The Secret History of Gun Control

[snousle]

A very interesting article in the Atlantic explores the history of gun control, which is, as always, Not What You Think. It's full of surprises like this:

Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control. Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons". He called guns a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will".

Very much worth reading.

Comments

[wolfstoy.livejournal.com]

Very interesting indeed. If anything, this has firmed up my support for gun rights and kind of proves the point that many pro-gun advocates have said for years; gun control is really about controlling people. In much of our history, that has been about controlling blacks. I don't think that is anything to be proud of.

[snousle.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I just don't think this dodgy history should be swept aside. Conservatives are not necessarily supporters of freedom, often far from it, and they shouldn't be allowed to put on libertarian clothes as a matter of convenience. There's too much history of racism and authoritarianism to forget it all just yet.

[furr-a-bruin.livejournal.com]

Indeed an interesting article. Personally, I'm for absolutely banning any form of concealed carry - anyone carrying a firearm in public must absolutely have it visible; to conceal a weapon in public should be a felony. If someone's armed, I should damn well have the right to KNOW that.

But that's me, who thinks people who claim to feel "naked" without a firearm need psychiatric help, not lethal weaponry.

[snousle.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, if a guy is willing to take off all his clothes so long as he can still wear his gun, I'm all for it. ;-)

[furr-a-bruin.livejournal.com]

Though some would be more fun to look at than others.... ;)

[broduke2000.livejournal.com]

The article mentions the Black Panthers.

For about a year, we worked with Bigman Howard at our station, who was a founding member.



He's a nice, old man.

[barbarian-rat.livejournal.com]

You always find the most interesting articles.

The author would have us believe that there are only two sides, one of all rights and no regulation, and the other all regulation and no rights. I'm not sure that is an accurate assessment. It appears to me that many gun control advocates favor some regulation, while allowing citizens their right to own guns.

I've always thought that the Second Amendment is worded oddly, but the Founders were clear, they connected gun ownership to militia membership, otherwise the phrase about a well regulated militia has no meaning. In the decades just prior to the Civil War the need for local militias was fading away, as there were no domestic threats, such as there were at the time on the frontier.

I thought the author's comment about Northern city men in the Civil War not having good aim was interesting. Southerners had always thought that the military was a good career for 2nd sons, and Southern society relied on hunting to supplement food that farming alone didn't supply.

I recently read an article about the Gunfight at the OK Corral. The point of this article was that it was about gun control. Now I don't know if that is true or not, it does make some sense. Many Western towns at that time instituted gun control due to the increased number of murders and random shootings by drunken cowboys.

[gafferbear.livejournal.com]

"well-regulated" in period terminology, can mean "standardized". Linguistics shift...

In other words, it is important, for the militia not to be armed only with pitchforks and torches, but to have some minimum standard of firearm ownership. This might have been used as a criterion for marginalizing the poor, even then.

History and language are weird that way. Look at the phrase "all men are created equal", and then consider who was a "man" in that terminology. Women, slaves, indentured servants and tenant-farmers are not "men". Effectively, the document says, We establish the rights of all wealthy, landed gentlemen, and agree that our rights to property must be protected." It's a very cunning document.

[barbarian-rat.livejournal.com]

That the wealthy have always worked for their own ends cannot be denied, but I think that you are overstating the case here.

In other words, it is important, for the militia not to be armed only with pitchforks and torches, but to have some minimum standard of firearm ownership. This might have been used as a criterion for marginalizing the poor, even then.

I disagree. At that time firearms were relatively simple and there was no difference between the firearms of the military and that of the general population. The poor were more likely to own firearms than the wealthy, as the poor were the ones moving out to the frontier, where they had to hunt for food and protect themselves from wildlife such as bears, not to mention their battles against the resident 'Indians', and agents of competing foreign powers such as England, France and Spain.

At the time the Constitution was written 'Men' were white males over 21. That included tenant-farmers. The majority of 'men' where yeoman farmers who owned or rented land. Indentured servitude was a concept that was near it's end. Northerners were beginning to create 'wage slavery' and Southerners had race based slavery, indentured servants were no longer needed.