Went into Barnes and Nobles tonight looking for a pocket size book on the Constitution. They had a few that I looked over, and I liked all the extra information in one of them, until I read the 2nd Amendment in it.

The name of the book was "The Constitution of the United States" revised and updated edition, by Floyd G. Cullop.

Here is what was listed as the 2nd Amendment, quoted word for word.


This is word for word, nothing added, nothing left out. It was where it should have been, right after the 1st amendment and just before the 3rd amendment, but that was the only thing right about it.

No wonder the younger generation and liberals are all screwed up, they would believe that this is how the 2nd amendment was written, after all, it was published in a book about the constitution.

This is actually listed as the second amendment? Do you think it was an accident, like they forgot the actual amendment and this was his interpertation? (Trying to give some benefit of the doubt to him...)

Apparently the "revised and updated" part refers to the text of the Constitution, and not the book.

TK

I looked at the book. All of it in that spot is interpretation -- the first and the third are also interpretations.

When did they rewrite the 2nd Amendment?

1968-2006 it's called the CGA. and they will keep rewriting it, until all guns are gone.

Time to write the publisher claiming to sue and change the book to Fiction! Get them to change the title to "Anti's Guide to the the Constitution based on what every you want to say". Idiots. Did you talk to the manager of the stor also and share this inaccurate piece of shxx.

Ya right, like they would care. I am amazed that Barnes and Nobles is not posted.

Here is a link so that you can get your own copy to read.

http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,0_0451627245,00.html?referrer=doi

You'd think that they would at least publish the Constitution in its original language/text. The author has every right to then go ahead and "interpret" it for a modern reader, if he believes that the original wording is too difficult to understand, or he believes he has additional historical or other context to add, that might affect one's interpretation.

The english in the Constitution is only 230 years old or thereabouts. While the language has certainly changed, at least a modern reader can read the text without needing a lexicon (a dictionary perhaps...).

This isn't exactly the Bible we're dealing with -- dead languages, crumbling scrolls and all that. At least with the Bible, publishers are honest enough to tell you if you're buying an actual translation, or a paraphrase, or some hybrid.

Anyway, I'm rambling and not sure where I'm going, except that I find it irritating that the book apparently has no disclaimer to the effect that the text of the Constitution has been "updated for a modern audience". At least, there is no such mention of such at the link provided by Cobb.

Next time you get near a book store, stop in and check this book out.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

This is almost the exact same thing that has been done to the Bible. The first complete (some say the most scholarly) translation was the KJV. Critics call the language archaic so they retranslate it. Not in the same way as the first, a word for word translation, but they translate “thoughts” of the original writer. Then comes another group that don’t like what is stated in either translation, so they translate the “thoughts” according to their mores and so it goes on, getting nuttier and nuttier.

Look for a constitution in a book store near you translated in “Ebonics” and "Klingon”

At least with Klingon, the 2nd Amendment would be pretty clear/unmistakeable. It would probably re-translate with this added: "if anyone attempts to take your arm away from you, you will kill them, lest you be without honor."

Naw. Most scholars acknowledge that the KJV "translation" reflected a great deal of political thought of the time. There are more accurate scholarly translations, footnoted back to the Aramaic and Hebrew for the ambiguous parts, to let the reader decide for himself.

(Hey, maybe my liberal arts education wasn't a complete waste!)

HIja, QoS.

Thanks for the quicker reply to Selurcspi, Andrew.

Yes, there is a reason I learned how to read Koine Greek (the Greek that came after classical, but before modern . . . Koine is what large portions of the New Testament and a version of the Old called the Septuagint ) and how to use translation tools to get the Hebrew and Aramaic, during my Master's work. Yeah, it sucks to study dead languages, but it sure helps in understanding the "REAL" Bible so we can pick through the mountains of translations for the ones that most closely match (I like Young's Literal Translation and NAS the best) and then clarify points that still aren't coming quite into English in those translations.


As for the constitution. If they want to promote another constitution, I vote that we offer them a different country to try it out in. Maybe Mexico.

Come to think of it, granting citizenship to illegals & that might be more acceptable IF we were allowed to force 1 liberal into Mexico for every Mexican that crosses coming north.

Ah! but if you use the underlying text from the NAS (compiled by Wescott and Horte) you are only working with 4 to 5% of the available documents.