I’ve been reading about guns and politics in the colonial period. I am a staunch supporter of gun control, but I’m a heretic when it comes to one particular premise for it. I cannot imagine a scenario in which the founders would have proposed the idea that the citizen militias (who won the revolution with many of their own weapons), would suddenly accept the idea that a new federal rule would limit their right to own a firearm for their own defense, or when called to militia duty to …
defend their colony or its interests. Standing armies were universally despised (as they were loyal mostly to rulers and themselves) and the purpose of belonging to a local militia (and bringing your own weapon) was perfectly understood by most. And threats from the French, the Indians, pirates, wildlife, and thieves were routine concerns of most colonists (which is why they had “safety committees,” if not militias or any formal law enforcement). It would have been absurd to the …
people of the time, to propose a constraint upon weapons in daily life. It’s all they would have been talking about in their literature of the time. But they didn’t. Because it just wasn’t a thing. I am quite sure the founders did mean us to have a right to bear arms for personal and civil defense, and it’s just a waste of time and emotion to quarrel about that aspect of guns. But that doesn’t mean the state doesn’t have a right to limit how we acquire, store, and use them, and …
@daico Yes, I was aware. And of course we had many local gun laws (but most concerned where they could be carried or used, not whether they could be owned or transported). And checking them on entering a town was not confiscating them. No one questioned any of this until radical conservatives decided to make it a wedge issue in the 20th century. My argument is merely about what the framer’s meant by the “right to bear arms.” They did not mean ONLY in connection with a …
regulated militias (as many liberals insist) and in fact, citizens with their own guns was a prerequisite for militias at the time (even if that meant guns would be provided for them from civil armories if necessary).
what kinds are of weapons (or ammo) may be legally produced, sold, or traded.
So, okay, owning guns is a #2A right. Big whoop. With that settled, now let’s talk about what we are allowed to do and not do with them. The constitution says nothin’ about that. And when it doesn’t, that old demon “state’s rights” thing holds that the states can decide these things for themselves.
@shoq Not entirely. The 2nd US Constitution (1812) is a revamp of our 1st one, the Articles of Confederation (1777). Many sections, like 2A, are just restatements from the Articles. Here’s 2A from the Articles: every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.
@opethminded I have to research it for myself, but from what I remember from an early look at this, I those clauses were added probably because earlier, Washington and others had been so infuriated by the lack of standard arms and ammunition among the minutemen, so as things evolved, it seemed reasonable to require stockpiles of both by the states. Doesn’t say that citizen arms were still not needed or expected to meet a national threat.
@shoq The National Guard is a check by the states on federal military power and prevents the federal army from operating domestically and fostering eventual tyranny.
@opethminded But that still wasn’t refined until later amid lots of discussion. The prefatory and operative clauses of the 2A were in the 1791 version and they are where the trouble starts. People needed guns for many reasons, including feeding their families when crops were spare. No one would have entered a town and said “hey, we’re from this new federal gubmint thing and hencforth, only state militias (such that we may need for national defense) can give you a gun.” …
@shoq Thanks for the 10 minutes of consideration. 2A simply isn’t needed to allow or disallow gun ownership. As you point out, its primarily left to the states. But what is true is promoting some other interpretation of 2A necessarily means we are weakening our safeguards against tyranny. Unless you believe that individuals with their comparative peashooters can do a superior job fending off a federal military equipped with tanks, F22 Raptors and space borne kinetic weapons.
@opethminded You may misunderstand by basic premises here. I am not questioning the importance of national guards in the present or past day. I am simply arguing that the framers never meant to suggest that that citizens — who were the ONLY means of defense, civil and personal, at that time — should not be able to own firearms. It would have been scoffed at openly and repeatedly at the time.
Add comment