremely helpful for those of us who would like to do further research and question our local school districts regarding the books being used here if the article had pointed out specific titles and authors that contain the errors. The failure to do so tends to make one wonder whether we are rumor mongering or reporting facts here. Let all the truth speak for itself, not half of the information.

    • rick0857

      If you want more info on the damaging text books now being circulated in the INDOCTRINATION CENTERS go actforamerica.com. Bridgette Gabriel runs that site and she has all kinds of info on text books regarding Muslim misinformation, false U.S. History etc. etc.

  • Dan S

    The title of the ap book is in the article. And he has links in his notes to the other books he mentioned. The title of the book is United States History: Preparing for Advanced Placement Examination.

  • JackFrancis

    The textbook is the clear meaning of the second amendment. The Supreme Court rewrote the second amendment to delete the reference to Militias.

    • rick0857

      Give me a source for that opinion please. The Supreme Court cannot write legislation, (it's not supposed to anyway) it cannot Change the Constitution, only We the People can, by vote. So cite your facts. You are gravely mistaken in your claim that the Supreme Court has re-written the Second Amendment.

      • JackFrancis

        The opinion of the Supreme court would not change if the wording regarding militias is removed. Therefore they have completely ignored the meaning that it gives, effectively writing it out of the amendment.

        • rick0857

          Let me see if I understand you. The State is supposed to have a militia in order for the people to keep and bear arms...So where are the people GOING TO GET THESE ARMS IF THEY DON'T ALREADY HAVE THEM???
          Does the State have a centralized arms room where everyone must go to retrieve their weapons from? Wow genius that'll work out great, all any enemy has to do is learn that location and ambush it when everybody shows up to get weapons. Do you see how stupid your argument is now? Also if you go back in case law and this was never modified nor repealed all able bodied males ages 17-55 are supposed to have a weapon (firearm) and are part of the State militia.

        • JackFrancis

          If they don't already have them, members of a well regulated militia are authorized to buy them for militia use. Nothing stupid about that at all. No need for an armory, although a well protected armory might be used. Very rational concept, but the Supreme Court ignored the well regulated militia portion of the amendment. Perhaps a more enlightened Supreme Court in the future will include that clause in its opinion.

        • rick0857

          Show me again, in the words of the second amendment, where it says, if you don't own a weapon you are authorized to go and buy one. I missed that when I read it.

        • JackFrancis

          Totally can't understand your point. The second amendment links the bearing of arms to the importance of a well regulated militia. It does imply (as it did at the time of the writing) that the militia member would buy his own arms. Today, the militias (National Guard) buy them for you. But you are allowed as a member of that militia to have those arms.

        • rick0857

          I give up, you simply cannot read and understand the English language when it's written down in words.

        • JackFrancis

          I'm sorry, but you mentioned that you couldn't see the words in the second amendment. I did point them out to you. If you don't believe the second amendment authorizes a person to go out and buy a weapon and need it precisely shown to you, I would like to agree with you, but for members of a well regulated militia, the right to keep and bear arms is plainly written and I don't know how to explain English better than they do. But again, if you can't see where there is a right to go out and buy arms, a lot of Americans would love your opinion to be upheld by the Supreme Court.

        • rick0857

          As I have read your comments you begin by defending the text book in question which says:

          Here’s the AP history textbook’s reworking of the text:

          “Second Amendment: The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia”
          And here is your first comment: The textbook is the clear meaning of the second amendment.

          Now I don't know what you are trying to say but I am tired of your juvenile remarks...so if you don't like the 2nd amendment the TRY and REPEAL IT!!
          If not STFU

        • JackFrancis

          No. I am ok with the second amendment. It is the SCourt interpretation that I disagree with. The textbook seems to have a more thorough interpretation that doesn't omit the first clause. The SC opinion would be exactly the same without that clause. Therefore, they are writing it out. Shame.