The Secret History of Gun Control

[Minor Axis]

Anyone interested in the history of gun control in the U.S. should take a look at the Atlantic Magazine: The Secret History of Guns. It is a fascinating read for those interested in gun/anti-gun control.

Why has gun control was been enacted in the U.S.?

*After the American Revolution to ensure loyalty to the new United States. (not covered in the online version of this article).

*After the Civil War to keep guns out of the hands of Southern African Americans.

*During the Civil Rights era of the 1960s: most ironically hard core gun control was proposed by a conservative Republican State Senator in California (endorsed by Gov. Ronald Reagan) after the Black Panthers showed up on the Courthouse Steps armed to the teeth in 1967 to demand equal rights. At the time there was no law in California against carrying a gun in public. Basically this was fear of armed African Americans taking the law into their own hands.

Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control. Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that 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.” In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”

Besides this history of the Black Panthers, are two more interesting points was that the National Rifle Association was not rabidly against gun regulation until 1977 when a coup overthrew the old regime.

And the discussion of how the Second Amendment is interpreted.

The text of the Second Amendment is maddeningly ambiguous. It merely says, “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.” Yet to each side in the gun debate, those words are absolutely clear.

Gun-rights supporters believe the amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms and outlaws most gun control. Hard-line gun-rights advocates portray even modest gun laws as infringements on that right and oppose widely popular proposals—such as background checks for all gun purchasers—on the ground that any gun-control measure, no matter how seemingly reasonable, puts us on the slippery slope toward total civilian disarmament.

This attitude was displayed on the side of the National Rifle Association’s former headquarters: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The first clause of the Second Amendment, the part about “a well regulated Militia,” was conveniently omitted. To the gun lobby, the Second Amendment is all rights and no regulation.

Although decades of electoral defeats have moderated the gun-control movement’s stated goals, advocates still deny that individual Americans have any constitutional right to own guns. The Second Amendment, in their view, protects only state militias. Too politically weak to force disarmament on the nation, gun-control hard-liners support any new law that has a chance to be enacted, however unlikely that law is to reduce gun violence. For them, the Second Amendment is all regulation and no rights.

Clearly we should be somewhere in the middle

 

[Alien Allen]

Care to show me where the NRA is about being all rights and no regulations?

http://www.nraila.org/About/




As to Regan it appears his stance changed a bit later on

In the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982), a bipartisan subcommittee (consisting of 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) of the United States Senate investigated the Second Amendment and reported its findings. The report stated:

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.[SUP][1][/SUP]
​

It concluded that seventy-five percent of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives prosecutions were "constitutionally improper", especially on Second Amendment issues.[SUP][2][/SUP]
The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 addressed the abuses noted in the 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act


And what is your idea of meeting in the middle Minor?

 

[cam elle toe]

I thought "gun control" in the U.S was how you handled one.....

 

[Accountable]

I thought "gun control" in the U.S was how you handled one.....

Yup. It's using 2 hands vs 1.

Clearly we should be somewhere in the middle

Here, in my opinion, is one area where the federal gov't definitely has no place and should be allowed no input at all. Same for the state gov't.

I understand why congested cities would want gun control. Studies with rats have shown what we know instinctively about people. The more crowded an area becomes, the more aggressive the inhabitants become against each other. It makes sense that residents of a crowded city would be concerned about people being armed and aggressive. But that rule can't and shouldn't apply to all areas across the country. New York does not have the crime problems of Eagle, Alaska, and they shouldn't have the same rules imposed on them. Gun restrictions are something the local residents should decide on.

Rather than "somewhere in the middle," I'd rather see no single rule on this at all.

 

[Minor Axis]

Care to show me where the NRA is about being all rights and no regulations?
And what is your idea of meeting in the middle Minor?

You are not kidding are you? The NRA is rabidly against any regulation that attempts to control guns, not gun ownership, that regulates guns. When police were for gun fingerprinting, because it could help identify the owner of a weapon, the NRA was dead set against it. Why? Because in their thinking gun fingerprinting, any regulation was step No.1 and step No.10 was take our guns. If you read the history of the NRA they used to be pro-regulation until the organization was upended in the 1970s.

If you read the Second Amendment, the part the NRA chooses not to quote, conveniently sweeps aside is the part about the well regulated Militias.

Rather than "somewhere in the middle," I'd rather see no single rule on this at all.

Of course you wouldn't. Just let citizens work it out on their own. :smiley24:

 

[MoonOwl]

I thought "gun control" in the U.S was how you handled one.....

Yup. It's using 2 hands vs 1.

Exactly!!:ninja:thumbup

 

[Johnfromokc]

I thought "gun control" in the U.S was how you handled one.....

"Gun control" is the demonstrated abilty to hit one's chosen target.

 

[MoonOwl]

"Gun control" is the demonstrated abilty to hit one's chosen target.

At our old house in Tampa, when you came up to the door, you could see inside the house and on the wall facing that window I'd hung my first-ever target silhouette. It was quite full of decently placed .357 holes.
I thought it made a nice statement to anyone thinking about being stupid. :ninja:cool

 

[Accountable]

Of course you wouldn't. Just let citizens work it out on their own. :smiley24:

If you're too fucking busy to read my posts, please be too fucking busy to respond to them.

 

[Alien Allen]

You are not kidding are you? The NRA is rabidly against any regulation that attempts to control guns, not gun ownership, that regulates guns. When police were for gun fingerprinting, because it could help identify the owner of a weapon, the NRA was dead set against it. Why? Because in their thinking gun fingerprinting, any regulation was step No.1 and step No.10 was take our guns. If you read the history of the NRA they used to be pro-regulation until the organization was upended in the 1970s.

You say all the right things but I don't see one thing to back up your point. You just are spitting out rhetoric.

If you read the Second Amendment, the part the NRA chooses not to quote, conveniently sweeps aside is the part about the well regulated Militias.

and you conveniently forget the next part of the 2nd amendment that follows that. You can paint it as a grey area but the following is plain as day.

the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Johnfromokc]

The Second Amendment verbatim:

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.

Note that the words "Militia" and "Arms" are both capitalized - and it is one single sentence seperated by three commas.

Thats really fucked up the way it was written. It opens up debate as to the intent. Those who wish to control or restrict arms say the intent was for the arming of state militias. Others say the intent was to allow individual citizens to own and "bear arms" by right.

Either way, with an estimated 80,000,000 American gun owners, it is political suicide to even suggest restricting current ownership. The record voter turnout in the U.S. was about 132,000,000 in 2008. Gun owners alone could swing an election. So there is no realistic concern for a national gun ban in our lifetimes.

But there are some idiotic state laws that can put your unsuspecting gun owning ass in a wringer if you are ignorant of them.

 

[BornReady]

Thats really fucked up the way it was written.

I agree. That's just bad grammar. They should have gotten an English teacher to proof read it for them. It was kind of an important document.

 

[Zorak]

I agree. That's just bad grammar. They should have gotten an English teacher to proof read it for them. It was kind of an important document.

Nothing wrong with the grammar from what I can see, it's typically 18-19th century; but also it's purposefully ambiguous. The advantages of ambiguity in official documents should be obvious. Especially in a democracy.

 

[Accountable]

Nothing wrong with the grammar from what I can see, it's typically 18-19th century; but also it's purposefully ambiguous. The advantages of ambiguity in official documents should be obvious. Especially in a democracy.

You mean like the ambiguity of your post?

Why, in your opinion, would they be purposely ambiguous in a statement that ends so emphatically?
eta: oh, and the term is Republic, not democracy.

 

[Zorak]

You mean like the ambiguity of your post?

Why, in your opinion, would they be purposely ambiguous in a statement that ends so emphatically?
eta: oh, and the term is Republic, not democracy.

eta?? I chose the term democracy purposefully, because the ambiguity leads to interpretation, which is one factor that leads to political dichotymy. That's why I chose the term democracy, it implies choice. A republic does not necessarily.

The emphatic ending clause, does it refer to the "well regulated militia" or the "right to keep and bear arms", or both? Can you prove conclusively from that statement the intent of the authors?

 

[Accountable]

eta?? I chose the term democracy purposefully, because the ambiguity leads to interpretation, which is one factor that leads to political dichotymy. That's why I chose the term democracy, it implies choice. A republic does not necessarily.

The emphatic ending clause, does it refer to the "well regulated militia" or the "right to keep and bear arms", or both? Can you prove conclusively from that statement the intent of the authors?

"eta" mean "edited to add." I'd posted then had another thought. I do that a lot.

So you purposely chose a factually inaccurate term to purposely be ambiguous?? That's hardly a good way to promote clear communication.

The ending I refer to is "shall not be infringed." I can't conclusively prove anything of the thoughts of the authors, which is why I asked for your opinion (not proof) of why you think they were being purposely ambiguous. I mean, it seems to me that if they really wanted to be purposely ambiguous they'd use something like "should" instead of "shall."

Not having researched the discussions that brought about the specific phrasing, the sentence looks to be a compromise statement to me.

 

[BadBoy]

Everyone carries a gun in Texas and they don't go around shooting each other and people in Texas are stupid.

Like someone pointed out, the 2nd Amendment means little when states can enact their own gun toting(or restrictions). Also, Zorak hit the bulls eye with the ambiguity statement, well done.

 

[Zorak]

"eta" mean "edited to add." I'd posted then had another thought. I do that a lot.

Ah thanks, so do I.

So you purposely chose a factually inaccurate term to purposely be ambiguous?? That's hardly a good way to promote clear communication.

If you want to question my communication skills, I'm not sure I'm too keen on continuing this discussion. You might have be fanatical regarding such terminology, but I do not share in this. I chose the term carefully and stand by it. I wasn't being purposefully ambiguous, and if you believe I was, I can only apologise; but I thought my point was clear.

The ending I refer to is "shall not be infringed." I can't conclusively prove anything of the thoughts of the authors, which is why I asked for your opinion (not proof) of why you think they were being purposely ambiguous. I mean, it seems to me that if they really wanted to be purposely ambiguous they'd use something like "should" instead of "shall."

Obviously; but the modality of the auxiliary verb "shall" I don't question. It's clear, as you say. Instead I concentrate on the structure of the clauses within the statement, three of them: unusual (although not quite grammatically incorrect IMO) as noted already here by some. When the sentence ends so emphatically, the reader is left to interpret to which clause the ending does or does not apply to.

 

[Alien Allen]

unless one has a grasp on why this country had a Revolutionary War I doubt they understand the concept of the Militia. There is plenty of writings by the framers of the constitution that IMO make it clear the last part referencing the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon was not ambiguous.

 

[Accountable]

Obviously; but the modality of the auxiliary verb "shall" I don't question. It's clear, as you say. Instead I concentrate on the structure of the clauses within the statement, three of them: unusual (although not quite grammatically incorrect IMO) as noted already here by some. When the sentence ends so emphatically, the reader is left to interpret to which clause the ending does or does not apply to.

Ah, okay. Yeh, the commas confuse more than clarify, too.

"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."

Just for the mental calisthenics, I took a few seconds to find this site of rules to use in investigating the sentence. I can't help but think the first and third comma wouldn't be used if the sentence were written today, regardless of the capital letters. None of the clause or phrase rules for commas make sense.

The phrases aren't parallel, because if they were they'd break down like this and make sense:

• A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.
  
• Being necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infringed.
  
• The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
  

Two out of three work, though.

I still don't see an advantage of purposely injecting ambiguity when writing a document expressly created to limit (corral), federal government power and prevent abuse.