Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0/Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0 (L0pht Heavy Industries, Inc.)(1997).ISO/tezcat/Guns/Gun_Education.txt

Text File | 1996-07-08 | 12KB | 228 lines

From the Radio Free Michigan archives

ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot

If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to
[e-mail].
------------------------------------------------



Skullduggery by (H)elp the (C)riminally (I)nclined continues apace.
It has come to my attention via the Paul Revere Network that HCI
and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence are quietly and jointly
engaged in an effort to lobby secondary school administrators over
the 'acceptability' of various U.S. history texts. Thier litmus
test for acceptability is the coverage given to the Second Amendment
of the United States Constitution. HCI and the CPHV wish to
promulgate the 'State's Rights' misinterpretation of the Second
Amendment in our nation's schools. If this revisionism succeeds,
the 2nd amendment will have effectively been rendered meaningless to
future generations. An ingenius approach, I must admit.

The following excerpts are from the HCI/CPHV booklet entitled
"Teaching the Bill of Rights; The Case of the Second Amendment",
and subtitled "A Critique of Existing Educational Materials and
Suggestions for Change". I wish to credit Chris Meissen for
disseminating the text over the Paul Revere Network, and Jim
Henry of Airpower BBS for bringing this to my attention.
Before reading this dross, please remember that contrary to
the claims made herein the courts have NOT upheld the 'State's
Rights' fiction, and that the historical case for the individual
right to keep and bear arms dwarfs that of the pet theories of
Gun Grabber revisionists.

Page 1, bottom paragraph ... " The Center to Prevent Handgun
Violence has reviewed a sample of secondary school U.S. History
and Government textbooks from the nation's largest educational
publishers to examine their treatment of the Second Amendment.
Our research shows that almost all textbooks give only the most
cursory attention to the Second Amendment. Yet, fully 50% of
the books ignore the unanimous decisions of the courts in their
two to three sentence explanation of the Second Amendment. Whether
intentionally or not, these textbooks are endorsing a particular
view of the Second Amendment, rather than providing the necessary
background for an informed political discussion of gun control.
Believing that a proper understanding of the Second Amendment would
free students to tackle the real issues of gun control, we have
prepared recommendations for future editions of textbooks and as
guidance for educators addressing the meaning of the "right to bear
arms."" ...

page 3, near bottom .... "WHAT STUDENTS ARE BEING TAUGHT ABOUT THE
SECOND AMENDMENT The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are
studied in many school systems in the 8th grade and again in grades
11 or 12. A review of 40 leading U.S. History and Civics textbooks
shows great consistency in approach and and in recognition of what
the courts have said about the Second
Amendment."

"Half of the sample studied acknowledged the judicial reading of
the Amendment by specifically linking the "right to bear arms"
clause to the "militia" interpretation. The text Government_in_the_
United_States, McMillan Publishing Company, is a good example:
  `The 2nd Amendment is designed to prevent the national government
   from taking weapons away from a state militia or the National
   Guard, as it is called today. This amendment does not prevent
   Congress from regulating the interstate sale of weapons. Nor
   does it apply to the states. States are free to regulate the
   sale of firearms as they see fit.'

"The following example from People_and_Our_Country, Holt, Rinehart
and Winston Publishers, also is consistent with court rulings:
  `The states have the right to maintain armed militias for their
   protection. However, the rights of private citizens to own guns
   can be, and are, regulated by federal and state legislation.'

"The simple statement from Civics,_Government,_and_Citizenship,
Allyn and Bacon, Inc., is also accurate:
  `The federal government cannot deny the states the right to keep
   an armed militia.'

"Another approach can be to tie the historically significant notion
of bearing arms for militia service to the gun control debate of
today. For example, the more extensive discussion in MacGruder's
_American_Government_, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., introduces the gun
control debate with an explanation of the judicial
decisions:
  `Read [the words of the Second Amendment] very carefully --
   because the 2nd Amendment is a very widely misunderstood part of
   the Bill of Rights. Its words were added to the Constitution
   _solely_ to protect the right of each State to keep a militia.
   It was intended to preserve the concept of the citizen-soldier
   -- the "minuteman," as its text clearly suggests. It does not
   guarantee to any person the "right to keep and bear arms" free
   from any restriction by government; nor was it written to do so.
   The Amendment has no real significance today -- _except_ for its
   propaganda weight in arguments over gun control.'

"A particularly interesting interpretation, which again is consistent
with established judicial precedent, is made in _American_Government_
Today_, Scott, Foresman & Co.:" (...I'm deleting some of the
quote...)
 "`The Supreme Court has consistently held that Amendment 2 refers to
   a right to bear arms in a militia. It has not said that Americans
   have an unlimited right to bear arms to hunt, defend themselves,
   or to practice target shooting. Many people have questioned this
   interpretation. They challenge any attempt to control
   guns. . . .'"

"In contrast to these examples," (of books HCI thinks are correct)
"_fully_50%_of_the_texts_reviewed_were_incorrect_or_ambiguous_in_
their_presentations_of_the_Second_Amendment. Several imply that there
is a broad right to bear arms. They omit the key factor that the
right to be armed continues to exist only in connection with militia
service.

"For example, _American_Civics:_Constitution_Edition, Harcourt Brace
Javonovich, Inc., states unequivocally:
  `The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Americans the
   right to bear arms. The government cannot forbid Americans to
   own weapons, such as handguns and rifles.'
The text also introduces the topic of the present day gun control
debate:
  `Some people have demanded that guns be regulated. They say that
   gun control laws would lower the crime rate. Other people argue
   that the Second Amendment gives them the right to own weapons.
   They say that this amendment prevents the government from passing
   laws limiting that right.'

"Other textbooks include statements that are inconsistent with the
court decisions. For example, _You_the_Citizen, Benefic Press,
explains the Second Amendment like this:
  `People also have a right to keep and bear arms. States may
   register and control guns, but the federal government cannot stop
   people from having
them.'

"_USA:_The_Unfolding_Story_of_America, AMSCO School Publications,
Inc., states:
  `This amendment concerns Americans' right_to_bear_arms (own weapons.
   At the time, many Americans needed guns for hunting and for
   personal protection. Some others belonged to a civilian militia
   and needed weapons to defend communities. (Emphasis in original.)'

"Other textbooks have ambiguous and/or contradictory presentations.
For example, _Civics:_Citizens_and_Society, McGraw-Hill, appears to
present a balanced presentation of the Second Amendment "debate":
  `The Second Amendment has been the subject of much argument... A
   MILITIA is an army of citizens. In time of peace, its members are
   civilians. But they have weapons ready in case they are called
   upon to defend their government. Each of the thirteen colonies had
   its own militia. Themilitias served an important part in the
   American Revolution. Today, the nearest thing to state militias
   are the units of the National Guard. Can the federal or state
   governments control or limit the ownership of guns? Some people
   argue that the Second  Amendment gives all people an unlimited
   right to keep arms such as rifles and pistols. ... Other people
   argue that the Second Amendment was not meant to keep the
   government from making such regulations. They say that the
   amendment was meant to protect the right of state governments to
   keep a militia. They say that the amendment has little meaning
   today.'

"The 1992 `Freedom Edition' of _American_Civics_, Harcourt Brace
Javanovich, Inc, focuses on the importance of guns in American
history and the dark side of gun ownership today. It discusses the
Morton Grove handgun ban and accurately states
that:
  `[E]very Supreme Court and federal decision involving the amendment
   has held that the amendment does not _guarantee_ the right of
   individuals to own or to carry arms. Thus, gun control laws are
   constitutional.'
"Yet this same textbook also states, contrary to the Morton Grove
decision,
that:
  `The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Americans the
   right to bear arms. The government cannot forbid Americans to own
   weapons, such as handguns and
rifles.'"
In another section of the book, this text asserts that the Second
Amendment gives each individual the right to keep weapons to resist
a tyrannical
government:
  `The right of states to have a militia (National Guard) is
   guaranteed. The right of citizens to keep weapons to resist a
   tyrannical government is also
protected.'"

This statement reflects the "insurrectionist" theory which the gun
lobby is hoping to popularize even though it has never been accepted
by a court and is contrary to the general judicial consensus.
According to this theory, there is a constitutional right of each
citizen to engage in armed insurrection against the government
whenever the citizen believes the government has become "tyrannical."
Several of the texts suggest a constitutional protection for private
armies unconnected to any government. The Supreme Court has ruled
that the Constitution grants no right to participate in private armed
military organizations. (Presser v. Illinois. See also Vietnamese
Fisherman's Assoc. v. KKK.)

"Another example of a text which includes contradictory views of
the Second Amendment in different sections of the book is American_
Spirit_, _A_History_of_the_United_States, Allyn and Bacon, Inc. The
1985 edition written by Prof. Clarence L. Ver Steeg, includes a
chart showing as one of the individual rights in the Bill of Rights
the following:
  ` The right to keep and carry firearms for self-protection.'"
------------------------------------------------------------------

Again (in case the message gets split), the above excerpts are
from the HCI/CPHV booklet "Teaching the Bill of Rights; the Case of
the Second Amendment", currently being distributed to secondary
school administrators. If anyone has further information about
this program or any ideas about how best to counter this attempt to
rewrite American history, I think we could use the
input.

                               Steve Clark, Allentown PA


------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Radio Free Michigan site by the archive maintainer.

 All files are ZIP archives for fast download.

 E-mail [e-mail])