Voices For Gun Control

We've seen the sort of ugly racist scum (Lott, Hatch, Nugent, Pratt, Duke, Hannity, etc.) who push the dishonest "gun rights" agenda...

Here's more on the courageous decent Americans pushing for gun control.

"Garry Wills is the author of numerous books, including the Pulitzer Prize–winning Lincoln at Gettysburg, Nixon Agonistes, Reagan’s America, Saint Augustine, Papal Sin, and most recently "Negro President." A regular contributor to the New York Review of Books, he has won many awards, among them two National Book Critics Circle Awards and the 1998 National Medal for the Humanities. He is an adjunct professor of history at Northwestern University. "

And he's for gun control.

Wills: "Guns were not, as people think, generally owned. They were expensive. They were hard to maintain. They were hard to repair. There were few people to repair them. There were few people who manufactured them in America. They were not even efficient. So, the idea that everyone had a gun? Most of the militias never drilled together. Even a large body of the males, not to say the whole body, because there weren't enough guns to go around. In the Revolutionary War itself there was a chronic lack of guns. They weren't supplied by the militias or by people taking them off the mantle, where they didn't exist. They were supplied by shipping them in from France when France became our ally. So, the whole cult of the gun really drew up in the 19th century when Colt and Remington and the industrial revolution made it possible to have big efforts and the Civil War led to a tremendous assembly line way of making a mass amount of guns."

Figures don’t lie, but liar figure is the best response to this comment. First while the majority of PEOPLE in Colonial America did not own a firearm, the majority of while males probably did (Figures from the time period in question are unreliable either way, but the facts tend to support wide spread firearms ownership AND that a large minority of the population did NOT own firearms).

First let me address the cost of buying maintaining and using firearms. We are talking about a rural agricultural society NOT today’s urban society. In such rural society protecting own’s crops from forging animals was something each farmer had to do (Just like today). It was for this reason Fowling pieces where so popular among farmers (and the most reported weapon used by the American Militia during the Siege of Boston). These Fowling pieces where much cheaper than other firearms (especially the Pennsylvania Rifles) and more useful given their where shotguns not rifles.

As to the costs, I have had clients who believe their need a automobile and will spend up to half their income to keep such an automobile running (and to make the payments on such an automobile). In Colonial American a similar attitude to Guns seems to prevail. I.e. they were expensive but people would save their money till they had enough to buy a firearm. Many people could never save enough but most free white males could (their Wives and Daughter would help since the fowling piece could enhance the family income, just like Mothers, Wives and Daughters help buy automobiles for the main bread winners in their families today, when of course such family members are NOT buying the Automobile for themselves).

Fowling pieces also could be “borrowed” from neighbors for unlike Rifles they do not have to be adjusted for their users (unlike rifles sights which must be adjusted depending on the users, through “sights” as we use the term today do not even appear on Pennsylvania Rifles of the 1700s).

Thus the fact firearms were expensive did not mean they were NOT common. People will spend what they have to, to get what they believe they need. Firearms in Rural Society were viewed as such a need and people who save for years to buy a firearm, even if all they could afford was an inexpensive fowling piece instead of a Rifle.


Second, let me address the issue of people who did not own firearms. In the battle of New Orleans, General Jackson organized the poor men of New Orleans (who did not own a firearm) as a reserve to be thrown into any breech of his own lines. All they had were clubs, but the fact he did organize them this way shows that he viewed them as important part of the Militia AND that some members of the Militia were unarmed. Women rarely owned firearms (to expensive to have more than one per family, so the family firearm was the Husband’s firearm). Given the high percentage of men who did not own a firearm, the majority of People did not own a firearm, but that did not mean they did not want to own one, nor does that mean they had no access to one ( see above on borrowing a neighbor’s fowling piece).


Third, As to the Revolution, it quickly became apparent that the fowling pieces varied to much in caliber for supply purposes (and were to weak in construction for hard combat use) to be of much use in combat. “Committee of Public Safety” muskets (Copies of the British Brown Bess) were made and purchased in America to equip the troops. The people who owned firearms tended to be the middle class of society and it was common during the 1700s to recruit troops from the poor (Who as a general rule had no firearms). With the introduction of French Weapons, the French .69 Caliber weapons replaced the .75 Brown Bess and this became the standard America military Caliber till 1854 and the adoption of the Minnie Ball and Rifle Musket.

Thus the fact that the colonies needed to buy MILITARY weapons does not mean people did not own firearms (the vast majority of Firearms in use were the Fowling pieces mentioned above). Trying to stay with one caliber (to ease Supply) caused Congress to give the older Brown Bess to the states while it tried to standardize on the French .69 Caliber weapons. Remember the Defensive Position of America was not only to equip and train a professional army under Washington, but to keep and maintain the Militia for local Defense. Both needed Firearms, preferably Military Muskets, thus an acute shortage of firearms occurred.

As to the Militia not drilling together, again we are taking of a Rural society with a limited transportation system. Roads were dirt and/or mud. People could move, but had to stay close to their crops. People could walk about 20 miles a day (This is why most counties in the US are about 20 miles across, so people could travel to the County seat and back in a day). The problem for the Militia was to get it together in larger groups than at Company level more than 1-2 times a year. This was one of the reason Hamilton in the Federalist papers wanted two types of Militia, a paid professional type much like today’s National Guard who would have monthly drills and be paid to attend such drills, and the reserve militia of everyone else who would appear with their equipment once or twice a year to make sure they had their equipment and than sent back home unless needed.

Calling out the Militia was a problem. During the American Revolution the Militia in Western Pennsylvania was called out several time to respond to Indian raids, by the time the Militia had formed the Indians had left. Out of this called up Militia “Volunteers” were called for to do punitive expedition against the Indians (i.e. formed a “National Guard” type Militia out of the Reserve Militia). People who were in the regular Militia had other jobs, mainly working the land, but black smithing and other rural industrial occupations and therefore could not tie themselves up chasing Indians for more than 1-2 months at a time (and that included traveling to the mobilization point). To solve this problem Hamilton made his suggestions of the two types of Militia (which eventually became the law of the land except Congress dropped any and all equipment requirements for the Reserve Militia).

Even today, if they is a shortage of Gasoline, mobilizing the Reserve Militia would be difficult. It could be done but only in dire situations. It was these transportation limitations that prevented Militia training at levels higher than Company levels and the transportation problem was never solved during the Colonial period (it took the Railroad to improve transportation to the level people could travel more than 20 miles in a day).

Thus the fact that guns were expensive to buy, maintain and use does not mean people did not have them or access to them, nor that the people did not want them. Firearms last a long time and while I can not find any reports of Match locks being used during the Revolution, the Flintlock had been around for almost 100 years by 1775 and you have stories of people using 75-100 year old flintlock fowling pieces AND even military muskets of that same age during the Revolution. People will obtain what they want no matter the price (Gasoline went to almost $75 a gallon during the Siege of Sarajevo do to demand, and look at the price of illegal Drugs. If People wants something they will pay whatever the price. In colonial America people wanted firearms and the fact that their were expensive did not stop people from obtaining them.

I'll believe Wills.

...since this isn't from a government source. I'd be interested to see the date of these comments from Wills, sounds like he'd just read Bellesiles book to me. Also I believe it was Wills who was honest enough to admit that the 2nd amendment protects the individual and should be voted on for repeal so as to further restrict gun rights.

http://www.familyhaven.com/books/necessaryevil.html

"So let's talk about texts written in English. There's a rumor going around town that you've taken issue with the way the Second Amendment is interpreted.

I have a book coming out in October talking about gun control. The Second Amendment was all about the militia, and the agreement that states would have militias and provide arms and training for them. That's all the Second Amendment ever meant. The "right to bear arms" is a military term. You don't "bear arms" against rabbits. The right to individual possession of firearms was not really an issue in 1776. Most people didn't have guns. They were not practical things to use for hunting. Using a rifle was such a highly complicated skill -- you had to tamp the bullet down this long narrow tube. After you fired, you were helpless for a long time until you could reload. It was not a practical hunting tool. The whole belief that the right to bear arms has anything to do with anything other than the militia is a very modern interpretation.

Where do you stand?
Guns are the most crazy things in modern American society. No other society has this cult of gun worshipers. There is a gun for every man, woman and child in America. There are five guns for every adult male in America. And here's the NRA saying, "The problem is we don't have enough guns," Charlton Heston saying everybody has to be armed in the schools so they can shoot each other."

http://www.salon.com/books/int/1999/07/29/wills/print.html

...the Gary Wills that appears in Newsweek is it?

Found this while trying to get the answer to my question:
http://www.womenshooters.com/wfn/polsby.html

"There seem to be two main theories of the second amendment. ... But in places where close attention is paid to what the words actually say, the states-rights reading of the Second Amendment has attracted surprisingly little support. After all, the Second Amendment does not say 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, shall not be infringed.' Nor do the words of the amendment assert that the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' is conditional upon membership in some sort of organized soldiery like the National Guard. Indeed, if there is conditional language in the Second Amendment at all, it runs the other way: "Because the people have a right to keep and bear arms, states will be assured of the well regulated militias that are necessary for their security. Some version of this reading is supported by almost all of the constitutional historians and lawyers who have published research on the subject. Indeed, this view is so dominant in the academy that Gary Wills, the lone dissenter among historians, has dubbed it the 'Standard Model' of the Second Amendment."

Are you really having trouble figuring out which Pulitzer Prize winner I'm talking about?

Your source might have a bit more credibility if he knew how to spell the name of the personn he's talking about.

...just answering the question.

Here's some 'praise' for wills:
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=365

"As pretentious and dishonest as A Necessary Evil may be, it is part of an interesting phenomenon. Hardly a day goes by without some establishment commentator lamenting the public's lack of trust in government. Americans don't vote en masse anymore. Americans are cynical about politicians. They refuse to surrender their guns to government. In short, the common sense and individualism of Americans stands in the way of "efficient" government--that is, strong centralized government."

Ho-kay.

"It was formally established in October 1982 and located in Auburn, Alabama, with founder Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. serving as president."
Uh-HUH.

http://www.mises.org/about.asp

"right to bear arms" is a military term
"right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the actual phrase.
the militia term is a preamble marking the reason for inclusion into the bill of rights, a restriction on government, not the people.

If they just would have left out "of the people", I would believe it is a state right, too bad they didn't.

Second since the bill of rights is limiting the governments power over the people, why would they give all the power to the state government and not "the people" in the 2nd as well? Also if it is a State power, then the federal government has no authority to pass any gun restrictions.

So he is saying the wealthy white land owners that had slaves could not afford guns? After all they were the ones that voted, since you had to be a land owner. That does not mean those same voting landowners did not want a right to keep there guns.

I also seem to remember that guns were very important at keeping away indians from those fronteer people.

I'll believe the guy who won the Pulitzer. That's Wills.

and that pulitzer was won for what topic?
he won a prize, that does not mean he is correct on gun control or the bill of rights.
Just like a nobel in physics does not make an expert on economics or global warming, a pulitzer does not make a person who believes in gun control, right.

I realize not everyone had a gun, but I do know that if they needed one they figured out how to afford one. My fathers family farmed for generations and we still have those guns passed down in my family. I know for a fact that if you did not have a gun as a farmer, your crops/livestock were prey, and you lost money or if too much was taken, you starved.

So in the south I know guns were held by the landowners/voters. Pulitzer I dont have but family history I do. I also have photos from my mothers side of the family dating back to early 1800 showing them holding there prized guns in the photo.

Guns were not everywhere but they were where they were needed.

because they were not accurate,
Sorry again, but the slaughter of buffalo was not done with a knife or traps, but guns. No, flintlocks were not accurate by todays standards, but I take it he has never fired one either. It depends on the range a target is, if you can sneak up on game they can be killed, since I didnt inherit bows and arrows they must have used something else. Could it have been guns?

Stating that people did not use rifles because they were inaccurate is crazy. One only has to slightly close the distance between the gun and prey to drastically reduce the inaccuracy. That is only for the guns prior to the civil war.

The Bill of Rights takes power from the Government and gives it to the people or states in exact terms how the government should be run. To say the 2nd is a state right goes against the other uses of "of the people", it goes against the spirit of the Bill that no where in the 9 other amendments talks about giving states power instead of "the people" (it says all we have not mentioned is for the states to decide). It also goes against what the founding fathers wrote about the rkba in other papers they wrote.

"Recently, several threads have been started in this forum that continue topics from previously locked threads. At the suggestion of the Admins, threads such as these will be locked by the Mods."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=20671

Other similar locked threads:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20336&mesg_id=20336
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=19938&mesg_id=19938
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=19740&mesg_id=19740
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=18937&mesg_id=18937

What everone else not finished with thier jobs yet?

"First elected to the House of Representatives in 1992, Rep. Becerra is the only member from Southern California currently serving on the powerful House Committee on Ways and Means. His committee is responsible for formulating our nation’s tax, Social Security, Medicare, trade and welfare laws. Rep. Becerra has dedicated himself to promoting issues affecting industries critical to the Southern California region such as entertainment, high technology, health care, and stimulating free, yet fair, trade. The first Latino to serve on this committee, he has used his position to increase opportunities for working families, to improve the Social Security program for women and minorities, to combat poverty among the working poor through our welfare laws, and to strengthen Medicare and ensure its long-term viability. Rep. Becerra currently serves on the Trade and Social Security subcommittees.
Rep. Becerra is a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) where he served as Chairman during the 105th Congress (1997-98). He currently serves as the Chairman of the CHC's Telecommunications and Technology Task Force, as well as Vice Chair of the 289-member Congressional Diabetes Caucus The Congressman is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. At the international level, he serves as Vice Chairman of the U.S.-Korea Interparliamentary Exchange.

In addition to his Congressional duties, Rep. Becerra enjoys his service as a board member for several respected institutions, including the Hispanic Outreach Advisory Board for the National Parent Teacher Association (PTA); Pitzer College, a nationally ranked liberal arts and sciences college; the Close Up Foundation, the nation’s largest youth civic education organization that brings more than 25,000 students and teachers to Washington D.C. annually; and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, which provides scholarships and internship opportunities for the next generation of Latino leaders."

And he's for gun control.

"Born and raised in Southampton, New York, Timothy H. Bishop is among the 12th generation of Bishops to live in Southampton. He served for 29 years at Southampton College, leaving the position of Provost in 2002 to make his first-ever run for office, when he was elected to represent New York’s 1st Congressional District.        
Bishop’s priorities include protecting the environment, improving college affordability for middle-class families and giving first responders the resources they need to protect our communities.
In Congress, Bishop serves on the powerful Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where he is working to reduce congestion on Eastern Long Island. He also serves on the Education and the Workforce Committee where he is continuing his lifelong mission of increasing opportunity through education and supporting Long Island’s working families."

And he's for gun control.

Here's Molly: "DeLay blames all of this--the theory of evolution, birth control, small family size, day care, abortion, and moral relativism--for the shootings in Littleton. He does not blame guns. He blames liberals.
....Be it ever so sensible and self-evident, when it comes to gun control, the NRA has only one mode, the full Paul Revere: "They're going to take our guns away! They're going to take our guns away!" They throw a fit worthy of Sarah Bernhardt, start chewing the scenery and declaiming dramatically about how we'll have to pry their weapons from their cold, dead hands. I have never figured out how they manage to equate keeping Uzis out of the hands of teenagers with the death of liberty, but you can count on the NRA to put on a show that makes King Lear look like a master of understatement. I suspect they're all thwarted thespians: If we could just get them into show business we wouldn't have to listen to them carry on about how freedom is just another word for a .357 Magnum."

http://www.progressive.org/ivins899.htm

""My friends in the gun-nut lobby tell me they are sick and tired of people like me using this rash of multiple killings to make points in favor of gun control - and I can sure see how they'd be getting upset about that.
So, let me use the recent unpleasantness at the Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles, to make one of their points, instead. My gun-nut friends often tell me these mass shootings wouldn't happen if more people carried concealed weapons. How right they are: If those five-year-olds in Los Angeles had just been packing, none of 'em would have gotten hurt."
I wrote the above shortly after the shootings, and didn't use it on the grounds that it was too flip for the circumstances. The reason I'm using it now is because Thomas Sowell, a right-wing columnist from the Hoover Institute, actually wrote a column in all seriousness saying, yep, the solution to these mass killings is more guns. Incredibly, he argues that the mass killings have been taking place in white, middle-class settings, and wouldn't happen in the ghettos or barrios because more folk there are packing.
I hate to tell him this, but if the murder rate in white, suburban America were the same as that in inner-city ghettos, we'd be confiscating guns by now. "

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=282

"I know : 'Guns Don't Kill People.' But I suspect that they have something to do with it. If you point your finger at someone and say, 'Bang, bang, you're dead,' not much actually happens."
Yup, that's Molly Ivins...any doubt as to where she sensibly comes down on the issue?

"JOHN MUHAMMAD and Lee Malvo are accused of killing 10 people during their terrifying three-week sniping spree in and around Washington.
On Monday, a student at the University of Arizona carried five handguns and a couple of hundred rounds of ammunition into a nursing school and proceeded to kill three of his teachers and himself.
What these hideous cases all have in common, apart from the grief and suffering endured by the victims and their survivors, is that statistically none of them are that big a deal. Ten people here, five people there - very small potatoes in the crucible of criminal violence that we've got going here in the United States. Even the total number of people killed in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - approximately 3,000 - is dwarfed by the annual toll of homicides in the U.S.
Despite the terrible toll that guns in the wrong hands are taking, there is tremendous resistance to even the most modest efforts to control the spread of guns among criminals. That resistance is led, as usual, by the National Rifle Association, which can always be counted on to provide a comfort zone for the perpetrators of gun violence in America. "

http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2002/11/01/p137.raw.html

Columnist brother of Janet:

"Anyway, America's tolerance for gun violence doesn't seem to have been severely tested even by the sniper. This is at curious variance with experience in other civilized nations. When, in 1996, 16 children and a teacher were shot dead with a pistol in Dunblane, Scotland, the parliament of the United Kingdom reacted by virtually banning handguns throughout Britain. In Australia, there was a similar political reaction in the same year, when a maniac shot and killed 35 people in Tasmania. Since then, the Australian government has purchased over a half-million privately owned guns and destroyed them.
Why do Americans alone resist gun control when it endures higher murder and gun violence rates than most nations? The answer is facile in its simplicity. It's because the National Rifle Association has made it its business to become the most efficient and vindictive lobbying organization in America. The NRA need only lunge menacingly at a congressional candidate to get him to back off an anti-gun position.
Yet even this doesn't explain why more grown people don't make the connection between the number of guns in America and its disposition to violence.
Heston's contention that gun ownership is a constitutionally given right becomes fatuous in the light of repeated U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have upheld gun statutes that are a thicket of restrictions varying widely from state to state. "

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=8680

Per the new rule posted yesterday, threads that are started with the purpose of continuing ‘flame wars’ from previously locked threads will be locked. In future, these threads will be locked without explanation.

FlashHarry
DU Moderator

This thread continues the following locked threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=19938&mesg_id=19938
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=19740&mesg_id=19740
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=19290&mesg_id=19290
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=18937&mesg_id=18937
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=18654&mesg_id=18654