First let me say that I am quite gratified that so many of you took the time to glance at the article, though apparently most weren't overly impressed.
I would like to make a few short comments in response.
@Double Naught - I was addressing why the right to keep and bear arms was in the constitution, not the relative merits of slavery. What other "bad parts" there are in remaining armed to fight tyranny I'm not sure you're talking about.
@Frank Ettin & Tom Servo - Sorry, didn't know that a citation of credentials was necessary in expressing an opinion which relies mostly on logic. I, as one of the co-authors, do have both a BA and MA in (jointly) Political Science (forcus: US Government) and History (focus: US History) and have taught at both the university and junior college level in California over my career, though I am not currently teaching.
The other co-author is a columnist for a conservative thinktank and political advocate conglomeration of three associated websites who's posted some 16 articles for his organization's sites over the past calendar quarter. He joined me in writing the article under my name because he's 'encouraged' to not write under his own name for other sources than his employer.
But enough of that.
The article wasn't arguing a case in court, it was pointing out some facts, most of which we believe to be self-evident and not in need of footnotes.
1 - Mr. Servo: "nearly 10 years" is what we said - isn't 8 years nearly 10?
2 - For a fledgling band of American Patriots to defeat one of the more powerful nations on earth was NOT somewhat miraculous? Does anyone dispute that Great Britain was one of the most powerful nations on earth in 1776? - Did I need footnotes to document that?
3 - Do any of you dispute that George III's government was oppressive and tyrannical? - Isn't that what the Declaration of Independence suggests? Did I need to footnote that?
4 - The article says that if private citizens had not been allowed to own firearms the American Revolution would not have been born? Does anyone think that if firearm ownership had been banned, the colonists would have risen up with bows & arrows and spears? I don't think such an idea needs a footnote, do you?
5 - I plead guilty! My statement that the new American leaders wanted to ensure that the right to bear arms was guaranteed for posterity to prevent tyranny should have been footnoted. For an introduction to the opinion please refer to the article by Professor Volokh of the Law School at UCLA at
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/SOURCES.HTM and scroll down to article II.
Briefly it documents that five states, Virginia, New York, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Rhode Island all made demands of the Constitutional Congress to include the right of the people to keep and bear arms in a Bill of Rights to be appended to the Constitution. All five also specifically stated that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is "essential to the natural defense of a free state". Note also that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution does specify "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
6 - In the ensuing paragraphs the article mentions that for many years men had owned firearms for hunting, that hunting for game for the table was a part of life, and suggests that no one in 1789 would have put an Amendment into the Constitution to ensure that such a practice would continue. Is this not common sense?
We made the same point about owning firearms for self-defense. There was no ACLU, no Gun Control Posse that felt firearms were immoral or too dangerous. Is it not common sense to presume that no such right should be enshrined in the Constitution?
Lastly on these two points - do any of the demands from the aforementioned states or the text of the US 2nd Amendment mention preserving the right to keep and bear arms so that people could hunt for food or defend their homes? No, they do not. They all mention the security of a free state, or a similar phrase.
At any rate, all are of course most welcome to their opinions and no writer ever expects a global outpouring of positive response to anything that one puts forth.
Perhaps I have responded to some extent in a way that ameliorates the negative responses of some of you, while acknowledging that I could have been more specific in anticipating your concerns.
