Top Categories

High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

This is disgusting.

The Daily Paul is reporting that Guyer High School in Denton, TX is using an AP history book that has rewritten the Second Amendment. The book, titled United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination contains an obviously incorrect version of the Second Amendment – see photo below.

Photo by Reid Davis

Photo by Reid Davis

I really hope this is a hoax. If true, this goes well beyond revisionist history and is instead full-on active indoctrination. The text is obviously altered to lead readers to believe that the right to keep and bear arms applies to state militias only.

If any of you happen to have children attending Guyer High School please let us know if this story is true. I’m tempted to buy a copy of this book so that I can see for myself. In the meantime, I plan to contact Guyer High School on Facebook to see if I can get an official response. If you choose to do the same, as always, please be respectful. It’s also worth noting that many other schools are likely using this book as well.

And in case you don’t already know, here’s the actual text of the 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.

Update 12:00 PM EST: Looks like this is confirmed thanks to Monderno reader Jimmy (see comments below). Here is a PDF version of the textbook, see page 102, screenshot below. I have also downloaded a copy of the PDF in case it gets taken down.

United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination


155 Responses to High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

  1. Jake September 16, 2013 at 10:44 am #

    Not even trying to hide it anymore are they? This is just so ridiculously blatant that is feels like it has to be a hoax…how could they ever hope to get away with this?

    • Sarah September 17, 2013 at 10:42 pm #

      Bigger idiots than these have been allowed to write textbooks. It looks, to me, like someone misunderstood the phrasing. And considering the abysmal lack of state funding for education, I also understand how they’d misinterpret that. It’s not a conspiracy, or a hoax. It’s people looking for something to be mad about because it confirms what they already thought. It’s called confirmation bias, and it leads to ridiculous claims. The textbook’s wrong, get it pulled. No one’s trying to take your guns.

      • Brandon September 17, 2013 at 11:01 pm #

        So wait…the authors misinterpreted the Second Amendment because of a lack of state funding? You’re joking, right? You do realize that this book wasn’t written by the high school and has nothing to do with state funding?

        I also don’t understand how you can say no one is trying to take our guns – do you not read/watch the news? I also fail to see how that pertains to the conversation about this heinous textbook.

      • Adam Porter September 18, 2013 at 7:37 am #

        What two college professors authoring a book has to do with “state funding” eludes me. Are you arguing that the school board selected a revisionist textbook because it was cheaper? This isn’t about confirmation bias. Jake’s comment was hyperbole.

        This blog is (in large part) about guns, so it is natural that both the author and the commenters would focus on the Second Amendment. However, that’s just the tip of the revisionist iceberg here. Reading through the other Amendments the textbook authors “summarized” reveals more horrendous misunderstanding. Then delving a bit further, into the discussion of Washington’s foreign policy, it actually gets worse.

      • F September 19, 2013 at 12:53 pm #

        My dear, Wake up. This is called indoctrination, not confiscation. How do you change your culture. Primarily through the education system. This is classic indoctrination. If you think the marxists running this country don’t want our guns, then you are unbelievably naive.

      • TRIANGLEWHIP September 20, 2013 at 12:46 am #

        I wish I can believe you like over 5 years ago, as a former democrat. But now, with all this obsession for gun laws. That tells me they are after our guns little by little.

    • Elizabeth Campbell September 18, 2013 at 7:36 am #

      I contacted the publisher and this is the response I received:
      “Perfection Learning recently acquired AMSCO School Publications including the AP U.S. History book. This title is currently being revised and it is our intention to include the original language of the Bill of Rights in the new edition. This title is just one of hundreds of texts acquired through purchase of the company and Perfection Learning will continue reviewing all these new materials to identify any needed corrections and updates.”

      • Brandon September 18, 2013 at 7:38 am #

        Thanks Elizabeth.

  2. Ben September 16, 2013 at 10:47 am #

    I live near Denton, ill try to look into this.

    • Brandon September 16, 2013 at 10:47 am #

      Thanks Ben.

    • Marc Richardson September 16, 2013 at 12:10 pm #

      Ben, please do look into it.

      • Brandon September 16, 2013 at 12:13 pm #

        Marc, see update above.

    • Joe September 16, 2013 at 1:20 pm #

      Wow…….. in Texas, liberals? Nooo. Has to be a hoax.

      • Shan September 17, 2013 at 1:17 pm #

        Texas does have liberals. They are only allowed to live in Austin.

  3. Jimmy September 16, 2013 at 10:58 am #

    Confirmed (online) here:

    California (No surprise) K-12.

    • Brandon September 16, 2013 at 11:00 am #

      Thanks Jimmy.

  4. Brenda September 16, 2013 at 11:25 am #

    Quoting the Constitution is like quoting the Bible, you have to get it correct so those listening or reading get the correct meaning and intention of the verse! These authors and editors didn’t care to get it correct. If you noticed they got the 1st wrong as well, interjecting “separation of church and state” which is not stated anywhere in the constitution. They dumbed the whole thing down insulting the intelligence of those they were, supposedly, trying to educate.

    • Amymarie September 16, 2013 at 5:05 pm #

      This is the new Common Core showing up in everything… If we do’t take a stand and fight this now, we will be in big trouble in a few years!!!

      • Glenn Adwell September 17, 2013 at 5:58 pm #

        I teach. This is NOT Common Core. Try to learn what you are talking about. Have a nice day!

        • Amymarie September 17, 2013 at 11:30 pm #

          I teach also, and I do know what I am talking about! This dates back to Karl Marx and his agenda to change our Constitution! Maybe you should find out what CC is really about before making such a statement!

      • St. Christopher Kuehl September 18, 2013 at 10:11 am #

        the whole aspect of the COMMON CORE is to keep misleading information from being given to the students. it is designed specifically to make them think for themselves instead of the continuous spoon feeding for their entire life. the no child left behind act was shuffling kids through the system that couldn’t read. besides COMMON CORE WAS NOT ACCEPTED IN TEXAS

        • TeachLiberty September 18, 2013 at 10:31 am #

          Thank you! For some damn reason or another people think the Common Core is some kind of liberal boondoggle. It’s another effort to improve education. Don’t like it? Do something about it. Homeschool your kids if you don’t like public schools. Teachers have been begging…BEGGING for something like this since No Child Left Behind was hatched. Our kids need to be able to THINK, and Common Core testing at the very least does do that.

    • Awpond September 17, 2013 at 11:02 am #

      Will, yes and no.
      [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’ … That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” Thomas Jefferson

      • Ted Seay September 17, 2013 at 1:41 pm #

      • Willis Marti September 17, 2013 at 2:42 pm #

        The First Amendment was NOT intended to erect a wall between church and state. It was written to tell the Federal government to not make laws about the established churches ib some states. Look up the history of “antidisestablishmentarianism”.

        • Westly Roberts September 17, 2013 at 4:05 pm #

          close enough but also so that something like the church of england would not reappear in the colonies

      • Braden Patrick September 17, 2013 at 5:08 pm #

        Yeah I think that was in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that the state would not interfere in their affairs… so yeah.

    • brian September 17, 2013 at 8:19 pm #

      If this is a prep text for advanced placement why would you dumb anything down. those looking for advanced placement should be able to understand the document in its entirety

      • Edmund Charles Davis-Quinn September 17, 2013 at 11:09 pm #

        Completely agree. I noticed the text of the 1st, 3rd and 4th amendments was incorrect too. The Bill of Rights is not a long document. Quote in verbatim and then you can discuss different interpretations of each amendment.

  5. Ben September 16, 2013 at 11:35 am #

    Did you see the parenthetical comment on the first amendment? The artificial seperation of church and state.

    • Kevin Liu September 17, 2013 at 12:20 pm #

      congress not being allowed to favor one religion over another directly implies the separation of church and state. Jefferson is explicit in this division, as written in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. the colonials were fighting against an oppressive government for their right to worship however they wanted, and were not about to allow that to happen again.

      • Westly Roberts September 17, 2013 at 4:10 pm #

        thank you

      • Richard September 17, 2013 at 4:26 pm #

        The separation if church and state as people are trying to enforce it is what is incorrect. The 1A says congress shall make no law. There’s nothing prohibiting religion and government from coexisting so long as the government isn’t promoting one religion over another or restricting any religion. Nothing in the amendment prohibits an individual from expressing his or her faith by putting something on an office wall that’s representative of their religion. Yet some people throw a fit over that. In the absence of a law or rule, written or unwritten I see nothing that violates the 1A. The concept of separation of church and state has been hijacked to attempt to remove all religious references from the public space. Which in my view is a prohibition of the free exercise of a religion if you can’t express (verbally or otherwise) your faith in public space

        • Westly Roberts September 17, 2013 at 4:30 pm #

          the readers digest version is no national

        • Shelby September 19, 2013 at 7:40 pm #

          Tell that to the people who get bullied and beat every day because they don’t believe in the same religion as someone else. I wish the kids who damn near beat me to death in high school for being pagan had the same freedom ideals that you do. I feel that removing the religious aspect of things completely would help in these matters but sadly we will never truly get there. Someone will always be unhappy with giving up their faith in public while having no problem with forcing others to give up theirs because it makes them uncomfortable. In all honesty, it will always be that way because some people are taught to destroy that which is different, especially when it comes to religion.

          • Hillbilly Bob September 19, 2013 at 9:39 pm #

            Shelby, the separation of church and state is for the government, what you experienced was assault no matter the reason it happened
            Sorry to hear this too

  6. chelle September 16, 2013 at 11:40 am #

    This is why I homeschool!

    • Amymarie September 16, 2013 at 5:06 pm #

      You may not be able to if Common Core has its way!!!

      • TeachLiberty September 16, 2013 at 5:29 pm #

        Please tell me what you know about the Common Core. I’d like to know because insinuating that homeschooling is AT ALL threatened is absolutely ludicrous. Just like our current state standards must be upheld for all students being homeschooled, Common Core standards must be as well. You are not limited to what you teach as a homeschool teacher, but you must, at least at a cursory level, teach to the bare minimum state standards.

        • Hillbilly Bob September 16, 2013 at 5:40 pm #

          I taught my kids the right stuff, taught them that dishonest Abe Lincoln was a dipshit and never cared about the slaves which schools teach the opposite
          I also taught them that the Civil War wasn’t fought about slaves but federal control which is why we have the mess we have today
          I have taught them much more to erase the libtard bullshit taught in schools these days
          Did I do good teach? : ) please give me an A, I smiled at ya

          • TeachLiberty September 16, 2013 at 5:50 pm #

            You get an A for veering off topic. My comment was that the Common Core doesn’t stop you from teaching whatever you believe.

          • Hillbilly Bob September 16, 2013 at 5:53 pm #

            I guess i get paddles then? Hell I need a job in a school with my lesson plan

          • Dave February 15, 2015 at 10:54 am #

            Hillbilly. ..I’m always amused when people bring the ‘civil was wasn’t about slavery it was about states rights’ argument up…a state’s right to do what? (Other than have slaves?)
            Check out the Confederate Constitution…it’s pretty interesting, however, over and over again the issue of keeping slaves is addressed. Personal Lincoln was an abolitionist who wanted to send the slaves back to Africa. Politically he was adamant about stopping the spread of slavery to any and all ‘new’ stated that entered the Union. That’s why South Carolina seceded right after he was elected…

        • Amymarie September 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm #

          Common Core has a lot of hidden things in it and could possibly threaten our homeschooling rights and other rights. Yes it cannot tell you or me what to teach, but if homeschooling is taken away then what do we do to protect our children. There’s is way more to the Common Core than just the standards! They have an agenda!!!
          Here is one video you can watch:
          If the link doesn’t work just go to youtube and search for Common Core: Subversive Threat to Education
          There is more information out there about the other hidden elements in the Core. Please check into it more… Do not just trust what you are being told from me or them!!! God bless…

  7. ExSeabee September 16, 2013 at 11:51 am #

    History seems to be repeating its self. This is the same kind of thing that Hilter and Stalin did before all those people were killed off.

    The younger generation was slowly brainwashed to think the way the government wanted. With young minds it does not take long. This would only be the first change, after this comes a way to do away with all guns outside of the federal government (read the new words that are used to swear in our new government troops).

    This is most beliveable, Look at our present Government bosses.

    • TK September 16, 2013 at 11:55 am #

      These scum are in for a rude awakening if they are gonna try that here.

  8. Just my Opinion September 16, 2013 at 12:23 pm #

    I think a lot of this is misunderstandings due to left out words and typos. Plus they do begin by saying it is a Summary of the adapted Bill of Rights, whoever was summarizing it obviously was reading it out of context.

    • Mike Elliott September 16, 2013 at 1:30 pm #

      Not only out of context but with a Anti 2nd Amendment bias. They also missed the mark on the first amendment. No excuse. What other bias’ are in this text book.

  9. Marc Richardson September 16, 2013 at 12:23 pm #

    That is the contact information for the actual publisher of this book. AMSCO School Publications’

  10. Hillbilly Bob September 16, 2013 at 12:25 pm #

    Schools are full of libtard employees, the employees learn this garbage from the colleges which are reallyyyyyyyyyy full of libtards and commies/socialists

    • killtheman September 17, 2013 at 8:07 am #

      ima “libtard” and belive me,,i wont share my “commie” rations with you if it goes down lol

      • Hillbilly Bob September 17, 2013 at 11:34 am #

        Believe me killtheman you won’t have to share anything with me and mine : )

    • Glenn Adwell September 17, 2013 at 6:01 pm #

      This in in a book. What does that have to do with the topic?

  11. Christyn September 16, 2013 at 12:29 pm #

    I posted this link to the school’s FB page and it got one comment before they deleted it. Odd, dontcha think?

    • Milkbomber September 16, 2013 at 7:48 pm #

      Not really, since the website contains links to weapon reviews. The content of the rest of the website is the reason for the deletion. Try reposting the info in an objective way, so they can see the error without having to read your opinion of it (which is more likely to make them ignore it). Good luck.

      • Brandon September 16, 2013 at 7:58 pm #

        I don’t think so. I posted the link to their Facebook page, and last I checked, it’s still there.

  12. Mike Elliott September 16, 2013 at 12:36 pm #

    Not only did they change the 2nd amendment, which by the way makes me sick, they are adding that the 1st amendment is (Separation of Church and state) pure propaganda. Part of the 1st amendment protects us from the government from establishing a state religion not separating church and state.

  13. Heather A Burns September 16, 2013 at 12:47 pm #

    It is an interesting dig to find the same corporate interests, controlling our media, and destroying our Constitution, also controlling the educational materials of the nation.

  14. Mike Humphries September 16, 2013 at 12:54 pm #

    So I just wanted to give an update to this. I just called and talked to Leslie who works at the School and they are aware of this and it has been brought up to the highest levels and all the teachers in the school are teaching the correct version of our Second Amendment in our Constitution.

    • Brandon September 16, 2013 at 1:00 pm #

      Thanks Mike.

      • Hillbilly Bob September 16, 2013 at 1:02 pm #

        As long as the school isn’t telling her to say this when pissed off people call?
        Could be legit though

    • Mike Elliott September 16, 2013 at 1:14 pm #

      The problem with this is they approved this garbage and have spent money on it so nothing will change. Even if the teaches are mentioning the correct verbiage the students are studding the junk history. They will go through life having this in the back of their heads and will always question what version is right. The school district cannot fix the issue with a statement because they will not trash the books and get the correct materials in the classroom. Someone should be fired and not be allowed to work with children ever again. This type of behavior is just as offensive as a child molester.

      • Hillbilly Bob September 16, 2013 at 1:26 pm #

        I agree Mike, someone’s proof reader is a commie : )

  15. Stuart September 16, 2013 at 1:29 pm #

    The wording of the second amendment, in its highly convoluted archaic legalise, is saying that the bearing arms is protected for the purpose of serving in a legal and regulated militia. At the time the constitution was written, the US didn’t have a professional standing Army in the same form that the English did as the Continental Army was disbanded in 1783 following the Treaty of Paris. The Founding Father’s didn’t see the need to maintain a standing army and believed that the militia’s would suffice in the defence of the nation. It wasn’t until 1792, after the Second Amendment was written, that the Legion of the United States (the precursor to the US Army) was formed. Therefore it was necessary to enshrine the right to form militia, and by extension the right to bear arms for the purpose of serving in the militia, in the constitution. So in essence, the text book is correct in its interpretation of the spirit of the Second Amendment, but you’re right they shouldn’t be messing with the wording of the Constitution.

    • Brandon September 16, 2013 at 5:10 pm #

      Wrong Stuart. Even the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

    • Tim September 16, 2013 at 5:13 pm #

      The herpa derpa is strong with you Stuart LOL.

    • ExSeabee September 16, 2013 at 5:43 pm #


      How old are you? Are you old enough to have known Ben F? I know I am not

      Historians, which you seem to thing you are, only try to believe that you know what goes on in someone’s mind 200 hundred years ago. Why can’t you let things be as written, rather then trying to put your own spin on it.

      I am tired of reading about the know-it-alls who want to tell me what when’t on in someones mind many, many, many years ago. Give it up and read things as they are written.

      • Westly Roberts September 16, 2013 at 8:42 pm #

        dudes and dudettes. the people have the right to bear arms cause when the government steps in and takes away your freedom you can fight back with something. guess what we had to fight back from an oppressive government and gain our freedom from england awhile back. the founding fathers realized that a government could overpower its citizens and rule them and take away their freedom. they wrote the second amendment significantly second on the list after freedom of speech and separation of church and state. wow look at the priorities. free to speak worship and fight. glad i;m an american

        • Greg September 17, 2013 at 9:51 am #

          I think it’s important to note that an armed citizen can defend himself or herself, loved ones and/or property against criminals..
          An armed citizen might very well be a hunter, or work where wildlife includes snakes or wild animals that a human being must be prepared to stop in the event of an attack..
          I think that our country was founded on good understanding of how governments have always suppressed a peoples need to grow a free life for themselves.
          Our country became extremely successful in a very short time.. thus demonstrating that a “pro-freedom/limited government” policy works well beyond dispute.
          This rapid fire success and economic prosperity allowed our country to be able to establish a private sector free market economy that took care of our needs as a country, and also provide much for the needs of other parts of the world.. The world knew us as the land of freedom… how do I know? .. ask them anywhere, what country they would most want to live?
          … I pray that our voting citizens begin to realize how our country’s established proof of working prosperity is a source of absolute contempt, for those who want no part of doing for themselves, but believe that they were put here to control others.. and the slow process of controlling us has been carefully masked.. Our strong freedoms would never be forcibly taken without a fight that might not be wise start (for them)… BUT, if our citizens believed they were providing for their own needs, by voting for the government take control of their own freedoms and liberties… then the citizens would be willing participants in their own enslavement…
          How could and free citizen in a strong economic system in a free country, ever want to vote for the government to take control of their own freedoms and liberties? again, by carefully finding areas of “slow progress,” and “Work in progress” areas and claiming… environmental damages.. and making a most dramatic promotion of blame, against the private sector successes… the lifeblood of our greatest strength as a nation….
          that are our greatest and undeniable proof of “pro-freedom/limited government” policy, demonstrates that we do not need or require control from government.. or anyone who thinks they shouldn’t be required to do for themselves, but control others… take from them and “redistribute”….
          and folks… this explains the motives behind what has been happening to our country…. all the blame being dramatically directed against private sector economic strength have taken the form of all manner of issues that seem to require a vote… animal rights, global warming, green peace, on and on… and is it not most interesting, that all the blame is directed at private sector economic freedoms and growth… and the solution seems to only be to vote for the government to take control of our freedoms and liberties?
          And why can our dense citizens not see this? …

          Well, after steady promotion of the notion that “private sector strength has damaged our people and world,” and add to that the granting of all manner of government assistances for demonstrating “the need”.. (and little information about better options than remaining needy are made available).. people begin to be suspicious of any private sector solutions
          Solutions that might interfere with the gravy train of government help (which is just enough to discourage self reliance, or distract from the wealth generating opportunities available to everyone through economic freedoms and free market growth…. and the hypnotic propaganda is fed that “the rich want to take from the poor”….
          how stupid must people be to believe that?!!

          … “the rich” are mostly an illusion being inflated,… it’s the free citizens who want more for our country that it’s citizens to believe that government control is the solution to problems … problems that are easily resolved without government interference.. and a whole world of information and proof of better options, are now competing with that “dramatic blame” being promoted by those who now think it’s progressive to make change…. change they can believe in…

          interesting slogan, don’t you think?

          Does anyone think that our Founding Fathers did not understand this? … Does anyone think that our Constitution is structured to prevent Government control of private sector freedom and liberties? … Does Anyone think that our countries historical proof of our liberties and freedoms have grown the strongest country ever, and is proof against those who don’t think they should provide for themselves, but control others?… Does anyone think that the only two solutions to most all of the political issues of the day, are the government taking control of our freedoms and liberties?… and Has the government solved any problems that they asserted control and assistance and entitlements? Or has the problems only gotten worse sense the government provided just enough support to buy votes to continue the support?… and options that involve less government support and more economic growth and opportunities are regarded as “the rich take from the poor”..?!! ..
          What rich?… you mean us?

          The working man who wants better for our citizen than the limited choices we see being dramatically promoted?… Are we the rich?

          We are free…. that is our strength… that it YOUR strength!!

          … take from the poor?…. What on Gods earth would a “supposed rich man,” think he could gain from taking from a poor person? That is STUPID!…

          The poor have nothing that a rich person wants to take!!!

          The FREE people are fighting to provide MUCH healthier options than Government rationed support… and the political issues that we are being blamed for, are not being resolved by voting for the government to take control of our liberties…

          you are NOT sticking it to the man, by supporting politicians say they are against “:the rich”….
          because they are against “the FREE!!!!”

          I am sure I have plenty of friends who can drag up issue after issue, that seem to invalidate my position…

          I am sure these are the very issues which form the basis of support for government control…

          I pray that they understand for themselves, that they have no need to fear freedom.. and that they are not protecting themselves by supporting government solutions..

          those solutions have never work, but freedom does!… and has demonstrated!!

          I pray that our friends who think they are making change they can believe in, see for themselves that they are not creating a world which the government will allow no responsibilities.. and everyone will be free of any rules that make people work.. and the government will provide for our needs….

          because that seems to be the image that those folks seem to be fiercely protecting…

          What world had the government ever created that fantasy?..

          Look at the places where the Government is providing it’s benevolent assistances and entitlements…

          Take a good look at how “freedom from the responsibility” that the government has demonstrated, support that image you are protecting…

          Be prepared, if you try to offer freedom based solutions that are way better than accepting free government peanuts, you will be called racist…

          Yep… it’s gotten that stupid..
          Offer real help… get called racist…

          Protecting that Government freedom from responsibility… when they could have personal power and freedoms beyond anything they believe possible… they think it’s a lie… the only reality is that free stuff from the government… that is the freedom they think they are protecting..

          • Westly Roberts September 17, 2013 at 4:48 pm #

            give me my free lunch give me my free cell phone give me my free rent and I’ll give you a prison that you will not be able to leave chained by the governments dole without the will to excel or the aspiration to do anything. ok now get back on track

    • Bob Blaylock September 17, 2013 at 12:38 am #

        Stuart’s post, here, is a perfect example of exactly the sort of ignorance and misinformation that this book is trying to “teach”.

    • Jimmy September 17, 2013 at 8:04 am #

      Stuart- You are right and wrong here. Our Founding Fathers did indeed agree that “it was necessary to enshrine the right to form militia”. However, to assume their intention was “to bear arms for the purpose of serving in the militia” is misguided at best. “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” states it most plainly. The fact is that a militia might (one day) be necessary to secure the freedoms of the States from tyrannical government. Since a militia is defined as “a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers” these were expected to be pulled together as needed. Thus, the people would already be armed and able to assemble as needed when called upon to protect the state. The Founding Fathers recognized this need and agreed that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. This was the only way to guarantee that a militia could have a chance at being successful. If the Federal Government were permitted to remove or infringe upon the people’s access to arms, their ability to form a “well-regulated militia” is voided and the the will of the States undone.

      Furthermore, your statement that “The Founding Father’s didn’t see the need to maintain a standing army and believed that the militia’s would suffice in the defence of the nation” is inherently flawed since a “standing army” is funded and directed by the Nation and not the State. The second amendment tells us specifically that the States (and not the nation) need that level of protection.

      Throughout our history as a fledgling nation, too much emphasis has been placed on interpretation of the Constitution. Rather, to understand what they meant, we should simply take them as written.

    • Mike September 17, 2013 at 12:54 pm #

      Stuart –
      What you have stated is a common misunderstanding that many come to based on talking points. You need to check your dates there is a bit of a difference between when the Constitution was written and when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Then compare those dates with the establishment of the US Army/Navy and War Department.

      You are correct in saying that at the time of the Constitution being written that there was a desire by many not have a standing army. That changed however and On September 29, 1789 the US Military was formed after a Bill passed the House of Representatives and the Senate both on that day. This was just 4 days after the Bill of Rights was formally proposed as a joint resolution in Congress.

      As I am sure you are aware, they then spent over two years debating the amendments, WITH full knowledge that their was now in fact a standing Army/Navy, so the argument that the whole intent of the 2nd Amendment is/was just for the militia because their was no other military is false.

      To add to that, for the folks that still like to argue the “only for the militia” I would suggest visiting Title 10 of the US Code, where it specifically defines what the militia is and who is it in.

    • Mike McFall September 17, 2013 at 8:14 pm #

      Yours is the most restrictive reading and understanding of the amendment. Others understand a broader intention.

  16. lo7us September 16, 2013 at 1:33 pm #

    I believe their is legal recourse and consequential damages at issue here. If this is a public (funded) school than they are at risk of loosing state and federal funding for misrepresenting the constitution. If motives and intent are proven and a sizable consequence will be levied. Good assignment for a law student to take on… it will get a lot of annotation and potential case prescience… any lawyers out there who care to support the US constitution? Has anyone sent this to the NRA legal department yet?

    I’m not one to litigate, but we are a republic of laws and this is the correct way to correct a “issue”. It NEEDS (MUST) be corrected. We all are bound to the US constitution – I for one took the oath several times! Unacceptable and complete disregard to the compounded by the fact this is intended to be a knowledge transfer tool to students!

  17. Watch September 16, 2013 at 1:51 pm #

    Taking measures to make America safer one kid at a time. I hope they keep it up.

    • Brandon September 16, 2013 at 5:08 pm #

      I can’t tell if you’re serious or not.

  18. aquadile September 16, 2013 at 2:05 pm #

    If anything, this is closer to what the second amendment really does say, rather than what you uneducated people think it says.

    Amendment II

    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.

    • Brandon September 16, 2013 at 5:05 pm #

      Wrong – you are the uneducated one. The founders believed that the 2A applied to individuals, as is clear from their writings (Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, etc), the Supreme Court disagrees with you, etc.

  19. Heather Whitehead September 16, 2013 at 2:08 pm #

    *ALL* of these “amendments” are re-written, or paraphrased.

    In defense of the authors/editors of the book – these “Amendments” are headed with the statement that this is a “summary” of the first ten amendments.

    That said – this is irresponsible to present the Constitution in this manner, especially in an AP class. What – they couldn’t include the entire Constitution, word for word?

    Oh wait … My bad. That would allow students to learn for themselves and thus violate “Common Core.”

  20. TeachLiberty September 16, 2013 at 2:10 pm #

    Just to make sure everyone is aware, the book in question is an AP preparation book. The Advanced Placement exam is long and arduous. These prep books are designed to instill quick facts for easy recall. While this is clearly NOT the full text of the 2nd Amendment, it is written as a review tool. If you were going to be tested on the Constitution, you would study the entire document as a review. You’d have bullet points or reworded phrases. I guarantee the normal curriculum includes the full text of the Constitution. Here in California (*gasp*!) we teach the Constitution as written in simple terms to 5th graders, as a reaction to British rule in 8th grade, and as it applies to the US today in 12th grade. The students who are seeing this book (AP students) are exceptionally bright kids who are on their way to four-year schools. They most certainly have seen, studied, and debated (another 12th grade standard) the issue of the 2nd Amendment’s treatment throughout history.

    • Warren September 17, 2013 at 1:39 pm #

      The students that walked into 2000 level US History class when I was the TA at the college level in California did not seem to have absorbed the 12th grade standard. When you have students writing American History reports that include: General Santa Anna started the American Revolution, The American Revolution ended when the Colonists were forced to sign the Constitution, and worse. I think that High Schools are not preparing these special snowflakes for the College environment and they do not need paraphrasing, they need facts.

      • TeachLiberty September 17, 2013 at 2:25 pm #

        I teach at the middle school level, and I can tell you that you are absolutely correct about the poor level of preparation of most students. There are two factors at play here. First, parents do not take an active role in their child’s education. Especially here in California we are seen as fixers and sitters. Second, our kids are only tested in social studies in 4th, 8th, and (not sure about this one) 10th grade. What that means is that teachers, under pressure to raise test scores in English and Math, ignore social studies. Is that right? Absolutely not, but when we are threatened with having our pay tied to test scores, having our employment based on our ability to raise scores, and having the media scrutinizing our English and math achievement with a fine-toothed comb, we do what we have to do. I am using the royal “we” here even though I personally make social studies a priority. The way we test is not effective, and with some of the changes to testing coming along with the Common Core standards, students will be forced to have a greater global understanding that includes social studies and science. Critical thinking is something that’s been lost, but the changes to testing hold great promise for remedying that.

  21. D September 16, 2013 at 2:52 pm #

    This has to be stopped. I Left bad review on Amazon,

    Called school and wrote on their fb page
    940-369-1000 (phone)

    , and contacted the publisher Amsco School Publications; at Phone: (866) 902-6726

  22. VintageHippie (@VIntageHIppie) September 16, 2013 at 3:54 pm #

    If you google high school AP history review or the title of this, you’ll find it inside MANY high schools. I just did a cursory search and found it in 6 high schools as a .pdf file. All were using the same publisher and .pdf file. Call your school and this publisher and demand they write the PROPER amendment. That’s what I intend to do. As a college history professor (of the Constitution among other things) this is going to be VERY HARD to battle, but it needs done.

  23. Mark September 16, 2013 at 4:03 pm #

    The misquote is from the 1780 Massachusetts version of the state constitution that gets confused with the second amendment. The Massachusetts version is what is in the text book. The misquote has been quoted in the U.S. Supreme court cases, put into court documents and depending how your looking up your arguments can and is used as the second amendment even though its wrong.

  24. Creator1956 September 16, 2013 at 4:10 pm #

    Read above it. Page 102, end of first paragraph: “Here is a summary of the rights guaranteed in each amendment:” They never state they are quoting the constitution. Jumping to conclusions is no good for anyone. Don’t be reactionaries. Act like scholars. One ignorance does not trump another.

    • Brandon September 16, 2013 at 5:00 pm #

      I’ll pass along some of your own advice back to you: act like a scholar. Stating that the 2A applies to people in state militias, and not normal everyday citizens, is patently wrong.

  25. Bishop Harber September 16, 2013 at 4:29 pm #

    And the author of this article is a moron. As are most responses.

    I don’t understand why no-one is upset that this AP book changes the rest of those amendments. This is more emotional manipulation by people trying to create a tempest in a teacup. Reality, people, is about looking at the whole picture and not the tiny piece that fits a personal prejudice.

    This is a textbook like any other. It’s paraphrased the amendments in plain English. Some are better than others, but none of them are particularly “wrong,” per se.

    • Brandon September 16, 2013 at 4:55 pm #

      Bishop, don’t you know it’s not polite to call names?

      The problem, since you seem unable to understand (or perhaps you’re trolling?), is that the “paraphrase” completely and incorrectly changes the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, stating that the 2A applies to state militias and not individuals. That’s wrong in every sense of the word.

      Thanks for stopping by.

    • Tim September 16, 2013 at 4:59 pm #

      LOL Bishop…nice try.

    • Mary Bartel September 16, 2013 at 6:12 pm #

      Fa la la la la Trollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

  26. Ann Feder September 16, 2013 at 4:41 pm #

    It does state that it is a “summary”, but boy did they abridge that to erase the true meaning. #not a gun fan but can’t stand that kind of incorrect information.

  27. Mary Bartel September 16, 2013 at 6:11 pm #

    I just wrote to them:

    Dear Amsco,

    You should be absolutely disgusted with yourselves regarding page 102 of your publication entitled “Preparing the US history AP Exam”. The second amendment grants the right to ALL US citizens to keep and bear arms, not “by those in a state militia” as you have written it. You may believe that to be the case in your personal opinion, but rewriting the US Constitution for highschoolers is despicable, and tantamount to indoctrination. I am a well-respected member of the school board of my community, and I will do my personal best from this point forward to ensure that our district AVOIDS purchasing ANY AMSCO products. There are many alternatives for us to choose from, and as you see it fitting to rewrite the Constitution, you are not worthy of my/our business.

    I sincerely hope you correct this glaring error and that whomever allowed this to be published is disciplined. Then and only then will I consider ever using AMSCO again.

    Yours Truthfully,

  28. Pat September 16, 2013 at 6:25 pm #

    The First is wrong here too. The part about religion should read (translated to modern English) Congress shall make no law creating a state religion or stopping people from freely practicing any religion.

  29. John September 16, 2013 at 6:54 pm #

    Family Guy joke on the 2nd Amendment. Awesome.

  30. Bob September 16, 2013 at 7:26 pm #

    Looks like they’ve revised the wording of all the amendments, most likely to make it easier to understand. Not sure why you guys are just highlighting the second amendment…if you want the actual text written, then the same should be done for all the amendments.

    • Brandon September 16, 2013 at 7:47 pm #

      Yeah Bob, I know and have responded to several others about this very same thing. The problem is that in their admirable quest to make the 2A easier to understand (sarcasm, it’s not hard to understand in its correct form) they changed the meaning. The 2A applies to individuals, not people in state militias. Big difference.

  31. Greg Toal September 16, 2013 at 7:34 pm #

    This is THE MOST heinous act of DIS-INFORMATION I have EVER seen! The writer, fact-checker & publisher should be SUED & PROSECUTED if possible! My Father, God rest his soul, taught HIGH SCHOOL for 41 years. 28 of those teaching U.S. HISTORY! I ‘m sure he’s SPINNING in his GRAVE! He had 3 text books changed over his career, for mistakes & lies far less DAMAGING than this! THIS CANNOT STAND, IT MUST BE CHANGED! PERIOD!

  32. Greg Toal September 16, 2013 at 7:36 pm #

    I get the feeling reading these, they’re for the “MTV” generation. But AP History? What a joke, a BAD joke

  33. Dee Grier September 16, 2013 at 7:55 pm #

    My husband pointed out the 1st Amendment they “paraphrased” is also totally wrong!!!

  34. Jim September 16, 2013 at 10:16 pm #

    All of them appear to be wrong read the 3rd and the 4th and all the others. They are all wrong. I don’t know why you all are shocked or surprised. The congress, the courts and the presidents have been rewriting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for years.

  35. Dr. L. September 16, 2013 at 10:18 pm #

    Sorry. We do not need a well regulated militia, when we have a standing Army. That is why there are rules for civilian gun use and ownership. Deal with it, citizens.

    • Brandon September 16, 2013 at 11:07 pm #

      First of all, I think you’re confused as to what “well-regulated militia” actually means in this context. In the District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “militia” included both the federally organized militia and the citizen-organized militias.

      However, this has nothing to do with civilian gun use and ownership. In the United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to any weapon having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

      So you see, the revisionist nonsense in this history book is wrong on more than one front.

    • Hillbilly Bob September 16, 2013 at 11:11 pm #

      Hell I can own a full auto and silencers so I am happy with your hardcore gun use and ownership and my state is adding better gun laws each year
      We are getting ready to make “Stand your ground” law a nightmare for the “Free Shit Army” thugs

  36. Richard September 16, 2013 at 11:28 pm #

    The confusion lies with the phrase well regulated and it’s meaning in the context of the time. Back then it meant to function as expected. For example if you go down to your car in the morning and turn the key in the ignition and it starts then your car would be considered well regulated.

    Looking at US v Miller, the decisions stated that “when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” That means military type weapons are protected (that was part of the governments argument too…they argued that the short barreled shotgun in question was not a common military weapon and therefore held no special protection by the 2nd amendment from restriction by the NFA). Fast forward to the heller decision and the Supreme Court affirms that gun ownership is an individual right for lawful purposes (including self defense) with no requirement of membership in an organized militia.

    Since Supreme Court decisions become law of the land, it’s clear that the 2nd amendment has no bearing on being in a militia and protects the ownership of “military style” arms. Since it’s an individual right I’ve always understood it to mean individual weapons are protected but weapons that require multiple people to operate (ie a tank) does not fall under that category. I don’t know of any legal challenge that’s addressed that though.

  37. Bob DeLong September 17, 2013 at 12:14 am #

    none of the other amendments presented in the image are “correct” either; the image *clearly* shows the information is summarized, not complete texts. If left summarized, the remainder of the amendments can also be misconstrued. Taking aim at just the second amendment is rather single-minded, don’t you think?

    • Brandon September 17, 2013 at 12:23 am #

      No I don’t. As stated in the post, I was alerted to the issue from another blog, and originally suspected a hoax. Once I confirmed it was not a hoax, I decided it was not the best use of my time to go through the rest of the book with a fine-toothed comb looking for additional indoctrination. I believe the erroneous “summary” of the 2A tells the reader all they need to know about this book.

  38. Gayle Gourley Reed September 17, 2013 at 12:15 am #

    Pay attention, they rewrote the other ones, too, in “revisionist speak.” Like those well-meaning (so-called) people who rewrite the Bible into contemporary language and lose the meaning, entirely. I think this is probably more a dumbing down of language to reflect the fact that the average high school senior lacks the vocabulary of a sixth-grader a generation ago, but if you look at the ammendments visible in the photo, none of them are verbatim; they are all restated n the author’s own words. These are not ancient texts whose translations are guessed at by educated researchers. They are the legal documents by which our country was founded and they dictate how our governmen is set up to operate. No history or government class textbook should ever be allowed to quote anything but the bona fide documents, word for word! I’d be interested in knowing who published this book with such blatant paraphrasing used!

    • Brandon September 17, 2013 at 12:19 am #

      Yeah the problems with this book do not start or end with the incorrect “summary” of the 2A.

  39. whyteraven74 September 17, 2013 at 1:13 am #

    As for those complaining about the summary of the first amendment, the words of Thomas Jefferson settled the issue 208 years ago, from his letter to Danbury Baptist Association “…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

    As for the second amendment, it’s accurate as it goes. Nothing in the authorship of the amendment indicates any notion that it covers arms without restriction as to their type or carriage. Certainly in the days the constitution was written people didn’t go around with their pistols just out and about. And laws restricting the carrying of guns within town/city limits were all over the place over a century ago, with nothing in the way of legal challenges. Municipalities restricting a person going about with a gun on their person is nothing new, arguing that such restrictions violate the second amendment is.

    Now if only the picture showed the summary of the ninth amendment, be interesting to see what they make of it given what it states.

    • Brandon September 17, 2013 at 11:30 am #

      I don’t even know where to start with you…

      Regarding the 2A, you said “Nothing in the authorship of the amendment indicates any notion that it covers arms without restriction as to their type or carriage.” And yet to support your argument for the 1A, you refer to a letter written by Jefferson to Danbury Baptist Association. How about applying the same level of investigation to the 2A?

      Your view of the 2A is woefully flawed. To get a better understanding, I suggest you look at a few Supreme Court cases first, and then read the Federalist Papers.

      As the Supreme Court has ruled in the past, the 2A protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. See cases above for details therein.

  40. Adam Porter September 17, 2013 at 7:57 am #

    I realize this is a gun blog, thus the emphasis, but did anyone else notice the egregious mangling of the First as well?

    • Brandon September 17, 2013 at 11:15 am #

      Yes and FYI, Monderno isn’t just a gun blog.

      • Adam Porter September 17, 2013 at 12:00 pm #

        Duly noted. Not knocking it in either case. I’m a fan of guns, knives, tactical and survival content.

        • Brandon September 17, 2013 at 12:16 pm #

          Cool – you might find Monderno interesting then.

  41. Marc Gafni September 17, 2013 at 9:18 am #

    They got the Third Amendment wrong, too.

    • Brandon September 17, 2013 at 11:11 am #

      They got a lot of things wrong.

  42. Ryan September 17, 2013 at 10:09 am #

    It says in the book “Here is a summary of the rights …” I think the purpose is to give a brief summary and I’m sure the original text is earlier in the book. You see that in text books all the time. It is a useful way to summarize all of the information you have just read.

    • Brandon September 17, 2013 at 11:08 am #

      I know that Ryan. The problem is that the book does NOT provide a correct summary of the Second Amendment.

  43. Rich September 17, 2013 at 11:22 am #

    It’s not just the Second Amendment. Look how they rewrote the First Amendment, too.

    • Brandon September 17, 2013 at 11:32 am #

      I know Rich.

  44. Michael September 17, 2013 at 1:01 pm #

    Ever been to Austin, Joe?

  45. Warren September 17, 2013 at 1:07 pm #

    I am a Masters Student in History. I have a phone call into the school where I asked to speak to the person who chooses text books for the History and AP History classes. I let them know that I was interested in looking into revisionist histories and how they are perpetrated by the current educational establishment. I left my name and number, any bets as to if I get a call back?

  46. Cheryl September 17, 2013 at 1:19 pm #

    1st amendment:
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging 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”

  47. Warren September 17, 2013 at 1:24 pm #

    Just got off the phone with the publisher. They let me know that AMSCO Publishing has been purchased and that that title is currently being rewritten to use the original working of the Bill of Rights in the new edition. I think the outcry scared them a little. for you that care : AMSCO Publishing 866-902-6726

    • Brandon September 17, 2013 at 1:32 pm #

      Thanks Warren.

  48. Lou Lange September 17, 2013 at 1:34 pm #

    This is not a liberal, conservative or political issue. This is an issue of the text book publisher being given bad/wrong information. I strongly suggest you contact the Denton School Board or, better yet, the publisher of the text book.

  49. Erin, NY September 17, 2013 at 4:48 pm #

    Seriously this text book is being used in an AP course?! What scars me is that in the text it states a summarization. When learning about law you should always learn verbatem: the link is from the National Archives which is open to everyone in the US to view – this school district should go by the actual docment and drop using the poor excuse of a book. Its disgusting that a publisher would take the liberty on self interpretation of the law of our nation. This is one school district – how many others purchased this book from the publisher? Unless the school district complains, the publisher will not ship out corrected books to the district. Very scary!!!

  50. Chris Johnson September 17, 2013 at 6:50 pm #

    Texas is one of the largest consumers of textbooks, as is California.
    I tried to address this issue in California where the textbook was identical but hit a brick wall.
    Get it done in Texas and you get it done in the whole country.

  51. Cjohnson September 17, 2013 at 7:04 pm #

    As I read some of these comments, I wonder how the human race made it this far…

    • Brandon September 17, 2013 at 7:45 pm #

      True story.

  52. ablestmage September 17, 2013 at 8:18 pm #

    I think OP means that the textbook poorly summarized the 2nd amendment — because the textbook “rewrote” _all_ of the amendments to reach whatever grade level is reading it. Look at the others on the page — they’re all summarized. The 2nd amendment is poorly summarized, I would agree — but I would not say it was rewritten, so to speak. The textbook version does not trump the authority of the original document.

    • Brandon September 17, 2013 at 9:13 pm #

      It’s not poorly summarized, the meaning has been completely changed.

  53. Chris Johnson September 17, 2013 at 10:04 pm #

    Way worse then poorly written, the text is an absolute lie.
    Of course the text does not trump SCOTUS but those kids may be on a jury someday, they need to know that “the people” means the people, not “the state”

  54. arxvirtus September 17, 2013 at 10:30 pm #

    The first amendment description gives special emphasis to the religion clause by providing verbiage clearly not in the meaning of the first amendment.

  55. saint September 17, 2013 at 10:36 pm # 10 USC § 311 – Militia: composition and class
    Current through Pub. L. 113-31. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

    (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.

  56. George Hill September 17, 2013 at 10:50 pm #

    This reply is to Stuart, you seem to be pretty well educated & you pretty well hit the nail on the head with your history lesson on the militia’s & continental army. But what you did not state is back in the beginning of our great nation the states did not &I stress not provide their militia members with weapons. The members of the state militias & even the us army had to provide their own weapons & it was actually that way to a large degree up through the civil war & up until the latter part of the 19th century

  57. JP September 18, 2013 at 12:00 am #

    All of the amendments are written wrong in this book. Its like the authors made their own interpretation. What are they thinking?!!

  58. Jimmy September 18, 2013 at 1:57 pm #

    This story made the news.

  59. Guyer September 18, 2013 at 7:41 pm #

    Hi, um I attend Guyer High School and I took this course last year and had great success on my AP test. This is absolutely ridiculous. It is one sentence in a text book that is excellent if I say so myself. The teacher who teaches this course is an amazing teacher who works extremely hard to make sure every opinion of hers is well hidden and that we have both sides of the story. Also, we use the UNABRIDGED CONSTITUTION when doing our work and only this book to get a quick summary and over view of the material we are about to learn. Nobodys mind is being “warped” or “manipulated”. Please, chill. There are bigger issues to be dealt with in our education.

    • Brandon September 18, 2013 at 8:29 pm #

      Assuming you’re telling the truth, it’s worth pointing out that my beef is with the textbook in question and not necessarily Guyer High School. I’m glad you like your high school.

    • Adam September 18, 2013 at 9:18 pm #

      I believe your response is well intentioned, Guyer, but it betrays your point in several respects.

      First, the issue is not with “one sentence.” In that textbook the Bill of Rights is intentionally re-written to mirror a specific agenda. Reading further, other “liberties” with facts are taken. For example, impressment is referred to as “an offensive practice,” when, in reality it is (and was) an act of war. To have one’s livelihood destroyed and one’s children taken into military slavery by a foreign nation is, indeed, “offensive,” but it is also a horrific, violent and dehumanizing practice.

      Second, as a high school student, you have zero credibility to judge a textbook as “excellent” or not. Particularly if you cannot see the obvious misinformation contained therein.

      Third, when it comes to historical fact, there are no “sides.” I realize you have grown up in a partisan media culture, where you can choose news like a buffet lunch, but facts cannot change. Taking sides reveals which facts you are willing to accept, but it cannot change those facts.

      This is not an “abridged” Constitution. It is a fundamentally altered representation of the most vital political document on the planet. Symptom one of indoctrination in an inability to identify when one has been indoctrinated. I cannot say if you have been or not, but your flippant attitude toward historical facts and your apparent belief that one can take positions on reality scream indoctrination.

  60. Chris Johnson September 18, 2013 at 9:09 pm #

    That’s swell “guyer”, however the issue is with the textbook not the teacher or your school.
    Not all teachers keep their opinions to themselves, every public school teacher I know in CA – which uses that same textbook- they believe the 2A means the militia can have a musket, not knowing the difference between the Kentucky Rifle and musket.

    The textbook’s “quick summary” is dead wrong on more than a few points, so we are not going to “chill”.

    BTW being that you feel it is no big deal, perhaps we can point this out and say “see, we are right, their young minds are warped, they accept lies and misinformation and when its pointed out to them they fail to see the importance”

    • TeachLiberty September 19, 2013 at 1:21 am #

      Well, first off, I’m a teacher in California and I’m a staunch supporter of the Second. When I teach the Constitution, I point out that the Amendment has drawn controversy, explain both sides, and allow the kids to make up their own damn mind.

      Second, the young man who attended the high school in question plainly stated that they worked from the unabridged Constitution for all class work pertaining to it. The review book that’s causing all the uproar is no different than scribbling a few notes on a notecard to cram before a big test. It’s a review book designed to get a student to pass a test.

      • Adam September 19, 2013 at 7:07 am #

        Not sure why everyone seems to be bagging on CA teachers. If you are a teacher working to help educate kids in any state, good on you. That being said, TeachLiberty, your analogy is more than a bit slipshod.

        Were this a case of a kid scribbling notes it would likely receive zero backlash. Of course, that would still not change the fact that the information, as presented, is WRONG. As a teacher how can you defend “review material” that is fundamentally incorrect in not just one, but several points. Unless, of course, you agree with the changes.

        Let’s look at this from the perspective of another subject. Chemistry, for instance. Yes, water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. However, the difference between life and death is in the details. H20 is necessary for life. HO will kill you if ingested.

        Now let’s review just three of the changes made in the “review” material as presented.

        1 – The first amendment is not about the separation of social powers and it conveys more freedom than presented in the book.
        2 – The second amendment is not about arming a militia.
        3 – The fourth amendment includes protections of privacy, security and against warrantless searches (etc). This is entirely removed from the “abridged” amendment.

        Concurrently, our first, second and fourth amendments rights are being leeched away by all 3 branches of gov’t. Students (and obviously some teachers) presented with the material in the book will not see this because they will have been conditioned to accept it.

        But the final and foundational issue I have with your argument is this:

        Learning incorrect information in order to pass a test reinforces incorrect information. As a teacher, how can you be “for” this?

        • TeachLiberty September 19, 2013 at 10:52 am #

          I wouldn’t advocate these materials’ use if they were used on their own, but at least based on what was said by a former student of the high school AP course in question, the unabridged text was used throughout the year for studying and assignments. I do advocate the use of any material that will prepare a student to pass a test, given the high stakes nature of testing in general and the AP exam in particular. It’s no different than using a mnemonic device to remember the order of operations in mathematics. Please excuse my dear aunt sally brings to mind parentheses, exponents, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction…but if a child ONLY learns from that mnemonic, they’ll be doomed. If, as they should, they learn that multiplication and division occur in the same step at the same time from left to right (same with addition and subtraction), during the course of their class time and lecture and practice, they’ll complete the problems correctly. The mnemonic is merely there to spark their memory.

          If people have a problem with this text, they shouldn’t go after the textbook publisher. They should go after the state board of education and whatever entity produces AP exams. The review book in question is merely providing abridged review materials that are appropriate for the test. Trust me, when No Child Left Behind came around, all of our texts, handouts, and review materials suddenly had a whole lot more bubble-filling. They did that to make kids score well on the test. Agree or disagree with the publishers’ decision to tailor materials to the test, they have to do it to stay competitive as schools struggle to maintain high test scores amid increasing expectations and decreasing funding.

    • Alex September 19, 2013 at 8:34 pm #

      I’m very sure a few words in a textbook aren’t “warping” any student’s mind. Obviously this is an AP book, and AP students have enough intelligence to understand the summary. Also, I’m in high school as well. And if being high school automatically gives me zero credibility, then I guess 18 year olds shouldn’t have the constitutional right to vote.

      • Brandon September 19, 2013 at 9:24 pm #

        Well as long as you’re sure, I guess we can all drop it huh?

  61. IPeterson September 19, 2013 at 5:04 am #

    As a veteran and avid gun owner I find it interesting that this has gained so much attention. First of all the statement says that this is a summary of the rights. But more important to my point, none (and I mean NONE) of the amendments visible in the picture accurately state what our constitution says. But you are in an uproar over only the 2nd. You gun control people (pro and/or con) will try to use any platform you can find to try to tell us how we should feel. You want gun control? Here is what it means to me:
    1. Use both hands when possible
    2. Keep your finger of the trigger until you’re ready to fire
    3. Aim carefully and consider the background in case of miss or pass through.
    4. Don’t point your weapon at anything you don’t intend to shoot and kill or destroy

    • Brandon September 19, 2013 at 9:08 am #

      “will try to use any platform you can find to try to tell us how we should feel” – well yeah, that’s kind of the point of a blog, and since this platform is MY platform, I kinda get to make the rules. Sometimes folks agree with me, sometimes they don’t.

      I agree with you on gun control.

  62. Chris Johnson September 19, 2013 at 2:18 pm #

    I guess I can’t say I disagree 100% with every CA teacher, I have a friend that teaches at a Catholic school, she doesn’t like guns or the second amendment – she sure does love Jesus though and she makes sure that her students understand why that is important and why abortion is pure evil.

    Perhaps one day she will understand the value of the second but she is a pretty good teacher nonetheless.

    Brandon, thank you very much for opening up this blog to garner attention to this urgent matter.
    Lying about the Constitution and calling it “teaching” and being that most kids/parents may not opt out under color of law – is very important.