I read this review of a book (Arming America by Michael Bellesiles) in a local newspaper. I have not actually read this book myself:
(reviewer’s words)
“Hardly anyone had a gun because they were too expensive and didn’t work. It was much easier and less time-consuming to chop off a chicken’s head for dinner than to try to shoot almost anything in the woods.”
“There were few guns manufactured in America for anyone, even the militia, and few men knew how to shoot them. Since almost no one owned guns, there were few opportunities for practice. . . The result was a militia that was pretty much a joke.”
“America’s gun culture is an invented tradition. . . developed in a single generation, among those who experienced the onset of the Civil War and that disaster itself.”
(William W. Starr in “The State” newspaper. 9/24/2000)
There are enough threads already on the gun debate, and I don’t follow them, so if any of this points have been mentioned, I apologize. I am merely presenting these historical points for debate (if any), not whether we should be for or against gun control/licensing/confiscation/etc now.
What the hell is an “invented tradition”? All traditions must start somewhere. If the U.S. “invented the tradition” around the time of the Civil War, that still counts in my book. Does it exist now? Well yes. Then it IS a tradition.
Mjollnir quoted a review of Arming America as saying:
That’s odd. According to the Militia Watchdog’s History of the Militia FAQ, at http://www.militia-watchdog.org/faq3.htm, most States at the time the Constitution was ratified had “compulsory militia” service, wherein every able-bodied adult male was required to show up to musters at least a few times a year – and at most of these musters, in order for the State to save money, the militiamen were required to bring their own firearms.
This is not the first I have seen this guy’s book mentioned. I have seen it around enough to know that his conclusions do not seem to be accepted without question by all historians.
This is a new angle to attack the “original intent” of the 2nd Amendment. I have not done enough research on it one way or the other to have a defensible opinion about it’s validity. I do know that his theory (it is a theory) is controversial.
I’m getting lazy in my old age. I should have done a little research before my last post. Right after I posted, I felt soooo guilty that I rushed off to see what I could find.
My problem with the movement to change the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution is simply this: Which one do they want to fiddle with next? Frankly I find this question to be frightening. Obviously once there is a precident for “amending” (as opposed to abolishing) one of the original ten, we will see movements to cherry-pick the others to better serve the needs of federal government in their mission to usurp more and more of our constitutionally protected rights. Is it time for a new revoloution?
Hope this isn’t hijacking your thread, Mjollnir. It certainly isn’t intended as such.
I really don’t like the reasoning that Bellesiles presents (i.e.- few guns = few people knew how to use them). It suggests that some sort of “osmosis” went on with regards to gun usage… you had to be around them all the time in order for their “death-making nature” to seep into your bones. He also seems to suggest that low manufacturing rate = low number of guns, ignoring that single firearm, with decent upkeep, cleaning, maintenance, etc. can easily last a century.
In any case, whether the “gun tradition” is 140 or 220 years old doesn’t matter… the ownership of such is still Constitutionally AND naturally protected, and there were many writings of the Founding Fathers stating clearly why they believed as such.
I classify Mr. Bellesiles’ rubbish in with Creationism theories and Scientology beliefs.
I’m sure not everyone is as big a fan of this topic as some of us, so here are a few selected quotes from that link. I found the article to be a long, but good read.
Of course, as it’s posted at the NRA’s ILA website, it’s all a pack of lies perpetrated on the unsuspecting American public and gullible gun owners by the “evil gun lobby”. :rolleyes:
Not the best source for a review–there’s a better one in the NYT review a couple or three weeks ago. But really, did you expect the gun supporters to listen to reason and research when simple grammar doesn’t work as an argument (the well-regulated militia part)?
[off-topic]
Maybe we should see if we can get a Midlands, SC dopefest going? You’re the only other one from Cola I’ve seen so far.
[/off-topic]
Here we had a nice quiet thread going, staying away from previously re-hashed violatile topics, and then you had to go and light a match.
**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. **
Could you please show me how simple grammar works as an arguement against the individual right to own firearms. I would also be interested in hearing your take on why the word People means something different in the 2nd Amendment than it does in the 1st,4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments.
Here we had a nice quiet thread going, staying away from previously re-hashed violatile topics, and then you had to go and light a match.
**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. **
Could you please show me how simple grammar works as an arguement against the individual right to own firearms. I would also be interested in hearing your take on why the word People means something different in the 2nd Amendment than it does in the 1st,4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments.
Too bad this article is at the Ludwig von Mises Institute website, alongside such gems as “Repeal the 17th Amendment” and “Government generated statistics are a Communist plot perpetrated by Al Gore.”
(Okay, I’m exaggerating on the title of that last article. But only slightly.)
An invented tradition is something that is widely believed to be, or deliberately represented as being, older and more firmly-established than it really is. A good example is the Scottish kilt, invented by an Englishman in the 18th Century. Another example is much of the ceremony associated with the British monarchy, much of which is believed to be “ancient” but is in fact not much more than 100 years old.
It’s not clear what it means in the context of American “gun culture” (whatever that means), but I suspect it means something like: Most people think the right to bear arms was a product of the Revolutionary War but in fact real importance has only been attached to it since the Civil War.
Ummmm, which part of “well regulated militia” do you not understand? Reading that as a sentence (not the fragment that begins "the right), it says that gun ownership is a right for a member of “a well regulated militia.” As for “people”, well, remember that the founding fathers didn’t count blacks, women, immigrants, or non-landowners among “people.” It seems that the only pro-gun people who don’t take out the first part of the sentence are those who live in Montana on some compound–but then again, it’s debatable whether they’re “regulated.” Oh, now that I mention that word, here’s another one for the NRA: since when is anonymous, non-licensed, at-will ownership “well regulated”? Don’t start BSing the “we have laws, but they’re not enforced” at me; I’m asking, how are the goals of the gun lobby, the goals I mentioned above, “well regulated”?
To reiterate, encapsulate, and boil it all down, my interpretation (decidedly non-legalese but certainly qualified as a reader of sentences, meanings, and subtexts) of 2A is as follows:
If you are a member of a well regulated militia i.e. the National Guard, or in the time the amendment was written the volunteer and conscripted state militias, you have the right to be armed. In other words, you must be trained and under some sort of military discipline. If you are not part of the militia/NG, for whatever reason, this does not apply to you. “I’m sorry, you’re a crazy person. We won’t let you join the National Guard.” “Screw you then, I still have a gun. And my .22 will keep them there UN black helicopters from taking over the country.”
Now do you see where simple grammar comes in? It’s called dependent and independent clauses. BTW, considering the shifts in usage over the last 200-odd years, a modern writing of the amendment would omit the first comma.
The National Guard does not comprise the “militia”.
The militia has been explicitly identified as “the general adult male population” (paraphrased) in U.S.v Miller and other legal rulings.
A National guard covers that amendment? Why didn’t they just say, “The government will maintain a military.” It would be an extremely pointless amendment if that were the case, for what nation doesn’t? It also goes against the grain of the rest of the amendments in that case, since they mostly deal with people’s rights, not the government’s responsibilities.