OK, I'll concede the point. By-the-way, Blacks also served on both sides during the "War of Northern Aggression." As to "original" gun control, the first I have heard of was during the early 1800's with the development of the percussion cap. According to a History Channel series on firearms several years ago, a town in Italy was so frightened by the development, they feared mass killings because of the new ability to reload more rapidly. Sound familiar? Same argument now used in fear of "assault weapons."
I'm aware of other earlier attempts to control arms, such as only certain "special" people in England being allowed to possess a long bow, the Scots were not permitted to own swords, etc., but I haven't researched that far back. Yet.
No real need. Max Weber put it correctly. when he said (I'm paraphrasing) "The state must have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence". This is true, as the alternative is anarchy. Still, it sets up the eternal conflict between rulers and ruled. Rulers want to control not only the right to do violence, but the means with which to do so, as any ruler with any sense understands that they are one big mistake away from revolution. The form of government and its ideology is irrelevant. Its a question of human nature. Those in power wish to keep it, and therefore make preventing others from successfully challenging it a priority. No regime, from Ur, to Greece, to feudalism etc. has ever ceded more power to private actors than neccessary.
The sole exception to this (and here only partially) is a republican government. The reason is that power lies in those citizens who are enfranchised, not the rulers, who are merely delegates. Its crucial to note the word efranchised as blacks and women being disenfranchised (and disarmed) was perfectly compatible with republican government for much of our history. Still, it all goes back to Madison's Federalist 51 and Federalist 10 (thirty of the smartest pages on politics ever written). The only thing we can really trust is that the soveriegn power will jealously defend its soveriegnty. In the case of the US, the soveriegn is us, the enfranchised people, which thankfully now includes all races and both genders. Because of this, we are unwilling to surrender our arms as we recognize that to do so is to surrender power to the state and transform it from our servant to our master. This assesment may seem naive, but poll numbers don't lie. A supermajority of Americans favor the 2A. Far more than own guns, or hunt, or ever intend to. Why? Because they are appropriately jealous of their rights.
When you look at the history of gun control (or control of other weapons) you look at the history of rulers limiting challenge to their rule. It is only in a republic, where soveriegnty is diffuse, that you see resistance to this trend. I don't know what the hell happened to Australia and the Uk, but I will say this. Both are democracies, not republics. They elect their rulers, but have no defense against them in the form of a bill of rights or an independent judiciary. They have therefore disarmed their people with no one to say no. We haven't. Its no accident, and it is because of our form of government. Sorry, rant over. I'll be quiet now.
FQ13
MBTV
Forum Index
Help
Calendar
Contact Info
Register as a member
