High school textbook carefully misquotes the 2nd amendment (border, military, carry)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before the Bill of Rights was ratified, it had twelve amendments, not ten.
The first two were not ratified when the rest were. They read:
(1.) After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
(2.) No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
The first one above, specified how many Representatives there would be after the first census. The second one above, said that COngressional salaries couldn't be changed by law, until an election for the House of Reps had gone by. (That second one was eventually ratified in 1992, and is now known as the 27th amendment.)
Neither had anything to do with term limits.
Since those two were not ratified along with the rest, the amendment marked #3 at the time became our First Amendment, the one marked #4 became our Second Amendment, etc.
Mud on your face, I never said anything about anything being ratified, I simply stated that is what it was in earlier drafts. I know this because I read it from an original draft.
Since they are preparing to take the AP exam on US history, I bet they have already engaged in discussion on the meaning of each of the amendments.
Paraphrasing is OK. In this case, it wasn't parapharased correctly. If they discussed it, the first topic of the teacher would be to tell the students "well, to be honest guys, what's listed in this textbook is not correct on the 2nd ammendment, the real ammendment is....". Lets hope that occured.
The second amendment was hotly debated when Madison was writing the first 10 amendments.
All 10 Amendments were hotly debated, and Madison wrote 12 Amendments, but only 10 passed. The 2nd Amendment was one of the 10 that did pass and has not since been repealed - therefore it is law regardless if it was hotly debated. Women's Suffrage in the 19th Amendment was hotly debated - that doesn't make it any less valid.
Many people thought that passing the Bill of Rights was wrong, simply because all of these rights within the Bill of Rights were to be assumed true and that if the government wrote them down they could write them out of existence in the future. That is what the major concern was for the hot debate.
Only in terms of states rights, not gun rights. The ability for citizens to own arms for self defense or for protection against a tyrannical government was never debated. The second ammendment has it's roots in the English Bill or Rights
The second amendment had nothing, nothing to protect them from our government. Outside invasion? Yes. Read the militia acts of 1792.
Paraphrasing is OK. In this case, it wasn't parapharased correctly. If they discussed it, the first topic of the teacher would be to tell the students "well, to be honest guys, what's listed in this textbook is not correct on the 2nd ammendment, the real ammendment is....". Lets hope that occured.
I would hope that the discussion would involve different peoples opinion of what it means and how the words are currently interpreted, particularly focusing on the Supreme Court's current interpretation.
If the debate is over whether or not the amendments were summarized accurately, that's a valid argument.
The claim that the Second Amendment is paraphrased, but the others are not, is clearly false.
That's a red herring and has nothing to do with the issue, which is that the amendment in question and as printed is incorrect.
IMO, the publisher has no business "paraphrasing" the bill of rights, anyway. Just how dumbed-down are educational resources these days?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.