Time to make a small request of Rice?

[Brett Bellmore]

Now that Condi Rice is Secretary of State, and given all the right noises she's made about the right to keep and bear arms, I think it's only right and proper that we bring this situation to her attention, and see if she can have it rectified.

It IS the State Department's website, I believe, and she might have a little pull with them now.

I'm writing her a letter on it. Anyone want to join in?

Here's the handy form: Send a message to the Secretary of State.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I'll pitch in. I can help edit and proofread it. I don't believe it's a small matter at all.

 

[Fletchette]

I'll help too!

It is a shame that we can't even get an essay to acknowledge the 2nd Amendment - proof of serious political fighting. I remember a few years back when the USPS announced a collection of stamps commemerating each Amendment in the Bill of Rights, only to have it quickly cancelled after some in Washington realized what would happen.

 

[tyme]

The DOJ did a great job explaining why it's an individual right.

 

[Wiley]

If you want to read what the original text was go to the page click 'View' then 'Source'. About a third of the way down is the text they are "reviewing".

You can also save off a copy. 'Save As'.

 

[ctdonath]

And now you can read it all just by clicking here.

Great find, guys!

 

[c_yeager]

I think I found out why it's being reviewed.

this was taken from the original content:

In the English colonies, as recent scholarship has shown, private gun ownership was also relatively limited.

I'm thinking someone read some of the tripe published by Bellesiles. There are several mentions of this same "recent scholarship". I'm impressed that they chose to review based on his being discredited, a lot of groups are still touting his nonsense. The original text is pretty well balanced, for the most part. And it provides some interesting history once you excluse the Bellesiles junk. I was going to post it here but, it is absurdly long. Just use the method described by Wiley (hitting "word wrap" in notepad makes it much easier to read).

 

[flatrock]

In the English colonies, as recent scholarship has shown, private gun ownership was also relatively limited.

This may be liberal B.S. or it maybe in some areas of the Colonies there wasn't much gunownership. Many people came from England where they were unable to own guns.

This would kind of mesh with the quote from Washington.

George Washington on the militia

To place any dependence upon Militia is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestick life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly train'd, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows…. If I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter.

I don't know the context of that statement, and Washingon was a military man himself, and may have had a biased point of view.

It may also shed some light on the wording of the second ammendment.

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.

Quite possibly the founding fathers felt that the gun laws of England and possibly even some laws in the colonies were keeping the citizens from having proper knowledge in the use of firearms, and they felt that was a serious detriment to the country.

It could be that the unfamiliarity with arms was an issue among the Militia as Washington suggests, and they felt that the laws were detrimental to the country.

Because this ammendment is part of the bill of rights, it seems like the wording may have been a comprimise between respecting the rights of individuals to own arms for the sake of those individuals, and the sake of individuals owning arms for the good of the country.

I don't see an interpretation even given their argument in which it is not a right in which the government is itself being restricted from infringing on the rights of individuals to keep and own arms.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, I think they might have pulled the essay because WE pointed out to them that it was taking Bellesiles seriously... My complaint is that they've never replaced it with anything.

On Washington and the militia; The founders didn't really, so far as I understand it, think that a militia force was as good at warfare man for man, as a regular army. Rather, they favored a militia because a militia could affordably be much BIGGER than any standing army they could afford, and because a standing army was a threat to liberty, because the government could sic it on it's own people. While a milita given such orders would give the government the collective finger.

Notice that appropriations for the army, but NOT for the navy, were restricted by the Constitution to two years at a time? That's because it was safe to keep a navy around, because the navy can't be used to oppress people living on land.

The general idea was that, if we were invaded, the militia would buy time for an army to be raised, and provide recruits who at least knew which end of a gun to point at the enemy.

So the 2nd amendment doesn't really involve any disagreement with Washington's views on the effectiveness of militia for fighting wars. Just a recognition that sheer military effectiveness wasn't the only consideration.

 

[Sam Adams]

The State Dept. has recommended Saul Cornell as a source for learning about the 2nd Amendment. This guy is as anti-gun, and irrational, as they come (of course the 2 go together, but I know that I'm preaching to the choir). Go see http://www.kimdutoit.com/ee/index.php/rant/single/liberal_smackdown/ to see what this moron thinks.

Then write to Condi - because having the DOS refer to this guy on the issue of guns is outrageous.

 

[publius]

Notice that appropriations for the army, but NOT for the navy, were restricted by the Constitution to two years at a time? That's because it was safe to keep a navy around, because the navy can't be used to oppress people living on land.

It was also because a ship takes a long time to build, must have at least some long term crew, and has a long lifespan.

 

[Leatherneck]

From the Essay

Moreover, state governments conducted gun censuses — that is, a listing of type and ownership of all firearms — well into the 19th century. One scholarly study holds that less than 14 percent of the adult white male population, those otherwise eligible to own guns, actually possessed firearms in 1790.

That would be Bellesiles, right?

TC
TFL Survivor

 

[azrael]

ahhh maybe I am missing something BUT:

In colonial times, wasnt most firearms prohibitively expensive?? Or am I wrong with this?

 

[Selfdfenz]

Leatherneck,

The 14% jumps out as a Bellesiles' number. And just one point of so many that was totally refuted. I don't have his book for obvious reasons to verify the "adult white male population, those otherwise eligible to own guns" phrase so I can't say how that part of the phrase was derived.

It looks to me like the original text being discussed IS based on or inferred from Bellesiles' book. Which would make it wrong.

s-

 

[Selfdfenz]

azrael

Expensive is a relative term.
If you're flat broke everything is expensive.

Bellesiles wrote a book that twisted the facts for his own anti RKBA reasons. He lost his job over it.

The upside is that many others went back to his original sources to find evidence of his mis-statemenst and in so doing provide all of us with true facts that FAs were likely more common per household then, than now.
In one survey back in the day more common that Bibles for instance.

I'm surely not a rich individual, and cars are expensive, but I've owned many over the last 3-4 decades. Ditto with FAs back in colonial times.


S-

 

[unixguy]

The paper started out seeming fairly balanced, but the last half (or so) seemed to be just an opportunity for anti-gun arguments to be aired to refute the pro-gun statements.

 

[beerslurpy]

When I was reading it, the 14 percent and the gun census and the gun registration bits screamed "bellesiles wrote this" which of course is why it is under review- his research has been revealed as a hoax. It would be interesting to see what, if anything, they replace it with.