Well, I'd heard that the "Well-Regulated Militias" referred to Hitler's SA Stormtroopers, and they only included it in the BoR because they were afraid they couldn't ratify without the Bavarian GOP vote...So who were these militias in need of regulation? In the South, they were called "slave patrols," and they were paramilitary groups that regularly patrolled slave plantations to make sure restive slaves weren't going to rise up against their white overlords. Remember the line in the movie "Django Unchained"? Leonardo DiCaprio wonders: "Why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?" It was a real question, and the answer was that "well-regulated militias" in the Southern states kept the slaves in check.
Seriously, dude, if you're just going to make stuff up on the internet, why not eliminate all the tedious intermediary steps and go straight to Hitler?
Not to bust your chops, but while your Just So story on the origin of the Second Amendment is as fallacious as we could expect from a "poet and novelist" on the faculty of a Vermont* college, you might be intrigued to find out that most of those sensible gun laws you champion were originally put out there to disarm black people.
By Democrats.
Put that in your bong and spark up, hippie.
*His utterly specious historical theories are rendered doubly hilarious by the history of the flag used by his state's National Guard units to this day.
.
Holy crap, was that piece vapid. I couldn't get past that part you quited. Gah.
ReplyDeleteCome on, we all know Quentin Tarantino movies are valid historical references!
ReplyDeleteI think that's actually an example of the Argument from Recycled Nonsense, but my Latin is not as good as yours, so I can't supply the elegant phrase. Guess I should be mad at my parents for sending to college in Georgia, and not Vermont. I have seen his contentions put forth on the Net before.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who wants to know where the idea of well regulated militias came from needs only look at the Virginia BoR, where the phrase occurs, and the RKBA is merely implied. The Virginians were very clear on the need to avoid standing armies because standing armies were one of the hallmarks of oppressive government: all of them would have remembered not merely Boston 1774, but also the Highlands of Scotland 1746 (where, incidentally, the Hanoverian government attempted to implement sword control), and other instances. When they came to write the Federal version, they explicitly mentioned the RKBA and compressed the argument against standing armies. But "no standing armies" is the only reason the Federal writers thought necessary to justify the specific inclusion of the RKBA--not self defense, not right of revolution. Just the need for a citizen army to be our means of defense, not a standing army. They wanted a small army firmly under citizen control. (And, interestingly enough, the 2A is the only article of the BOR that includes an explanation of its purporse, as if the Founders wanted to make sure everyone understood that standing armies were Bad Things.)
how all this applies to 2014, and militarized police, the Wars on Selected Nouns, the Pentagon budget and gun control, can give rise to some interesting analysis of modern politics. But I think it safe to say that libertarianism is the only one to channel the original concept of the Founders.
Kishnevi
Some people just can't buy a clue.
ReplyDeleteWonder if the idiot has also trotted out the specious origins of "picnic" or "rule of thumb"?
ReplyDeleteU.S. Constitution ratified? 1788. Bill of Rights? 1791. So Second Amendment "essential if they hoped to get the Southern states to ratify the brand-new U.S. Constitution" -- er, not so much.
ReplyDeleteAnother idiot who thinks that history began in the 18th century and that the meaning of words doesn't shift over time. Someone should send him a copy of the 1689 English Bill of Rights and an old dictionary so he can read what "regulated" meant when the Bill of Rights was written.
ReplyDeleteAl_in_Ottawa
Al...England 1689 is not a good precedent. For instance, Catholics were severely restricted or outright banned from owning weapons. It did nothing to protect the Highlanders in the aftermath of the '45. The English Whigs might well have been cheering Bloomberg on and not us.
ReplyDeleteKishnevi
"Jay Parini was born . . . in Pittston, Pennsylvania"
ReplyDeleteVermont is a constitutional carry state, since the time of its war of independence.
Parini is an outside agitator. Don't blame Vermont.
He sounds like he's trying to revive Michael Bellesiles's theory.
ReplyDeleteAs for the claim that "The idea that owning a gun in America was an individual right only dates to the 1980s," I distinctly recall the 1976 election (and if you don't believe me, I'll hit you with my slide rule). The Republicans did much better than expected in the Rocky Mountain states primarily because of the threat of Federal gun control.
Every day that passes adds value to my engineering education from Purdue.
ReplyDeletegvi
Well said Tam... sigh
ReplyDeleteHow does the current "ARMY OF ONE" advertising campaign correlate with the 2nd Amendment militia imperatives?
ReplyDeleteCan one person be a formal US militia organization under the 2nd Amendment?
Other than Chuck Norris, I mean.
He is a professor of creative writing at Middlebury College. This whole essay was just an exercise in creative writing to show his new students this semester how it was done.
ReplyDeleteIIRC correctly, the British enacted gun control in an attempt to disarm Irish rebels in the early 1900s and the Sullivan Act was passed to try to disarm the Five Points gang who were a political threat to Tammany Hall. The roots of southern gun control have already been discussed. It has always been about controlling people, not the guns.
ReplyDelete"Vermont is a constitutional carry state, since the time of its war of independence."
ReplyDeleteVermont is constitutional carry since its Supreme Court ruled in 1903 that the city of Rutland could not pass an ordinance against carrying handguns.
Tam, this argument is from "Bowling for Columbine". And, yes, Michael Moore just made it up.
Shootin' Buddy
Everyone knows that the Green Mountain boys were organized to keep the slaves on the vast maple syrup plantations from rising up and killing their white owners.
ReplyDeleteI saw it in a Sergio Leone movie so it must be true.
Gerry
I've seen some of this crap before. The Supremes said "Yes, it's a preexisting individual right" and took their 'collective' bullshit away, so they work at this: "The 'militia' was just slave catchers, so we need to get rid of this racist remnant of the past." It's utter bullshit, but they like the idea so that's what counts.
ReplyDeleteMakes you wonder how he 'teaches' his classes. And how many of his students believe this crap.
ReplyDeleteSIGMAN-
THE 5 POINTS GANG THAT WAS MID 19TH CENTURY THE SULLIVAN ACT WAS TO COUNTER THE POLL WATCHERS (WHO WERE ARMED)OF A REFORM- FUSION ATTEMPT TO "THROW THE RASCALS OUT"
IT MATTERS NOT WHO VOTES BUT WHO COUNTS THE VOTES ! 5 POINTS WERE A FACTION OF TAMMANY
SULLIVAN ACT WAS PASSED ABOUT 1911
Kishnevi, many of the complaints of the colonists were that the rights listed in the EBR were not being upheld, on the flimsy excuse that the EBR did not apply outside of England to English colonists who paid taxes to an English King. During the reign of the Catholic Stuarts before the Glorious Revolution was when many protestant sects (Puritans, Quakers, etc) emigrated to New England to escape persecution. Protestants were disarmed, brought to trial on the flimsiest charges in front of juries that were loaded with Catholics, etc. The EBR does not discriminate against 'Papists' in regards to self defence as they had never been disarmed in the first place. The only thing a Catholic is barred from doing is ascending to the throne.
ReplyDeleteIf you read the preamble to the EBR there are parallels with the USA today.
"By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament." sounds a lot like executive orders doesn't it?
"And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeiture before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied" is civil asset forfeiture.
Al_in_Ottawa
I also noticed his utter ignorance of the National Firearms Act, and of the difference between a Title 2 machinegun and the Title 1 civilian semiautos he proposes to ban. Because banning civilian non-automatics will prevent accidental shootings with restricted machineguns, don't ya know.
ReplyDeleteI sent him a polite email...I'm interested to see if he offers any mea culpa or corrections on his blog, or if he will maintain his comfortable ignorance instead.
"I'm interested to see if he offers any mea culpa or corrections on his blog . . ."
ReplyDeleteYou are assuming that his apparent ignorance is not deliberate. If his position is political rather than factual, the facts simple don't matter to him. He is creating a "narrative."
The Truth of tomorrow, Brother.
Perhaps somebody might point out that little scrap that started in 1775 along with just who fired the Shot Heard 'Round the World.
ReplyDeleteI notice that CNN has killed comments.
ReplyDeleteThey had them as lately as two months ago.
Then they discovered that whey they published this kind of drek, it was roundly mocked and debunked.
When their writers start taking their history lessons from Hartmann at Truthout and Carl Bogus, they have truly jumped the shark.
Those slave patrols were mostly composed of temporary draftees, not volunteers.
ReplyDeleteBut that doesn't fit their pet narrative, I guess.
Unfortunately, there are people who believe this dreck because they have never studied history.
ReplyDeleteIt also proves there is a "market" for writing this kind of bovine scatology and calling it historical fact. It may help pay the bills if you can stomach it.
I notice that CNN isn't allowing comments on this piece of fiction.
ReplyDeleteCNN has killed comments on articles. I guess they were tired of having their "journalists" having their heads handed to them.
ReplyDelete