Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

yellerpup

(12,253 posts)
Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:21 AM Dec 2012

Gun Control Now - Fact Driven Rant [View all]

Posted by permission of the author.

GUN CONTROL NOW.

By Rick Prose

The current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is so far from the Founding Fathers' intention that "originalists" like Antonin Scalia, among others, should be impeached and disbarred for supporting it. A little history -

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the nascent United States did not have a standing army, nor had it any plans to have one. It was believed that a standing army, such as the one of the mother country, England, was a tool of oppression. Therefore, the framers of the constitution believed that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." would suffice to keep our enemies at bay.

Now, a militia is a military group made up of citizen-soldiers, organized and activated on a local level at the behest of the federal government, a military corps made up, in other words, of private citizens who were expected to provide their own weapons. In the late 18th century, only one in three adult males in the colonies owned a musket - they were made in England or other parts of Europe, expensive to buy and import and, therefore, not an item considered necessary to the survival of every household. Forget about pistols. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that has anything to do with handguns because handguns of the period were a) almost non-existent in the colonies; and, b) were so inaccurate as to be effectively useless as a means of military defense (one of the reasons most participants in pistol duels survived).

So, in order ensure that local militias had enough muskets to make them anywhere near effective, the framers decided that there should be no legal impediment to owning a musket, period, but this was all in the interest of providing for a regulated, state-controlled militia - it had absolutely nothing to do with every citizen's right to own an unlimited, unregulated number of firearms, especially handguns. It is worth noting that the musket was a weapon that fired one projectile at a time and took nearly a minute to load, discharge and re-load. When Samuel Colt invented the revolving cylinder pistol (which in turn led to other advances in personal weapons technology, most obviously the repeating, or semi-automatic, rifle) in the 1830s, the face of the American countryside changed dramatically over the ensuing half-century, leading to that glorious period in our history which we have enshrined as "the Old West." Personal grudges, drunken brawls and property disputes that prior to this period would have been resolved (or not) by the courts or men's fists, could now be resolved quickly and easily by whipping out a pistol and shooting one's opponent dead. It was at this time, the late 19th century, that gun manufacturers, seeing the handwriting on the wall as more and more towns and cities began to enact local gun bans, began to lobby for the most expansive interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the interpretation we live with today. It is worth noting, in the wake of the recent tragedy, that the factories of Samuel Colt and most of the major manufacturers of private weapons were located in the state of Connecticut.

It should come as no surprise that the major supporters of groups like the NRA are gun manufacturers, who want to continue to make huge profits selling dangerous weapons to anyone who can buy them. The constitution has been interpreted to allow for the regulation of everything from children's toys to drugs to automobiles - anyone who continues to believe that the barely regulated sale of weapons of mass-murder is constitutionally protected is a well-meaning dupe of powerful capitalist interests, at best, and possibly an imbecile, at worst.

End of rant.


52 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Where are the facts? ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #1
I have a hard time wrapping my head around yellerpup Dec 2012 #3
I'd actually EXPECT tham to do precisely that. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #8
Why sure, after losing so many lives in the Revolution yellerpup Dec 2012 #31
The idea, I believe, was to have a well armed and responsive populace letemrot Dec 2012 #34
You seriously thing they wouldn't have protected the very method they'd just used? Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #40
Here you go.. letemrot Dec 2012 #17
Everyone have the same talking points to share? yellerpup Dec 2012 #20
I don't trust them.. letemrot Dec 2012 #23
I called it a talking point because yellerpup Dec 2012 #25
Oh you have.. letemrot Dec 2012 #26
Are there any regulations you feel would be acceptable yellerpup Dec 2012 #29
I am sorry.. Your post wasn't about the founding fathers? letemrot Dec 2012 #32
Then alert on me if you feel I done you wrong. yellerpup Dec 2012 #35
and I didn't respond to the op. letemrot Dec 2012 #39
I didn't ask a question in that post either. yellerpup Dec 2012 #42
Oh ok..,. letemrot Dec 2012 #43
The founders had just finished sarisataka Dec 2012 #24
Background to the "well regulated militia" .... Toronto Dec 2012 #5
FP 29 was a treatise on how best to maintain the militia.. so? X_Digger Dec 2012 #6
I believe you have to take it within the context of the language of the amendment Toronto Dec 2012 #7
I can't see 'ensures' as a valid substitution.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #9
You ignore the fact that the right to bear arms Toronto Dec 2012 #10
Commas and semi-colons when there *were* no rules of grammar at the time? X_Digger Dec 2012 #11
The first English grammar, Pamphlet for Grammar by William Bullokar, Toronto Dec 2012 #13
Not a fan of 17th and 18th century literature, I take it? X_Digger Dec 2012 #15
In defense of himself (self, family, home) and the State. yellerpup Dec 2012 #18
All are valid exercises of the right, yes. (protection of self, family, home, state) X_Digger Dec 2012 #19
Nope. n/t yellerpup Dec 2012 #21
Sigh.... Toronto Dec 2012 #28
Thanks for your contributions to this thread. yellerpup Dec 2012 #30
My pleasure - I also appreciate sanity... Toronto Dec 2012 #33
Yes, I think the time is now. yellerpup Dec 2012 #37
I am not afraid to go to the mall, or send my kids to school letemrot Dec 2012 #44
I salute your bravery. yellerpup Dec 2012 #45
Well then just live.. letemrot Dec 2012 #46
The kids at Sandy Hook went to school on December 14th yellerpup Dec 2012 #47
I am glad you are not afraid... letemrot Dec 2012 #49
Then you missed my point yellerpup Dec 2012 #50
Yes BobbyBoring Dec 2012 #51
Time for change. yellerpup Dec 2012 #52
Ignoring of course that the Congress had NO power to re-create a new militia. jmg257 Dec 2012 #22
Doesn't the existence of the National Guard Toronto Dec 2012 #2
I believe we are covered yellerpup Dec 2012 #4
No. letemrot Dec 2012 #27
Yes. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #38
Actually it does not.. letemrot Dec 2012 #41
The State Military Reserves have developed Toronto Dec 2012 #48
You forgot the FACT that the Militia Laws passed by Congress in support jmg257 Dec 2012 #12
Yes, and the State Militias eventually evolved into the National Guard Toronto Dec 2012 #14
Luckily - otherwise the Militia declaration would have more merrit, and jmg257 Dec 2012 #16
K&R smirkymonkey Dec 2012 #36
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Gun Control Now - Fact Dr...