Heather Cox Richardson writes a valuable and informative history of the politics of guns in America. She makes clear that the current Republican interpretation of the Second Amendment is not rooted in American history.
Please open the link to see the footnotes.
She writes:
Today, a gunman murdered at least 19 children and 2 adults at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.
For years now, after one massacre or another, I have written some version of the same article, explaining that the nation’s current gun free-for-all is not traditional but, rather, is a symptom of the takeover of our nation by a radical extremist minority. The idea that massacres are “the price of freedom,” as right-wing personality Bill O’Reilly said in 2017 after the Mandalay Bay massacre in Las Vegas, in which a gunman killed 60 people and wounded 411 others, is new, and it is about politics, not our history.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution, on which modern-day arguments for widespread gun ownership rest, is one simple sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” There’s not a lot to go on about what the Framers meant, although in their day, to “bear arms” meant to be part of an organized militia.
As the Tennessee Supreme Court wrote in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”
Today’s insistence that the Second Amendment gives individuals a broad right to own guns comes from two places.
One is the establishment of the National Rifle Association in New York in 1871, in part to improve the marksmanship skills of American citizens who might be called on to fight in another war, and in part to promote in America the British sport of elite shooting, complete with hefty cash prizes in newly organized tournaments. Just a decade after the Civil War, veterans jumped at the chance to hone their former skills. Rifle clubs sprang up across the nation.
By the 1920s, rifle shooting was a popular American sport. “Riflemen” competed in the Olympics, in colleges, and in local, state, and national tournaments organized by the NRA. Being a good marksman was a source of pride, mentioned in public biographies, like being a good golfer. In 1925, when the secretary of the NRA apparently took money from ammunition and arms manufacturers, the organization tossed him out and sued him.
NRA officers insisted on the right of citizens to own rifles and handguns but worked hard to distinguish between law-abiding citizens who should have access to guns for hunting and target shooting and protection, and criminals and mentally ill people, who should not. In 1931, amid fears of bootlegger gangs, the NRA backed federal legislation to limit concealed weapons; prevent possession by criminals, the mentally ill and children; to require all dealers to be licensed; and to require background checks before delivery. It backed the 1934 National Firearms Act, and parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act, designed to stop what seemed to be America’s hurtle toward violence in that turbulent decade.
But in the mid-1970s, a faction in the NRA forced the organization away from sports and toward opposing “gun control.” It formed a political action committee (PAC) in 1975, and two years later it elected an organization president who abandoned sporting culture and focused instead on “gun rights.”
This was the second thing that led us to where we are today: leaders of the NRA embraced the politics of Movement Conservatism, the political movement that rose to combat the business regulations and social welfare programs that both Democrats and Republicans embraced after World War II. Movement Conservatives embraced the myth of the American cowboy as a white man standing against the “socialism” of the federal government as it sought to level the economic playing field between Black Americans and their white neighbors. Leaders like Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater personified the American cowboy, with his cowboy hat and opposition to government regulation, while television Westerns showed good guys putting down bad guys without the interference of the government.
In 1972, the Republican platform had called for gun control to restrict the sale of “cheap handguns,” but in 1975, as he geared up to challenge President Gerald R. Ford for the 1976 presidential nomination, Movement Conservative hero Ronald Reagan took a stand against gun control. In 1980, the Republican platform opposed the federal registration of firearms, and the NRA endorsed a presidential candidate—Reagan—for the first time.
When President Reagan took office, a new American era, dominated by Movement Conservatives, began. And the power of the NRA over American politics grew.
In 1981 a gunman trying to kill Reagan shot and paralyzed his press secretary, James Brady, and wounded Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy and police officer Thomas Delahanty. After the shooting, then-representative Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced legislation that became known as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, or the Brady Bill, to require background checks before gun purchases. Reagan, who was a member of the NRA, endorsed the bill, but the NRA spent millions of dollars to defeat it.
After the Brady Bill passed in 1993, the NRA paid for lawsuits in nine states to strike it down. Until 1959, every single legal article on the Second Amendment concluded that it was not intended to guarantee individuals the right to own a gun. But in the 1970s, legal scholars funded by the NRA had begun to argue that the Second Amendment did exactly that.
In 1997, when the Brady Bill cases came before the Supreme Court as Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court declared parts of the measure unconstitutional.
Now a player in national politics, the NRA was awash in money from gun and ammunition manufacturers. By 2000 it was one of the three most powerful lobbies in Washington. It spent more than $40 million on the 2008 election. In that year, the landmark Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller struck down gun regulations and declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.
Increasingly, NRA money backed Republican candidates. In 2012 the NRA spent $9 million in the presidential election, and in 2014 it spent $13 million. Then, in 2016, it spent over $50 million on Republican candidates, including more than $30 million on Trump’s effort to win the White House. This money was vital to Trump, since many other Republican super PACs refused to back him. The NRA spent more money on Trump than any other outside group, including the leading Trump super PAC, which spent $20.3 million.
The unfettered right to own and carry weapons has come to symbolize the Republican Party’s ideology of individual liberty. Lawmakers and activists have not been able to overcome Republican insistence on gun rights despite the mass shootings that have risen since their new emphasis on guns. Even though 90% of Americans—including nearly 74% of NRA members—support background checks, Republicans have killed such legislation by filibustering it.
The NRA will hold its 2022 annual meeting this Friday in Houston. Former president Trump will speak, along with Texas governor Greg Abbott, senator Ted Cruz, and representative Dan Crenshaw; North Carolina lieutenant governor Mark Robinson; and South Dakota governor Kristi Noem—all Republicans. NRA executive vice president and chief executive officer Wayne LaPierre expressed his enthusiasm for the lineup by saying: “President Trump delivered on his promises by appointing judges who respect and value the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and in doing so helped ensure the freedom of generations of Americans.”
Tonight, President Joe Biden spoke to the nation: “Why are we willing to live with this carnage? Why do we keep letting this happen?… It’s time to turn this pain into action. For every parent, for every citizen in this country, we have to make it clear to every elected official in this country, it’s time to act.” In the Senate, Chris Murphy (D-CT) said, “I am here on this floor, to beg, to literally get down on my hands and knees and beg my colleagues….find a way to pass laws that make this less likely.”
But it was Steve Kerr, the coach of the Golden State Warriors basketball team, whose father was murdered by gunmen in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1984, who best expressed the outrage of the nation. At a press conference tonight, shaking, he said, “I’m not going to talk about basketball…. Any basketball questions don’t matter…. Fourteen children were killed 400 miles from here, and a teacher, and in the last ten days we’ve had elderly Black people killed in a supermarket in Buffalo, we’ve had Asian churchgoers killed in Southern California, and now we have children murdered at school. WHEN ARE WE GONNA DO SOMETHING? I’m tired, I’m so tired of getting up here and offering condolences to the devastated families…. I’m tired of the moments of silence. Enough. There’s 50 senators…who refuse to vote on HR 8, which is a background check rule that the House passed a couple years ago…. [N]inety percent of Americans, regardless of political party, want…universal background checks…. We are being held hostage by 50 senators in Washington who refuse to even put it to a vote despite what we the American people want…because they want to hold onto their own power. It’s pathetic,” he said, walking out of the press conference.
“I’ve had enough.”

The thousands of victims could not care less…for them it is too late. Bloody murder…DO SOMETHING instead of coming up with one excuse after another.
LikeLike
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/03/nra-maria-butina-ukraine-putin-war-crimea-republicans-trump-guns/
LikeLike
Did I just read that there already WAS an armed guard at the school? Did I just read that law enforcement was at the school and allowed the gunman to go into the school and gun down 19 children with his Republican-approved assault weapon?
Was is that not being reported more?
LikeLike
A little before 4pm today (5/25) NPR reported that a school resource officer “engaged” with Ramos as he approached the school building. No shots were fired, and no info yet on the manner in which the two “engaged.” Shooter entered through an unlocked side door, went down hall, entered a 4th-gr classroom. NPR said it was still unknown how soon police arrived; they were reportedly gathering/ organizing together with a border patrol unit outside the bldg while shooter was in that classroom. Surveillance video is being reviewed.
Earlier in day I read that reportedly someone in the area (a neighbor?) saw the gunman emerge from his crashed vehicle with a rifle & called police. (That might have been before the SRO [presumably] contacted them.)
LikeLike
Maybe the AR15 should be referred to as the GOP15.
LikeLike
I just learned from Rep. Jamaal Bowman that there is a GoFundMe for the families of the children and teachers murdered in Uvalde.
I contributed. I hope you will too.
https://www.gofundme.com/c/act/donate-to-texas-elementary-school-shooting-relief?akid=9048.20784.zr5mPv&rd=1&t=1
LikeLike
Thanks for the additional information, bethree5.
(I posted that question in a later post before reading this, so please disregard).
LikeLike
You’re welcome, nycpsp. I don’t know why following all the detail calms me; maybe it just helps me digest.
Of course, the idea that an SRO can stop a kid with an AR-15 & large capacity magazines is ridic on its face. That’s not even their function. We have 3 in our district: one each for 1 hisch & 2 midschs. There is occasional objection at school board [budget!] meetings, but never any issues with the students. Perhaps they serve a sort of friendly but firm rep of authority? The closest we’ve come to trouble (knock wood) was in 2019 when a heavily-armed man drove from out of state to one of our elemschs to stalk a former flame. Fortunately his relatives knew, & called from there to warn our town police, who locked the school down & found him in his truck, rifle on lap, in the parking lot.
LikeLike
You read right, NYCpsp.
Something similar happened @ Marjory Stoneman Douglas: “the only armed sheriff’s deputy remained outside…” “Former Broward Sheridd’s Office Deputy Scot Peterson (was) charged w/7 counts of child neglect, 3 counts of culpable negligence & 1 count of perjury.” From Local 10 News, 1/28/22, Parkland, FL.
LikeLike
We. Live. in. a. Country. Full. of. Insane. People.
LikeLike
People who elect the likes of Ted Cruz and Greg Abbot and Paul Gosar. I wonder whether Georgia Republican gubernatorial candidate Kandiss Taylor will be repainting the sign on the side of her campaign van that reads “Jesus Guns Babies.”
Sick. Disgusting.
LikeLike
I keep wondering when the soi-pisant [sic] “Originalists” on the Extreme Court are actually gonna learn a little bit of American History.
LikeLike
Don’t hold your breath, Jon.
LikeLike
Their fundamental and fundamentalist ignorance is evidently too vast for that.
LikeLike
Erroriginalists never learn.
LikeLike
“Soi-pisant.” Excellent Bob, really.
LikeLike
Jon
LikeLike
My compliments on “soi-pisant.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
nah doesn’t quite work as a near-cognate– it would be “soi-pissant”
LikeLike
Of course, Representative Paul Gosar tweeted vicious lies that the shooter was a “leftist transsexual illegal alien.”
https://www.businessinsider.com/texas-shooting-uvalde-paul-gosar-touts-false-claim-transgender-woman-2022-5
Totally false. The transsexual thing was a hoax on a conservative message board. The shooter was born in North Dakota.
LikeLike
“A Movement Conservatives embraced the myth of the American cowboy as a white man standing against the “socialism” of the federal government”
All hat and no cattle.
LikeLike
Another excellent piece of writing by Heather Cox Richardson.
This will probably bring out the pro-Putin trolls, but the NRA was also one of the organizations that Russian money took over in 2016 to elect Trump. The NRA for years spent ridiculous sums on candidates, but it went from $13 million to $50 million in 2016, and more than $ 30 million went to elect Trump.
Russians got a double benefit – a pro-Putin president who seemed to take his marching orders from Putin, and the insurance that by keeping assault weapons easily available, the US would destroy itself from within.
And Steve Kerr needs to quit being a coach and run for office. I have liked him for a long time (including when he was a player and was a crack 3-point shooter), and he has his own personal history with terrorism. And the NRA has become a terrorist organization.
LikeLike
The Ras-Putinists support the NRA and gun violence because they know it’s one of the main forces weakening U.S. society.
LikeLike
So funny that anyone thinks the NRA has ever needed Russian funding. As if it’s not as American as baseball, apple pie, imperialism and mass murder.
LikeLike
There is a reason why Putin sends agents like Maria Butina here, Dienne. And it isn’t cultural exchange.
LikeLike
But it is a matter of public record that the NRA did take Russian money, did send a delegation of its leaders to Moscow in 2015. Did you forget Russian spy Maria Butina?
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/27/764879242/nra-was-foreign-asset-to-russia-ahead-of-2016-new-senate-report-reveals
LikeLike
Again with the hypocrisy.
Billionaires fund the Republican party for POWER, not money. Russians fund the NRA for power, not money.
And the NRA’s embrace of Russian money was entirely about greed.
The point of the article is that the NRA supported sensible gun regulations until they became tools of the gun lobby and later – when their greed demanded more – from Russia.
The Democrats support gun control. The Republicans want more guns in more hands.
That wasn’t always so. The discussion used to be about which regulations worked best. Now the Republicans allow no discussion because their billionaire funders won’t allow it even if their voters want it.
(Cue for the pro-Putin trolls to post right wing propaganda about how it’s really the Democrats who don’t want gun control also.)
LikeLike
Diane, maybe my reading comprehension is off, but I’ve read your article twice and I can’t find any mention of the NRA taking Russian money – could you point me to where that is discussed?
All I’m seeing is that Butina organized a meeting (which the NRA appears to have paid for, not Russia) between Russian officials and NRA officials without disclosing her own status as a “Russian agent” (which apparently, puts me in good company, since I too am, according to this blog, a “Russian agent”). If it were any other country besides Russia (or any more liberal organization than the NRA), I don’t see what the problem is. So some American and Russian gun nuts got together to discuss mutual business opportunities? No more slimy than any other capitalistic transaction (cough, cough Hunter Biden cough, cough). On what planet and in what demented mind could this remotely be some kind of threat to U.S. security?
LikeLike
I know nothing will shake your admiration for Putin and your hatred for the Democratic Party, but try this:
https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/04/11/nra-russia-money-guns-516804
LikeLike
It’s so funny, it’s been documented over and over and over again. Like an old joke.
LikeLike
Our resident pro-Putin poster is absolutely blind to anything that doesn’t fit the personal narrative she believes. It can be told her 1,000 times and she will still “forget” it or dismiss it. She will remember some random thing that happened 35 years ago that “proves” Biden is racist and forget something about the NRA from far more recently that doesn’t confirm with her false narrative.
That’s why she has so much in common with the typical Trump voter and like Trump voters clearly preferred Trump to the Democrat in 2016. They believe what they believe and no facts will convince them otherwise.
It’s no different than the folks who say there was rampant voter fraud in 2020 and that the insurrection was a peaceful gathering of patriots. It’s no different than those who say hydroxychloroquine is a miracle cure for COVID, or repeat the nonsense that no-excuses charters turn 100% of the students into high performing scholars.These folks are absolutely immune to reason.
There are times when our resident pro-Putin poster writes comments that are based in fact and truth. But it doesn’t matter. Because once a person loses credibility, they should lose credibility. It is irrelevant whether Hitler on some rare occasion said something that was true about Jews along with all the lies designed to foment hatred and justify their annihilation. It is irrelevant when folks who constantly lie to exonerate Putin’s annihilation of Ukraine sometimes offer a true fact buried in their misleading propaganda. People who lie should be marginalized until they retract their lies. Allowing them to continue to lie on one subject while fawning over their “great points” on another subject where they aren’t lying just gives their lies credibility. That is exactly what has driven the hate of the teachers union — that the lies that the ed reformers say about the union do not damage their credibility and they are presented as truth-tellers.
Just because the news media has allowed Republicans to lose no credibility no matter how outrageous their lies are does not mean we should follow their lead.
Republicans are like spoiled children. The more the news media – or their parents – condone their bad behavior, the worse they get. They know there will be no consequences and get worse and worse.
LikeLike
nycpsp– “People who lie should be marginalized”– whatever truths they seed into their falsehoods are used to paint them as truth-tellers etc.
Nah. The problem with this kind of argument: the search for truth and consensus is what’s important. Your “liar’s” occasional “truth” is actually the point on which you agree with them. If one side “marginalizes” (i.e., cancels, doxxes, swamps with ad hominems etc) the other, that side loses credibility or even the ear of the other side, and the search for truth/ consensus is lost. Listen for any potential points of agreement with opponents, and try to build consensus starting from there.
For example: there is a strong sentiment among rurals, libertarians, and conservatives against govt reaching its long hairy arm into the realm of individual liberty. That’s a great place to build from. Unfortunately, Dems/ progressives often counter with, hey you’re being selfish, some individual liberties have to be curtailed in the common interest. Why even mention it? It’s far more practical to hone in on the point that, once one side establishes the right of govt to overreach, the pave the way for an admin of the opposite party to overreach in the opposite direction.
LikeLike
bethree5,
The search for truth is a waste of time if you don’t call out lies. There can be consensus on policy and I am actually pro-compromise when it comes to politics. But I am not pro-lie.
Our side lost credibility because we bent over backward to deny our truths in the name of conciliation. While the other side made it clear that their lies were truth. They hate us without reservation, we reach out to them and pretend their lies might be truth, and it just makes them double down knowing that our side is weak and doesn’t believe what we say the way the liars do. No wonder they believe the lies so strongly.
So I will have to agree to disagree. Although maybe I should try it:
One side says that Putin is being victimized by Ukraine Nazis in a conspiracy with the US military industrial establishment of Democrats. We need to be conciliatory and find our common ground — we all are very critical of Democrats, too. Together we can amplify the hate toward Dems and pass some laws that we all agree would stop the Dems doing all the bad things they do. And that way the people who say Putin is being victimized will have more credibility.
The ed reform anti-public school folks say union teachers cause all problems. We can find common ground because we also agree that there are some problems with the teachers union and I have even found folks here being very critical of Randi Weingarten. I will take your advice and start spreading the word that ed reformers have a lot of credibility and start ignoring the lies and false narratives of the ed reformers, because those should not be talked about for fear it would cause ed reformers not to want to join with us to make the union better. Instead, we can all find common ground in our shared belief that the teachers’ union has a lot of problems. Maybe we can get some good legislation passed to address all those union problems.
And I can’t help blaming union teachers for not finding that common ground with the ed reformers. It’s their fault. They should never call out the lies that the ed reformers use to demonize teachers. What matters is that we give ed reformers the credibility they deserve. We all have in common that we all want good schools. And if union teachers would just join together with ed reformers and talk about what you all have in common, things will be better. If there is a problem, it’s because of the union not giving the ed reformers more credibility.
Done. Thanks, bethree5 for enlightening me.
LikeLike
This seems to be a pretty decent set of ideas for how to reduce gun violence. Won’t happen, of course, so it’s probably not even worth clicking on the link.
LikeLike
Typical Kristof tripe. Don’t mention the elephant in the room, but instead present us with the obvious, blame “both sides” for why the obvious isn’t done, and then pat himself on the back for writing something that won’t offend any Republicans so the NYT can continue reporting all issues from the perspective that “both sides” are to blame.
Germans and Jews are just too polarized. Ukraine and Russia are just too polarized. Dems and Republicans are just too polarized. If they weren’t polarized, they would listen to Nick Kristof’s rehash of ideas that the Democrats have been offering up for years and years with the media just ignoring them and not bothering to inform readers that the Republicans will block every action until they are soundly defeated politically.
Wow, we just aren’t smart like Kristof.
And yeah, no problem having assault weapons readily available in 10 states with some state in the middle putting restrictions on those weapons. No doubt Kristof would then be first in line to retract “oh, I guess that one state that had restrictions still had a lot of gun violence, so just forget about it and have no restrictions at all, since restrictions don’t work.”
This is why our democracy is in so much danger — media “protectors” of democracy like Kristof who normalize fascist Republicans and always make the solvable problems in America a “both sides” issue to empower the Republicans to pay no political price by preventing those problems from being solved.
Next Kristof will next write about his plan for how to solve the problem of 5 gunmen holding 200 children hostage. Kristof has a great plan if only the hostages and the gunmen were not “so polarized”.
LikeLike
I thought many of the ideas were good.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
I agree many of the ideas were good and I thought they were good when various Democratic lawmakers suggested them over the last decade plus.
Kristof basically insures that his “good” ideas won’t ever pass because by blaming “both sides” he is enabling the Republicans to continue to block them since the Republicans know that their enablers like Kristof will always exonerate them by blaming “both sides”.
It’s like me offering ideas you would agree with about how to have Putin stop massacring civilians that Putin entirely rejects but leaving out that little fact and instead telling everyone that “both sides” just won’t accept my perfect ideas.
You would probably think I wasn’t really serious about my ideas and was more serious about making Putin like me if I offered a great plan that you supported that we both knew would be entirely rejected by Putin and accepted by the Ukraine people.
It’s basically a cover-up for the fact that only one side is rejecting Kristof’s ideas and year after year Kristof keeps presenting them over and over again and insisting that both sides are equally at fault. And then acting mystified about why both sides can’t come to an agreement.
Why can’t those 200 children and the 5 gunmen holding them hostage agree with my easy way to get those children out safely, asks Kristof. Both the children and the gunmen holding them hostage are so “polarized” and I am here offering my great solution that I want everyone to read multiple times while I keep blaming the children and the gunmen for being “too polarized” and not being able to recognize by greatness, says Kristof.
So tired of these idiots like Kristof getting such a huge platform to empower the Republicans to keep blocking ALL sensible gun legislation.
As you acknowledge, FLERP!, these ideas are not polarizing. Most of us agree with them.
The REPUBLICANS are polarizing and blocking them. Maybe they wouldn’t if folks like Kristof actually made them pay a price for it by reporting truthfully instead of this idiotic column pushing the right wing narrative that none of this can happen because both sides don’t want it. Which is such a lie that this column really needs a correction.
LikeLike
Frankly I don’t know for certain that the ideas aren’t that polarizing. I know some polls show very broad support for things like background checks. But then again, when those things appear as specific proposed legislation on ballots in specific states, they don’t always succeed. In Maine, for example, voters rejected a referendum on a law that would have background checks on gun sales between people who aren’t firearm dealers, for example.
https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Background_Checks_for_Gun_Sales,_Question_3_(2016)
I would like to see the number of guns drastically reduced, but I just don’t see how that’s going to happen. That’s why I have some hope (fool’s hope, maybe) that we can use technology to reduce gun violence.
LikeLike
I would like to see that Maine ballot initiative put back on the ballot.
The problem is that Americans are now brainwashed to believe that “nothing can be done” to stop this and every law will hurt “responsible” gun owners.
Meanwhile, the so-called “responsible” gun owners don’t seem to want any law at all — they just say any restrictions at all — even a background check – will hurt them.
Anyway, to them the deaths of 20 or 50 or 100 children are a small price to pay for their freedom not to burdened by background checks or any restrictions. I am sure that Republicans are very sad, but take some comfort in their knowledge that those children died for a very good cause, to make sure that responsible gun owners who use their guns wisely are not inconvenienced in the least.
No doubt Republicans very much appreciate the sacrifice those children and their families made so gun owners aren’t inconvenienced too much. They will honor their memory.
LikeLike
Took the bait and read it and got to say, although it’s a bit wordy, NYCPSP gets it. This is the kind of piffle that parades as centrism: flowery words with no substance. Claiming this has ideas is like calling a Twinkie cuisine.
Let’s recap. “America has more guns than any other country.” What a profound observation. “We have a model for regulating guns: automobiles [!!!]”. Don’t know if anyone else has noticed, but the conservative argument has been out in the open for decades: the right to drive is not in the Constitution. Then the kicker. Stay with me. Too many guns. Regulate like cars. Ergo, “The liberal approach is ineffective. Use a public health approach instead.” Can some logician out there put these together for me, please?
And under that is this insightful observation: “The left sometimes focuses on ‘gun control,’ which scares off gun owners and leads to more gun sales. A better framing is ‘gun safety’ or ‘reducing gun violence,’ and using auto safety as a model—constant efforts to make the products safer and to limit access by people who are most likely to misuse them.” Yes. The shooters in Sandy Hook, Umpqua, Aurora, Buffalo, Uvalde, wherever, were all focused on gun safety and proper gun etiquette. And the concluding thought of that gem, about the simple act of “limit(ing) access” seems so easy and is completely oblivious to REALITY. Just like is later observation that “The right type of training could go a long way.” Oh brother. That’s as useful as “Fewer guns = fewer deaths”.
Since this is like shooting fish in a barrel and I don’t want get as wordy as NYCPSP–too late–just why don’t we do health research on gun violence? It’s pretty obvious, look it up if you’re ignorant about it. And let’s say the liability and insurance is actually some kind of answer (it isn’t, it’s the proliferation of guns, stupid), are they going to become the enforcers of public laws? Didn’t we just go through an episode when flight attendants, grocery and drug store workers, and public transportation employees were supposed to enforce rules on masks? And Kristof gives us Shangri-La populism and some thinks it is profound. Because it’s so easy, obviously.
LikeLike
GregB,
Thank you!!
If you want to know why democracy is dying, it is that this stuff is given credibility by very good and smart people, like bethree5.
They do not even see how they are complicit in helping push the false narratives that demonize our side and give undeserved credibility to the far right neo-fascist Republicans. Nothing is their fault — it is OUR fault.
They don’t even see the danger in normalizing and giving credibility to the “both sides are at fault” crap.
But they do sometimes see it if I point out that they are repeating the same talking points that the ed reformers use to hurt public schools.
One side – the ed reformers – says that teachers unions are so destructive to public schools.
The “other” side of finding “common ground” that requires ignoring all the lies that the ed reformers are saying, and have public school supporters like me saying that the ed reformers and teachers unions are both equally to blame and it’s the fault of the teachers’ union for not finding common ground with the ed reformers and instead causing the ed reformers to be even more anti-union.
I should stop trying to make the ed reformers less credible, as that might make them even more anti-union. They are anti-union because we are too mean to them and call out their lies. Instead we need to find what we have in common — we all want good schools — and present the ed reformers as very credible.
Having ed reformers viewed as very credible to the public will allow us to join together to do good things for public schools. And calling out the lies of the ed reformers would show that we public school folks are to blame for everything.
LikeLike
What an excellent article, FLERP, thanks for this. I like the parallel between cars and guns as, we should approach guns as a public safety issue—i.e., something driven by the insurance industry. One of those rare instances where even a public good warped by for-profit funding could be put to work. For adults: use life insurance. Why should it be paid out when the death was caused by negligently acquired/ safety-equipped/ properly-store firearms? It doesn’t work as well for the under-18’s, but bereaved families should at least be able to sue perpetrator families in civil court for murders/ accidents occurring consequent to the same negligence.
I especially liked “In many places, there is more rigorous screening of people who want to adopt dogs than of people who want to purchase firearms.”
I also liked the bit on training. Growing up in rural NYS in ‘50s-‘60’s, there were many who owned rifles for hunting, but as far as I know, no training reqts at all [perhaps because NRA has never been a big thing there?]. By the time I was a teen and noticed such things, I realized that every single year there were about 3 deaths in my general area just from freaking cleaning their guns.
And this was news to me, and very sobering: “In a typical year, more pre-schoolers are shot dead in America (about 75) than police officers are.”
LikeLike
I should have added: there’s an intersection between fed laws and insurance companies’ algorithms. Reagan quashed the NHTSA law requiring either airbags or an interlocking seatbelt mechanism [already studied in collaboration between govt agencies and insurance industry for a decade], & insurance companies sued– and won a SCOTUS 1983 decision. State govts still were balking [live free or die types] so Elizabeth Dole negotiated a compromise: either states agreed to a airbags [very expensive] or 2/3 of states had to agree to front-seat seat belts [not too costly]. The states couldn’t get it entirely together & we ended up with both 😀
LikeLike
I found it interesting, too, bethree, although I gather it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.
LikeLike
Well, true enough. Here’s a more direct and compelling article, I think:
LikeLike
For those of you who have forgotten what a real member of Congress should be, I recommend The Meanest Man in Congress: Jack Brooks and the Making of an American Century. He lost in the 1994 midterms largely because he was a good soldier and ushered through Clinton’s crime bill. He wrote the legislation that created executive agency inspectors general, modernized the machinery of the federal government, and, although he was not the chairman, wrote the Nixon articles of impeachment. If the framers could have created a congressman out of whole cloth, they would have had something close to Jack Brooks. But he was a man who revered the American system of governing and put making it work better at the center of his professional agenda. The authors explain clearly why the times had passed him (and us) because:
“Coalescing these voters into a unified identity would be one of the political masterstrokes of the century. Enjoying firearms would soon become an ideal that implicitly meant believing corporate tax rates were too high. If you found government operations to be too invasive and costly, you were also expected to be firmly anti-choice. Some low-income Americans would soon be coaxed into believing that a highly exclusionary political agenda given the cleverly deceptive moniker ‘trickle down economics’ was in their best interests…
“Texas and the entire South had begun to redefine itself politically, foreshadowing trends that would spread throughout the country, fundamentally change the tenor and rules of engagement between the two political parties, and set in motion a series of events that would lead to the most dysfunctional and vitriolic political stalemate in generations.”
LikeLike
Thanks for this interesting insight.
LikeLike
Very interesting and thought-provoking, GregB, thanks.
LikeLike
When the Founding Fathers added the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution. in 1800 6% of the population lived in rural areas, towns, cities, vs 94% that lived in rural areas. There were no paved roads. There were no phones. Calling 911 did not exist. most of the migrating invaders from mostly Europe lived in remote areas often near Native American tribes often at war with the migrating invaders because they were murdering the Native Americans and stealing their land.
There were no super market chains. There were no paved roads. There were no railroads,
The 94% of those Europeans migrating invaders (illegal aliens since they never had permission to invade and kill the Native Americans) needed their muskets to hunt for meat in the wilds and some of those wild animals were predators, too, and wild animals are stronger than us domesticated homo sapiens.
Those rural colonial invaders from Europe needed their firearms to eat and defend themselves.
Today 75% of the population lives in urban areas and they don’t grow their own food, and they don’t hunt for their own food. They shop at local supermarkets. And in a civil society we shouldn’t need to own firearms to defend ourselves against the Native Americans our ancestors murdered and stole their land from.
The only reason to own firearms today is to defend your home against another kind of invader like those that attacked our capital on Jan. 6, and like Traitor Trump’s barbarian horde of zombie MAGA lunatics.
And, those rural hunters in 1800, didn’t need automatic weapons to hunt in the wild for meat. All it took was one, well placed shot to kill a deer, or bear, or rabbit, or buffalo.
LikeLike
No civilian should own a military assault weapon. The favorite gun of mass murderers is the AR15, a murder machine.
LikeLike
Absolutely. Bring back the Assault Weapons Ban.
Oh, I forgot. The Republicans (& Krysten Sinema) won’t vote for it.
Never mind.
LikeLike
Respectfully, because everything you cite is correct, I believe it misses the true intent of the framers for two reasons, the first less important, the second being the real reason why its in there. The less important one is any discussion about types of guns or whether hunting is a right. It just wasn’t considered an issue worthy of constitutional attention. Any arguments people on either side of this debate make citing views of this are irrelevant, not in fact, but in original intent.
The reason it is in there is quite simple: they feared standing armies and the power they could potentially have in a democratic-republic. Therefore wanted to ensure male citizens could be called up into militias to defend the State. There is no individual “right.” It is a duty of citizenship to defend the State when it is being attacked or threatened. It wasn’t until this was put into practice during the War of 1812 that it was realized how that notion was both folly and a threat to the continued defense of the State and the wheels were set in motion to create a standing army to supplement the small navy. There was no thought given to the idea of individual right to ownership as the original post above makes clear.
This interpretation of the second amendment is informed by two clauses in the Constitution. In Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States…” This, along with the two previous clauses on the navy and land military jurisdiction, clearly shows that the framers understood the value of arms in defense of the nation, but that the militias called to do so “may be employed”, which clearly puts the role of defense in the lap of citizens, not professional armies.
In Article I, Section 10, which outlines how the states may not supersede the federal function of self-protection. The final clause reads, “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact…unless invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit delay.” Again, the only reason why a state could override the federal obligation to defend the State is because of “imminent Danger”, and it is implied that danger to the state is also posed to the national state. If the states could not take this function except under very rare circumstances, what makes us believe this is an individual right? Yes, some will point to the tenth amendment “reserved…to the People” clause as justification of for some individual “right” to bear any kind of any kind. But they mistake
Finally, the Bill of Rights had two provisions underscoring the notion that the right to bear arms was a recognized and needed element to complete the theory of militias of citizens protecting the nation without the need for a standing army. It had nothing to do with personal ownership for the sake of ownership. The long forgotten third amendment prohibited the quartering of soldiers in private homes was again a nod to opposing the idea of standing armies. And the fifth amendment’s protection against self-incrimination does not apply to “the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger”. Again, when linked with the Constitution’s explicit demand for execution of those found guilty of treason, all of the factors above taken together clearly demonstrate the framers’ intent and how subsequent interpretations of the NRA-driven, pro-gun-at-any-costs minority are perversions of it.
LikeLike
But they mistake it intentionally and willingly.
LikeLike
I find this stuff more complicated than many seem to, although perhaps I’m too prone to persuasion. But I’ve always thought Breyer put it well (and succinctly) here:
LikeLike
Thanks, Greg, for your excellent analysis.
LikeLike
FLERP– it’s a 1-hr discussion & I just browsed through it & couldn’t find anything on right to bear arms [2nd (vs 10th?] amendment. Can you help?
LikeLike
Thanks Greg, agree. How did the Constitutional argument ever lead to OK for anybody to carry without license, open or concealed, stand your ground, assault weapon or not? Just one more issue where SCOTUS position undermines public trust in that branch of govt.
LikeLike
The link should jump directly to the correct time stamp, bethree, but if it doesn’t, go to the 49:25 mark.
I enjoyed the entire video, but it’s probably too much for most to take.
LikeLike
The NRA became radicalized under the leadership of Harlon Carter (not Coben, who is an author). His story has been told effectively by Drive-By Truckers in the song Ramon Casiano.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlon_Carter
LikeLike
Since WordPress won’t let me post videos anymore, here are the lyrics, a short history of the NRA from the 1930s through the 1970s.
It all started with the border
And that’s still where it is today
Someone killed Ramon Casiano
And the killer got away
Down by the Sister Cities river
Two boys with way more pride than sense
One would fall and one would prosper
Never forced to make amends
He became a border agent
And supplemented what he made
With creative deportation
And missing ammo by the case
Since Bullet ran the operation
There’s hardly been a minute since
There ain’t a massing at the border
From Chinese troops to terrorists
He had the makings of a leader
Of a certain kind of men
Who need to feel the world’s against him
Out to get ’em if it can
Men whose trigger pull their fingers
Of men who’d rather fight than win
United in a revolution
Like in mind and like in skin
It all started with the border
And that’s still where it is today
Down by the Sister Cities river
But for sure no one can say
The killing’s been the bullet’s business
Since back in 1931
Someone killed Ramon Casiano
And Ramon still ain’t dead enough
LikeLike
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger also made it clear how much BS there is in the right wing justification.
“The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
LikeLike
For some reason, WordPress won’t allow me to post videos today.
LikeLike
I wondered about the videos you said you were posting. I couldn’t see them. I blamed my computer.
LikeLike
Grieving parents don’t need “thoughts and prayers” —they need for their children whom they sent to school that day to come home from school…but they never will.
Those who oppose gun regulation say:
“Mentally ill people kill, not guns” — but the fact is that other civilized nations have mentally ill people and there are no mass murders with guns because mentally ill people can’t get guns..
“Criminals will have guns and we need guns to protect ourselves” — but the fact is that in other civilized nations criminals typically don’t have guns because guns are so hard to get as a result of regulation. In America, criminals have guns because guns are so easy to get.
The fact is that gun advocates can’t face the facts.
There are people and politicians who claim they need to protect fetuses from abortion —yet these same people do nothing to prevent beautiful, innocent, loved and loving living children from being slaughtered by unregulated guns.
Hypocrites.
Whitened sepulchers.
The Supreme Court Has Clearly Outlined the Path to Constitutional Gun Control Laws:
In the 2008 Heller ruling on gun rights, the U.S. Supreme Court’s CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY of Justices gave Congress, states, and cities a long list of gun regulations that the conservative Court Justices WOULD RULE AS CONSTITUTIONAL; just take a look below at how the conservative Justices provide lawmakers with the legal rationale and the action outline for gun control laws on pages 54-55 of the Heller decision. You can verify for yourself the following direct quotes from the Heller decision by reading the Court’s decision online at the web address listed at the end of this comment.
First, the conservative Justices provide their blanket approval of various kinds of gun control, declaring: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…” [it is] “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Then the conservative Justices invite enactment of specific gun control laws by clearly pointing out which laws they would approve of, declaring: “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or on laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
The conservative Justices additionally state: “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller [an earlier case decided by the Supreme Court] said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time’ [when the 2nd Amendment was written]. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’.”
The CONSERVATIVE Justices didn’t HAVE to say any of this in their Heller decision — that fact that they took the opportunity to say these things represents the Justices clear INVITATION to lawmakers to take such actions to place limits on gun sales, gun ownership, and gun possession, telling the lawmakers by these words that these kinds of gun control laws would be OK with the CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court majority. So, now the ball is in Congress’s and the states’ court. Will lawmakers act or do what they’ve always done — nothing but talk.
Texas law provided for armed security at that school and there was an armed guard on duty, and teachers legally have weapons in Texas — but the first to be shot was the armed security because the shooter wasn’t stupid. So, what’s the plan when the first to be shot are the armed security? Maybe arm the kids? What does it do to the mental health of young children when their teachers pack guns and the doors, hallways, and playgrounds are guarded by armed security? It tells children that school isn’t a safe place to be and that they could get killed there, and that creates anxiety and paranoia in the children, interfering with their ability to learn and impacting their entire spectrum of mental health not only at school, but also at home and everywhere. We will be raising generation after generation of paranoid kids…and end up with an entire nation suffering from mental health issues.
LikeLike
Heather Cox Richardson is an American treasure. I read her every day, along with this blog. I don’t know why both women are not given a wider platform. These columns should be printed in their entirety in top newspapers. What I read from Richardson and Ravitch is so much more informative and relevant than the frequently published Thomas Sowell, George Will, Charles Krauthammer and other noted columnists.
LikeLike
Thank you, Melissa. The one thing those three writers have in common is that they are very conservative.
LikeLike
Ravitch should replace David Brooks. Ravitch is insightful and prescient.
LikeLike
While I agree wholeheartedly with your second sentence, replacing Brooks is a low bar indeed. A flat whoopee cushion has more interesting things to say.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Reblogged this on dean ramser.
LikeLike