Chuckusaret
Moderator
I am not a history buff but based on some of the input it is quite evident that we should be prepared to experience near term civil conflict the same as our fore fathers.
Truth about Gun "Control"
- Thread starter Crow Hunter
- Start date
Crow Hunter
New member
In relation to police forces, I was speaking of arming local peace keeping forces with say Martini-Henry rifles while arming your regular army with Lee-Enfield bolt action rifles, even when there were more than enough Lee-Enfield rifles to go around.
To your point about freedom and weapons. It isn't that the weapons allow for revolutions as much as it prevents the slow erosion of freedom and the consolidation of power within certain groups.
I can guarantee you that Karl Marx did not envision modern China as his end result of Communism with the Party being the new aristocracy, but all political structures strive to consolidate and retain power.
The advantages of weapons in the hands of "commoners" is that the government and its agents do not have a "monopoly of deadly force". It is much easier to send someone to a labor camp or throw them in prison for arbitrarily if they can't respond in kind to threats of force. While it is possible to coerce police/soldiers to go into a home to forcibly extract an occupant, it become several magnitudes more difficult if the person might be armed. Hence the prevalence of SWAT teams versus just walking in with a couple of big guys and walking out with someone.
There have even been several instances in the US where government officials have overstepped their bounds and they were met with deadly force.
While nothing can prevent a coalition of the willing from completely surrendering all their freedoms, the presence of firearms makes the unwilling surrender of them significantly more difficult.
www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/writings/guns-and-freedom.pdf
I do not believe that availability of firearms is the sole mark of freedom, there is WAY more to it than that. But I do believe that gun control has less to do with guns or crime and way more to do with just control.
I don't think that governments or the individual people mean to do it. I am sure there are quite a few benevolent dictators out there who truly believe what they are doing is for the best.
I think it is just a natural progression of things unless you have "checks and balances" to secure freedom.
To your point about freedom and weapons. It isn't that the weapons allow for revolutions as much as it prevents the slow erosion of freedom and the consolidation of power within certain groups.
I can guarantee you that Karl Marx did not envision modern China as his end result of Communism with the Party being the new aristocracy, but all political structures strive to consolidate and retain power.
The advantages of weapons in the hands of "commoners" is that the government and its agents do not have a "monopoly of deadly force". It is much easier to send someone to a labor camp or throw them in prison for arbitrarily if they can't respond in kind to threats of force. While it is possible to coerce police/soldiers to go into a home to forcibly extract an occupant, it become several magnitudes more difficult if the person might be armed. Hence the prevalence of SWAT teams versus just walking in with a couple of big guys and walking out with someone.
There have even been several instances in the US where government officials have overstepped their bounds and they were met with deadly force.
While nothing can prevent a coalition of the willing from completely surrendering all their freedoms, the presence of firearms makes the unwilling surrender of them significantly more difficult.
www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/writings/guns-and-freedom.pdf
I do not believe that availability of firearms is the sole mark of freedom, there is WAY more to it than that. But I do believe that gun control has less to do with guns or crime and way more to do with just control.
I don't think that governments or the individual people mean to do it. I am sure there are quite a few benevolent dictators out there who truly believe what they are doing is for the best.
I think it is just a natural progression of things unless you have "checks and balances" to secure freedom.
Well, sometimes government officials, mostly local, do bound over their steps now and then but it's better to vote them out of office, assuming they let you vote. Remember here that anything said about government applies to all governments and we live under several layers of government. There is no reason to believe that state governments are inherently better than federal governments.
With regards to personal weapons in the American Revolution, think again. There are two ways to tell this story, totally dependent on your view of the matter. The problem is that in no case did civilians have enough weapons and in wartime, revolutions included, not even the army will have enough weapons. That refutes the comment about the police having Martinis (I think I'll have one, too, hold the Vermouth), while the army had Lee-Enfields. It is doubtful that the army had plenty enough to go around. Some of the Martinis (I think I'll have another one just now) were even converted to .303. No, there's never enough of the current army weapon to go around. Remember, the National Guard was still using .30-06 M1 rifles and BARs when the army was using M16s.
Anywy, the events that really got the revolution started were attempts by the British to confiscate the colonists weapons both in Virginia and Massachusetts. Obviously there were different opinions of just whose they were. But there were also a large number of weapons stored in the governor's mansion in Williamsburg, which was their way of saying that they belonged to the governor. I suppose the point is arguable either way. But mostly they were in the magazine. Remember also that the militia of the citizenry, which didn't include everyone, had gone to war a lot in the previous fifty years and they saw it as a workable system.
You also should not call people "common."
With regards to personal weapons in the American Revolution, think again. There are two ways to tell this story, totally dependent on your view of the matter. The problem is that in no case did civilians have enough weapons and in wartime, revolutions included, not even the army will have enough weapons. That refutes the comment about the police having Martinis (I think I'll have one, too, hold the Vermouth), while the army had Lee-Enfields. It is doubtful that the army had plenty enough to go around. Some of the Martinis (I think I'll have another one just now) were even converted to .303. No, there's never enough of the current army weapon to go around. Remember, the National Guard was still using .30-06 M1 rifles and BARs when the army was using M16s.
Anywy, the events that really got the revolution started were attempts by the British to confiscate the colonists weapons both in Virginia and Massachusetts. Obviously there were different opinions of just whose they were. But there were also a large number of weapons stored in the governor's mansion in Williamsburg, which was their way of saying that they belonged to the governor. I suppose the point is arguable either way. But mostly they were in the magazine. Remember also that the militia of the citizenry, which didn't include everyone, had gone to war a lot in the previous fifty years and they saw it as a workable system.
You also should not call people "common."
Crow Hunter
New member
I was talking about the arming of colonial police/military forces. Like the British arming Indians and Africans in their overseas colonies.
The weapons provided to them were always several generations behind and they were never allowed to retain control of machine guns other than in actual warfare and often they weren't even allowed to keep control of their personal rifles.
This was done to keep the advantage with the standing army units in case of insurrection.
That is why I put it in quotes. I don't agree with it. But unfortunately, it is the view of many in the "ruling class" and the "elites". Particularly in reference to those of us who live in "fly over" country.
The weapons provided to them were always several generations behind and they were never allowed to retain control of machine guns other than in actual warfare and often they weren't even allowed to keep control of their personal rifles.
This was done to keep the advantage with the standing army units in case of insurrection.
That is why I put it in quotes. I don't agree with it. But unfortunately, it is the view of many in the "ruling class" and the "elites". Particularly in reference to those of us who live in "fly over" country.
Anglo-Saxon, Celts and other Europeans tribes and communities valued weapons and were known by various names such as people of the spear. Others were known for the particular types of knives they carried.
Warrior culture and warrior pride were a part of life as were rules of conduct and expectations... Things like if you entered an Anglo-Saxon house as a guest you would be treated to some sort of cheese or milk product and meat. men were expected to stand for an honored guest and some sort of handshake or greeting would then occur.
On the islands of Brittan in some tribes you could not be considered to be a man until you had constructed an arrow quiver from the forearm of a defeated human foe.
It was only during the slow transition to Christianity that fighting and tools of war were seen as a bad thing and even then it took a long time until religion centralized its power and came up with notions such as "the peace of god" or the "peace of Christ" that any real attempt to limit weapons in what would become Europe happened. That isn’t to say states and cities didn’t try to limit the weapons of other peoples but you have to keep in mind that every surf was a potential soldier for use in war at certain time of year.
In modern times some dictators have allowed weapons and some have not but in general they seem to allow the people who support them to be the ones to have weapons.
I would say a better measure of freedom is the total number of laws and the total number of pages of laws governing a country. Anytime the government limits you or dictates your action in a law you loose freedom. Laws are necessary to a point to keep civil order and ensure a generally healthy environment but its so easy for things to go way overboard.
I would say we are are some of the least free people on earth based on my own measures. It will continue this way until we as a nation learn to care about what laws are passed in our names and vote accordingly.
Warrior culture and warrior pride were a part of life as were rules of conduct and expectations... Things like if you entered an Anglo-Saxon house as a guest you would be treated to some sort of cheese or milk product and meat. men were expected to stand for an honored guest and some sort of handshake or greeting would then occur.
On the islands of Brittan in some tribes you could not be considered to be a man until you had constructed an arrow quiver from the forearm of a defeated human foe.
It was only during the slow transition to Christianity that fighting and tools of war were seen as a bad thing and even then it took a long time until religion centralized its power and came up with notions such as "the peace of god" or the "peace of Christ" that any real attempt to limit weapons in what would become Europe happened. That isn’t to say states and cities didn’t try to limit the weapons of other peoples but you have to keep in mind that every surf was a potential soldier for use in war at certain time of year.
In modern times some dictators have allowed weapons and some have not but in general they seem to allow the people who support them to be the ones to have weapons.
I would say a better measure of freedom is the total number of laws and the total number of pages of laws governing a country. Anytime the government limits you or dictates your action in a law you loose freedom. Laws are necessary to a point to keep civil order and ensure a generally healthy environment but its so easy for things to go way overboard.
I would say we are are some of the least free people on earth based on my own measures. It will continue this way until we as a nation learn to care about what laws are passed in our names and vote accordingly.
Last edited:
Well, to begin with, at the time of the American Revolution, the leaders were anything but commoners. They were the wealthy of the country. And to a large extent, they were also the most educated men in the country, more significantly, educated in this country, too. Jefferson, you may recall, was a lawyer. In other countries it was likely to be the intelligentsia who begat revolution. At least, that's the way I see it.
While the police in my home town of 8,500 (then) had submachine guns (they were visible from the street when the garage door was open), there might be some doubt as to their needing machine guns or even infantry rifles. Do the police in your town drive around in armored cars or in sedans armed with a shotgun and a pistol?
Naturally, the first thing you have to do is to convince people that it's "us" against "them."
While the police in my home town of 8,500 (then) had submachine guns (they were visible from the street when the garage door was open), there might be some doubt as to their needing machine guns or even infantry rifles. Do the police in your town drive around in armored cars or in sedans armed with a shotgun and a pistol?
Naturally, the first thing you have to do is to convince people that it's "us" against "them."
Crow Hunter
New member
They were "commoners" by definition of the times. They, for the most part, were not of noble birth or members of royalty. They were often very rich but as MLeake pointed out, having wealth was not necessarily a demonstration of political power.
That is one of the reasons for the Revolution. We were being governed but had no say so in how that government was run, the King and the House of Lords had much more power than it does now. I agree that the intelligentsia was and is the usually the ones that foment revolution.
Those with close ties to the nobility and royalty most likely sided with the Tories since they had a stake in the power structure as it existed.
I am not sure what you are talking about with the police question.
This original statement I made was in relation to the colonial police and indigenous auxillary units within the colonies. The military units stationed in Africa/Asia/India normally had State of the Art weapons, while the indigenous force, who faced the exact same threats and who normally stood shoulder to shoulder with the Regulars to face threats were always armed with weapons that were not equivalent to those of the Regulars. To the point they would actually manufacture new versions of obsolete weapons to arm these groups rather than just arming them the same as the Regulars. If weapons don't make a difference, why not just arm them with the same weapons to improve logistics and training? They did it to retain an advantage on the battlefield if those weapons were ever turned against them.
I wasn't talking about modern police here in the US, however, where I live now, the police have a AR-15s instead of a shotgun. At least a couple of police departments locally have FN SAW's and one has a M240B.
My brother is good friends with the local Class III dealer and he played with them before they transferred them.
You are correct. Since they were not peers or royalty, they were commoners.
That's scary that your local police department has regular machine guns. Do you think they'll ever need them? Then go back and read what I said again. Usually there are not enough of "state of the art" weapons to go round. They were still manufacturing M1 rifles in the 1950s. You would think there would be more than enough after the war but even with the war over, it still wasn't so. Today, of course, since we are at peace, it's a different story.
That's scary that your local police department has regular machine guns. Do you think they'll ever need them? Then go back and read what I said again. Usually there are not enough of "state of the art" weapons to go round. They were still manufacturing M1 rifles in the 1950s. You would think there would be more than enough after the war but even with the war over, it still wasn't so. Today, of course, since we are at peace, it's a different story.
Crow Hunter
New member
Hope they never use them for anything other than "fun". But you never know.
I agree with you about there not being enough weapons to go around. My father was in the National Guard from 1958 through 1964 (I think) and while he went through Basic and qualified with the M-14 he never saw one again. Any other time he ever had an issued rifle in his hands, it was a M1 Garand.
I agree, the government should fear its people, not the other way around.
Have you ever seen this documentary?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUmKT43j4Tc
I think the flaw in most arguments is that people make the assumption that in other countries, the people are all downtrodden masses and that's just not the case. It is true sometimes that portions of the population may be greatly disadvantaged and that's just as true here as it is anywhere but their access to arms may be of little consequence, given that they may be a minority in the first place. If all the Jews in Germany had a rifle, would it have made any difference? The Jews fought back in Poland and it made no difference. That's not the same as saying they shouldn't have but it reminds me of the bumper sticker expression, "from my cold dead hands." That's something easily arranged.
Strafer Gott
New member
The Jews in Poland fought back with a few handguns against artillery. Read the Stroop report. A real story from the Nazi that reduced Warsaw to a smoking pile. Makes you think what it might be like, you with an AR against a modern weapon system. And you already know how this will end.
Some random thoughts:
1) he who dares wins. the early monarchs ceased power by force. They then consolidated their power by co opting the clergy and getting divine right to rule.
2) With the rise of the mercantile class, the rulers co opted them by granting dispensation to supporters. The book and to a lessor extent the movie Pillars of the Earth provides a good description of how the Licensing system worked.
3) The continued manufacturer of M-1s had less to do with the Military than satisfying the needs of a local congressman. A good example is the LD465 engine. A local Ohio congressman kept the LD 465 engine in production 10 years after the Army had replaced the motor.
4) Indigenous troops were held in low regard, at least by the Brits. used as a police force and not expected to perform in regular combat. Therefore, it was not cost effective to use more expensive modern arms. The fine book Washing of the Spears contains an outstanding example of the disdain which the Colonial Power held their local auxiliaries. this disdain also contributed to the disasters in that conflict.
5) Plato described the Philosopher King/benevolent dictator. As long as the Royals followed his model they were successful. In other words, if the population believed that the king's interest paralleled their interest then the Monarchy was successful. Britain is the prototypical model for a successful Monarchy.
When a significant portion of the population (30%) concluded that the Monarch, Czar of the Russia's or the Bourbons of France, they removed the Monarch with a violent bloodletting.
1) he who dares wins. the early monarchs ceased power by force. They then consolidated their power by co opting the clergy and getting divine right to rule.
2) With the rise of the mercantile class, the rulers co opted them by granting dispensation to supporters. The book and to a lessor extent the movie Pillars of the Earth provides a good description of how the Licensing system worked.
3) The continued manufacturer of M-1s had less to do with the Military than satisfying the needs of a local congressman. A good example is the LD465 engine. A local Ohio congressman kept the LD 465 engine in production 10 years after the Army had replaced the motor.
4) Indigenous troops were held in low regard, at least by the Brits. used as a police force and not expected to perform in regular combat. Therefore, it was not cost effective to use more expensive modern arms. The fine book Washing of the Spears contains an outstanding example of the disdain which the Colonial Power held their local auxiliaries. this disdain also contributed to the disasters in that conflict.
5) Plato described the Philosopher King/benevolent dictator. As long as the Royals followed his model they were successful. In other words, if the population believed that the king's interest paralleled their interest then the Monarchy was successful. Britain is the prototypical model for a successful Monarchy.
When a significant portion of the population (30%) concluded that the Monarch, Czar of the Russia's or the Bourbons of France, they removed the Monarch with a violent bloodletting.
Don't tell me that only 30% of the population supported the change in government. That's cause for serious worry, wouldn't you say? Not exactly democracy in action.
Some monarchs were elected. Not that many got to vote, however. They were called "electors" (duh!). He who dares only sometimes wins. But like I say, sometimes it's awfully hard to tell who the good guy is. In Romania, Vlad Dracul was the good guy--to some people.
Come on folks, step right up and getcha program. Can't tell the good guys from the bad guys without a program. Step right up, folks. Don't hold back!
Some monarchs were elected. Not that many got to vote, however. They were called "electors" (duh!). He who dares only sometimes wins. But like I say, sometimes it's awfully hard to tell who the good guy is. In Romania, Vlad Dracul was the good guy--to some people.
Come on folks, step right up and getcha program. Can't tell the good guys from the bad guys without a program. Step right up, folks. Don't hold back!
Can't believe nobody has mentioned King Charles I and The petition of Right, the Magna Carta, the writ of Habeas Corpus and all because Charles was a tyrant who pushed the people to hard. It used to be their Kings and queens not only allowed their subjects to be armed but required it and paid them to show up annually for training. Sounds like a plan we could use today in our government. Kind of reminds me of Jacksonville Florida when the police gave free training to women, publicized it and the number of rapes and assaults went down drastically the first year.
England used to be a shining example of what to be and how to do it and since WWII they have turned around completely and disenfranchised their citizens. Just like the Mayors of San Francisco, Washington DC, New York City and Chicago did and they are still fighting to make it worse not better.
A strong leader who cares about his people and works on their behalf wouldn't have to worry about them being armed,. In fact his citizen militia would be to his advantage. lower crime rates mean less business losses and less crime means less tax money needed for apprehending, trying and incarcerating criminals. Instead we get a Federal government using the FBI and mental health laws and institutions to stifle dissent. We are so close to being free and the evil in our government is trying so hard to make sure it doesn't happen.
This argument that the strong rise to the top and immediately suppress everybody only happens in corrupt societies, does that shoe fit us?
England used to be a shining example of what to be and how to do it and since WWII they have turned around completely and disenfranchised their citizens. Just like the Mayors of San Francisco, Washington DC, New York City and Chicago did and they are still fighting to make it worse not better.
A strong leader who cares about his people and works on their behalf wouldn't have to worry about them being armed,. In fact his citizen militia would be to his advantage. lower crime rates mean less business losses and less crime means less tax money needed for apprehending, trying and incarcerating criminals. Instead we get a Federal government using the FBI and mental health laws and institutions to stifle dissent. We are so close to being free and the evil in our government is trying so hard to make sure it doesn't happen.
This argument that the strong rise to the top and immediately suppress everybody only happens in corrupt societies, does that shoe fit us?
You mean using the militia as a police force? Are you assuming that everyone in the militia, which people here are fond of referring to as the whole people, is honest, trustrworthy, loyal, etc.? Be careful of assuming higher qualities of the militia than you are likely to have.
Ah, Charles I (Charles the Unfortunate). Bad precident, killing your king. The eventually had enough of the alternative form of government and it didn't take any fighting at all to have another king.
I'm not so sure about people being disenfranchised (in England, for example) like you believe. Then of course, you first have to convince people how bad off they are first and how they can't do anything. And anyhow, it's unlikely the weak will rise to the top but the scum will.
Ah, Charles I (Charles the Unfortunate). Bad precident, killing your king. The eventually had enough of the alternative form of government and it didn't take any fighting at all to have another king.
I'm not so sure about people being disenfranchised (in England, for example) like you believe. Then of course, you first have to convince people how bad off they are first and how they can't do anything. And anyhow, it's unlikely the weak will rise to the top but the scum will.
The bad guys were outnumbered by the good guys now weren't they? Today it's the other way around, the good guys are unarmed for the most part and if they do use their firearms for defense they pay hell for it after the shooting is done. The bad guys who live outside the law could care less about the rules. Nuff said.
Double Naught Spy
New member
When considering the Founding Fathers in the issue of gun control, you have to understand that the Founding Fathers really had some completely different perspectives of gun control than we do today. They apparently felt that guns were a definite necessity not just in the security of the physical statem but in the security of the emotional state as well. You see, dueling was seen at the time as part of the normal and accepted practice of conflict resolution in American society and was considered perfectly okay for matters a trivial as name calling.
At the time of the 2A, and for centuries before, the notion of dueling was considered to be a legal form of dispute resolution, appropriate for settling all sorts of matters, especially those of honor. This was in the Americas as brought over from the Old World and was practiced around the world. At the time of the Founding Fathers, this was generally conducted in the Colonies with pistols when the matters were serious, though lesser forms of dueling was engaged in at the time. For example, one might duel via fisticuffs, which also fell out of legal favor decades after pistol dueling... http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F50C1FFC3B5F15738DDDAA0A94D9415B8384F0D3 though is certainly still engaged in today.
A lot of this is from Wikipedia. If you don't like Wikipedia, that is fine. I verified much of the information elsewhere. Simply put, copy and paste from Wiki was more simple. Feel free to look up individual events if you like.
I still like the discussions of the "intent" of the Founding Fathers. We all seem to understand them so well when we report what they intended. So it is interesting to note that three were killed in duels involving firearms and matters of honor (Alexander Hamilton, Richard Dobbs Spaight and Button Gwinnett).
Hamilton was killed by fellow founding father and current Vice President, Aaron Burr on the same location where Hamilton's son was killed 3 years prior in a duel. It was an honor dispute. The Hamiltons apparently were not very good at dueling, though
Both men had been involved in duels in the past. Hamilton had been a principal in 10 shot-less duels[clarification needed] prior to his fatal encounter with Burr, including duels with William Gordon (1779), Aedanus Burke (1790), John Francis Mercer (1792–1793), James Nicholson (1795), James Monroe (1797), and Ebenezer Purdy/George Clinton (1804). He also served as a second to John Laurens in a 1779 duel with General Charles Lee and legal client John Auldjo in a 1787 duel with William Pierce.[4] In addition, Hamilton claimed to have had one previous honor dispute with Burr;[5] Burr claimed there were two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr–Hamilton_duel Obviously based on Hamilton's history, dueling was significant to dispute resolution, if not always in the lethal form with guns, but it was a practice not unfamiliar to him.
Spaight was killed by John Stanly as a matter of honor after a prolonged series of exchanges...
Button Gwinnett's duel was also an honor issue, one of politics as well, with Whig Lachlan McIntosh, over who would lead an expedition to secure Georgia' border with Florida. Whig Lachlan McIntosh
Jonathan Dayton was almost in a gun duel ... http://www.worldcat.org/title/quarr...for-averting-a-duel-1803-1884/oclc/270904146\
These were all some pretty stupid things in which to engage a lethal form of fighting in order to bring resolution, but such activities were considered appropriate and were a societal normal amongst these highly educated people. The Founding Fathers would have been hard pressed to get rid of dueling or guns because guns were definitely a part of being able to "demand satisfaction" when the insult stakes were high enough, LOL.
When you look at the list of American duels in general, it is interesting to note how many involve politicians and legal persons, once again, society leaders, often very well educated and respected people who were willing to die over trivial matters. Many are high ranking like VP, governors, etc. Even Lincoln was going to duel before there was an intervention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_duels
This one was funny...
August 12, 1817: Thomas Hart Benton and Charles Lucas on Bloody Island; Attorneys on opposite sides of a court battle - Lucas challenged Benton's right to vote and Benton accused Lucas of being a "puppy"; Lucas was shot in the throat and Benton shot in the leg; Benton released Lucas from his obligation.September 27, 1817: Benton and Lucas rematch on Bloody Island; Benton challenged Lucas after Lucas said the first fight at 30 feet (9.1 m) was unfair because Benton was a better shot. Benton killed Lucas at nine feet and was unhurt.
What moron knowingly challenges a better shooter to a shooting duel?
Andrew Jackson was involved in a lot of duels. He was said to rattle from all the bullets inside of him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson
Here is a famous duel he had where he killed his expert shot son-in-law... http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/aj7/about/bio/duel.htm
Another, quite unfair at that ... http://www.adena.com/adena/usa/hs/hs23.htm
Another...http://www.johnsonsdepot.com/faq/avery.pdf
Other descriptions...http://www.cracked.com/article_15895_the-5-most-badass-presidents-all-time.html
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/aj7/about/bio/duel.htm
Look at all the duels this legal eagle Bob Hope look-alike was in!
http://www.history.army.mil/books/Sw-SA/CrawfordWH.htm
What is really interesting is that it wasn't until 1859 that some 18 states made dueling illegal, though Georgia made it illegal immediately following the 1777 Spaight-Stanly duel that cost that state one of its finest leaders. So the 2A rights undoubtedly were in place, in part, as a matter of honor. Dueling was an acceptable and legal form of dispute resolution of the day and undoubtedly the Founding Fathers saw no reason dueling should not continue and some even engaged in it themselves. So when speaking of the intent of the Founding Fathers, one should note that they undoubtedly felt that lethal use of force via a firearm was valid in a dispute involving a matter of honor and that the 2A served to preserve that manner of preserving honor under the guise of a threat, physical or emotional. Their view of what was worth dying for is in many ways very contrary to ours. Until outlawed, many wanted and obvsiously needed dueling as a means by which to deal with their opponents.
At the time of the 2A, and for centuries before, the notion of dueling was considered to be a legal form of dispute resolution, appropriate for settling all sorts of matters, especially those of honor. This was in the Americas as brought over from the Old World and was practiced around the world. At the time of the Founding Fathers, this was generally conducted in the Colonies with pistols when the matters were serious, though lesser forms of dueling was engaged in at the time. For example, one might duel via fisticuffs, which also fell out of legal favor decades after pistol dueling... http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F50C1FFC3B5F15738DDDAA0A94D9415B8384F0D3 though is certainly still engaged in today.
A lot of this is from Wikipedia. If you don't like Wikipedia, that is fine. I verified much of the information elsewhere. Simply put, copy and paste from Wiki was more simple. Feel free to look up individual events if you like.
I still like the discussions of the "intent" of the Founding Fathers. We all seem to understand them so well when we report what they intended. So it is interesting to note that three were killed in duels involving firearms and matters of honor (Alexander Hamilton, Richard Dobbs Spaight and Button Gwinnett).
Hamilton was killed by fellow founding father and current Vice President, Aaron Burr on the same location where Hamilton's son was killed 3 years prior in a duel. It was an honor dispute. The Hamiltons apparently were not very good at dueling, though
Both men had been involved in duels in the past. Hamilton had been a principal in 10 shot-less duels[clarification needed] prior to his fatal encounter with Burr, including duels with William Gordon (1779), Aedanus Burke (1790), John Francis Mercer (1792–1793), James Nicholson (1795), James Monroe (1797), and Ebenezer Purdy/George Clinton (1804). He also served as a second to John Laurens in a 1779 duel with General Charles Lee and legal client John Auldjo in a 1787 duel with William Pierce.[4] In addition, Hamilton claimed to have had one previous honor dispute with Burr;[5] Burr claimed there were two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr–Hamilton_duel Obviously based on Hamilton's history, dueling was significant to dispute resolution, if not always in the lethal form with guns, but it was a practice not unfamiliar to him.
Spaight was killed by John Stanly as a matter of honor after a prolonged series of exchanges...
http://www.lib.unc.edu/ncc/ref/nchistory/sept2005/index.html
Button Gwinnett's duel was also an honor issue, one of politics as well, with Whig Lachlan McIntosh, over who would lead an expedition to secure Georgia' border with Florida. Whig Lachlan McIntosh
Jonathan Dayton was almost in a gun duel ... http://www.worldcat.org/title/quarr...for-averting-a-duel-1803-1884/oclc/270904146\
These were all some pretty stupid things in which to engage a lethal form of fighting in order to bring resolution, but such activities were considered appropriate and were a societal normal amongst these highly educated people. The Founding Fathers would have been hard pressed to get rid of dueling or guns because guns were definitely a part of being able to "demand satisfaction" when the insult stakes were high enough, LOL.
When you look at the list of American duels in general, it is interesting to note how many involve politicians and legal persons, once again, society leaders, often very well educated and respected people who were willing to die over trivial matters. Many are high ranking like VP, governors, etc. Even Lincoln was going to duel before there was an intervention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_duels
This one was funny...
August 12, 1817: Thomas Hart Benton and Charles Lucas on Bloody Island; Attorneys on opposite sides of a court battle - Lucas challenged Benton's right to vote and Benton accused Lucas of being a "puppy"; Lucas was shot in the throat and Benton shot in the leg; Benton released Lucas from his obligation.September 27, 1817: Benton and Lucas rematch on Bloody Island; Benton challenged Lucas after Lucas said the first fight at 30 feet (9.1 m) was unfair because Benton was a better shot. Benton killed Lucas at nine feet and was unhurt.
What moron knowingly challenges a better shooter to a shooting duel?
Andrew Jackson was involved in a lot of duels. He was said to rattle from all the bullets inside of him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson
Here is a famous duel he had where he killed his expert shot son-in-law... http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/aj7/about/bio/duel.htm
Another, quite unfair at that ... http://www.adena.com/adena/usa/hs/hs23.htm
Another...http://www.johnsonsdepot.com/faq/avery.pdf
Other descriptions...http://www.cracked.com/article_15895_the-5-most-badass-presidents-all-time.html
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/aj7/about/bio/duel.htm
Look at all the duels this legal eagle Bob Hope look-alike was in!
http://www.history.army.mil/books/Sw-SA/CrawfordWH.htm
What is really interesting is that it wasn't until 1859 that some 18 states made dueling illegal, though Georgia made it illegal immediately following the 1777 Spaight-Stanly duel that cost that state one of its finest leaders. So the 2A rights undoubtedly were in place, in part, as a matter of honor. Dueling was an acceptable and legal form of dispute resolution of the day and undoubtedly the Founding Fathers saw no reason dueling should not continue and some even engaged in it themselves. So when speaking of the intent of the Founding Fathers, one should note that they undoubtedly felt that lethal use of force via a firearm was valid in a dispute involving a matter of honor and that the 2A served to preserve that manner of preserving honor under the guise of a threat, physical or emotional. Their view of what was worth dying for is in many ways very contrary to ours. Until outlawed, many wanted and obvsiously needed dueling as a means by which to deal with their opponents.
Last edited:
That was a good post, Mr. Spy, but dueling was something that only gentlemen (men of gentle birth) did. I'm not so sure it was universally accepted, though, but that isn't important.
In any case, I'm sure the founding fathers did not see gun control the way the expression is used today. In fact, the very concept of gun control might have been a mystery to them. I'm sure their thinking was centered around standing armies, which in fact was a fairly new concept at the time. Relatively new, that is. In Britain, the army as a permanent institution only went back a little more than a hundred years before our revolution, that is, to just before their revolution. The navy was something else but I don't suppose that even entered into their thinking at all.
You may recall the menton of quartering of troops in the Declaration of Independence. So that must have been something of a serious issue at the time. Purpose-built barracks were also something of a novelty then, too. Few existed in the colonies, including Canada, and they were all inside forts. Anyhow, they were worried about standing armies and therefore had planned to rely on the militia, which in fact was the old way of doing things. If you were going to have a war, then you went out and raised an army. You didn't keep one around just in case. It was too expensive. And besides, it cost too much.
Sometimes the militia was all right, other times it failed miserably and when there was a war, it wasn't enough. So the concept of relying on the militia faded. This was largely true in other countries that had a similiar system but mostly in Great Britain, which actually had a very similiar history of different components of the army in the 19th century.
In any case, I'm sure the founding fathers did not see gun control the way the expression is used today. In fact, the very concept of gun control might have been a mystery to them. I'm sure their thinking was centered around standing armies, which in fact was a fairly new concept at the time. Relatively new, that is. In Britain, the army as a permanent institution only went back a little more than a hundred years before our revolution, that is, to just before their revolution. The navy was something else but I don't suppose that even entered into their thinking at all.
You may recall the menton of quartering of troops in the Declaration of Independence. So that must have been something of a serious issue at the time. Purpose-built barracks were also something of a novelty then, too. Few existed in the colonies, including Canada, and they were all inside forts. Anyhow, they were worried about standing armies and therefore had planned to rely on the militia, which in fact was the old way of doing things. If you were going to have a war, then you went out and raised an army. You didn't keep one around just in case. It was too expensive. And besides, it cost too much.
Sometimes the militia was all right, other times it failed miserably and when there was a war, it wasn't enough. So the concept of relying on the militia faded. This was largely true in other countries that had a similiar system but mostly in Great Britain, which actually had a very similiar history of different components of the army in the 19th century.
Double Naught Spy
New member
No, judicial combat wasn't only by gentlemen, though it was primarily by them in the sense that we are talking. It was certainly publicized for gentlemen, but wasn't only done by them. Even if it was, they were making the law to be sure to include it. The first recorded duel in America, BTW, was by servants, not nobles, and was with swords.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/sfeature/dueling.html
It obviously was not as they included the 2nd Amendment which came into effect in December, 1791. Note that this was long after the attempted disarmament of the colonists by the British. It may not have been called "gun control" but arms control was something that occurred repeatedly throughout history and around the world, even before firearms were the primary weaponry.