This is a long one, so grab a cup of ☕️ and make yourself comfortable.
On Dec. 21, 2012 – one week after Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut – National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre announced during a press conference that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
That bit of nonsense has become a cliche in some circles.
The idea that the answer to gun violence is more guns is, of course, nonsensical. But if the goal is to destabilize the nation and create a never-ending crisis and constant pain, the idea that we should put a gun in every hand will do it. To begin with, we’ve had lots of gun control laws in our history, but early on, gun laws were mostly about making sure only white men had guns.
It’s another way to get to this:
Part I: The Colonial Era
The source for the laws I am about to cite come from this compilation of laws.
Our first gun control law, in Jamestown, Virginia in 1633, made it illegal to give guns to Native Americans. The law said this:
There were similar laws in other colonies outlawing giving or selling guns to Native people.
Enslavers needed laws to keep guns out of the hands of Black Americans. Here are a few examples:
There were also laws requiring white men to be armed, particularly in the South. (I wonder why. )
Actually, I know why. Early militias were all about keeping enslaved people in line.
Part II: The Drafting of the Second Amendment
My source for this section is this book:
Also, see the 1619 Project:
Spoiler: The Amendment was written by enslavers who were worried that a strong federal government would outlaw local militias (or disarm them).
Virginian leaders met in the Virginia State House to debate whether to ratify the Constitution. The delegates were enslavers worried about whether the federal government would take away their guns.
George Mason was contemplating the fact that the new Constitution gave the federal government the control over armies and militias:
“The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless by disarming them,” (Waldman, Michael. The Second Amendment: A Biography, p. 38.)
Without armed militias to enforce the enslaved population, these guys knew just what would happen.
Patrick Henry came right out and said what was on everyone’s mind. First, he said that locally controlled militias were their “ultimate safety.” He reminded his audience that slavery was “detested elsewhere,” and suggested that because the Constitution gave the federal government the power to call up local militias for service, there was an easy way to end the institution of slavery. The federal government simply call the states’ Black men into military service and then set them free: Congress has “the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it.” (Kindle edition, p. 39.) Lest there be any doubt about what Patrick Henry was talking about, he said, “They’ll take your N– from you.” (p. 37.)
He was the guy who reportedly said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” What he evidently meant was “Give me the liberty to own slaves and the freedom to own guns to keep them in line.”
The Second Amendment was drafted by James Madison, who attended this meeting. Here was what he drafted:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
The final wording was done by a group of Senators. They changed the order of the clauses and began with “A well-regulated militia. They changed “free country” to “free State.” They added a religious exemption. We have no record of why they made these changes or how they choose the exact wording they did.
Given this history, it’s clear what Madison and the other drafters meant by the final version that was ratified:
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.
The Birth of the NRA as a Gun Safety and Marksmanship Training Organization
For this section, except where otherwise noted, I relied on this book, which I found to be reliable and well-sourced:
The facts in this section can be checked against articles such as this one: BBC News: US Gun Control: What is the NRA and why is it so powerful?
The NRA was founded as a gun safety and marksmanship training organization in 1871 by Gen. George Wingate (a General in the Union Army) and Col. William C. Church, a journalist who volunteered to serve in the Union Army because they were appalled by the terrible marksmanship of Union soldiers. At the time, there was very little training for soldiers; they were expected to come prepared. Wingate and Church saw themselves as training and preparing future American soldiers.
Particularly dangerous weapons developed for World War I found their way onto the streets of American cities. Congress drafted the National Firearms Act after a series of gangster shootings, including a high-profile shooting reportedly ordered by Al Capone.
The weapon of choice for gangsters (and other outlaws) was the sawed-off shotgun, which was capable of mass shooting and inflicting enormous damage. The idea was to get such dangerous guns off the streets.
When asked his opinion on whether the Act violated the Second Amendment, he said he had no opinion.
The NRA was also fine with the Gun Control Act of 1968. In 1968, after Robert Kennedy was assassinated, Senator Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, proposed a law to combat the problem of political assassinations. His proposed law (among other things) would regulate the interstate retail sale of guns, prohibit all sales to juveniles and convicted felons, and stop the import of military firearms.
NRA supported that act, and in fact, The American Rifleman, the NRA magazine, responded to the 1968 Gun Control Act by telling its readers that the NRA “does not necessarily approve of everything that goes ‘Bang!’ ”
Thus initially the NRA was apolitical and supported the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The Civil Rights Movement Changed Everything
The New Deal, Civil Rights, and Women’s Rights movements entirely changed the face of the nation. The changes came about through the expanding power of the federal government.
The New Deal expanded the federal government, giving us regulatory agencies (intended to keep people from cheating) and programs like the VA Bill that allowed a generation to obtain a college education, thereby moving large numbers of Americans into the middle class.
The Modern Civil Rights movement was kicked off by a Supreme Court case, Brown v. Board of Education, the case that held racial segregation unconstitutional. Brown v. Board empowered the federal government to enforce it. The Civil Rights movement also resulted in major federal legislation designed to allow women and minorities to participate more fully in public life: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act are two examples.
The Confederacy had been based on the idea that states should be able to do as they pleased and the federal government should remain small and powerless. The rapidly expanding federal government gave rise to a strong anti-federal government backlash. Libertarians believed that the new agencies and regulations were an unconstitutional infringement on personal liberty. White Christian nationalists resented the expanding federal government because they wanted the nation governed according to what they held as Christian concepts.
Until this point, members were gun enthusiasts from both parties. Then, a radicalized anti-government anti-regulation faction grew within the NRA.
Then, in the 1970s, there was a power struggle within the NRA between the “old guard” who were not opposed to sensible gun restrictions, and the radicalized extremists who advanced the entirely new idea that “conservatism” meant unfettered access to guns.
The new NRA leadership spent decades engaged in a propaganda campaign (which grew increasingly well-funded) advancing their view that freedom meant unfettered access to guns. They did grassroots organizing. They lured in members with offers, Then blitzed them with propaganda to indoctrinate them. They also worked to elect politicians willing to advance the idea that the Second Amendment protected individual gun rights.
The Republican Party, to attract voters, began outsourcing its voter mobilization to groups like the NRA.
In a nutshell: The NRA turned out voters in exchange for Republican politicians embracing and advancing NRA views. The NRA made sure that moderates were voted out of office and replaced with “purists.” As a result, elected Republicans became more radicalized on these issues.
By the time SCOTUS decided D.C. v. Heller, a majority of justices had been appointed by presidents who were members of the NRA. In Heller, the Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns (unconnected to a well-regulated militia).
What D.C. v. Heller Actually Said
The decision in D.C. v. Heller was written by Scalia. His decision frustrated those who want strict gun control by saying that the Second Amendment allows for self-defense, effectively ignoring the “well-regulated militia” part. But the decision also frustrated the right-wing NRA kooks by saying that the Second Amendment rights, like all rights, have limits:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, 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 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 court, though, didn’t fully explain what those limits are. In other words, this right-wing talking point is nonsense and not supported by the Second Amendment:
What Matters is who is Holding the Gun
Reagan and the CA legislature (back when CA was governed by Republicans) passed the Mulford Act to disarm the Black Panthers, who were trying to make curb police abuse.
Russia Enters the Picture
From Timothy Snyder: When Putin took a close look at the U.S. for weaknesses to exploit, he noticed the uncontrolled gun violence in America.
Putin understood that there was no better way to stoke discord in the U.S. than to pump more guns into the hands of ordinary people. Outsiders (like Russians) understand right away that the idea that “gun ownership equals freedom” is nonsensical.
Russia “beckoned” (Snyder’s word) to America’s far right-wing, presenting Russia as the savior of white majority rule.
In The Road to Unfreedom, Snyder writes that by 2016 Russians including Butina and Alexander Torshin were seeking to infiltrate the NRA. Remember Maria Butina, the Russian agent who was cozy with all those big-shot Republicans and the NRA?
Butina entered the US with a persona perfectly calibrated to appeal to the far right-wing. She told an “irresistible” story of herself: A “scrappy” girl from Siberia fighting for gun rights in Russia.
Russia poured money into the NRA, which in turn channeled money to right-wing political candidates.
The Great Russia, NRA, American Right Wing Love Affair
Russia has presented itself to America’s right-wing as the savior of White Christianity. Here is a brief timeline:
2013: Russia enacted anti-homosexual legislation.
2014: Pat Buchanan noted that Putin was “entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly city of today” and stamping out western evil like easy divorce and homosexuality:
Putin is entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly City of today and command post of the counter-reformation against the new paganism.
Not only in his tribal defense of lost Russians left behind when the USSR disintegrated.
Paul Manafort, GOP Operator and later Trump campaign manager, strategized on behalf of the Russian-backed Ukrainian president Yanukovych. Manafort also worked on “a plan to increase Russian influence in the U.S.” (Source for quotation: Snyder, Road to Unfreedom)
2015, “Russian authorities were cooperating with the American gun lobby [NRA]” (Snyder, Road to Unfreedom, pp. 250-251, Kindle version):
Feb. 2016: Maria Butina reported to Torshin from the United States that “Trump (NRA member) is ready for cooperation with Russia.” ((Snyder, Road to Unfreedom, pp. 250-251, Kindle version):
May 2016: Torshin met with Donald Trump, Jr. in Kentucky in May. That same month, the NRA endorsed Trump and eventually gave his campaign $30 million.
After Russia transformed from a Soviet/communist state to a fascist one, the NRA’s official attitude toward Russia changed. (Russia swung from an economy in which the state-owned all the nation’s resources to an economy in which a few wealthy men owned all the resources and the government. This was to the liking of the modern NRA and America’s right-wing.)
From Snyder: “Russia’s support of the NRA resembled its support of right-wing paramilitaries in Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic. Once Trump was in office, the NRA proclaimed in a video that “We’re coming for the New York Times.”
June 15, 2016: Rep. McCarthy (R-CA) was caught on tape saying “There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump.” Paul Ryan immediately stopped the conversation from exploring McCarthy’s assertion and swore the Republicans present to secrecy.
Sept. 9, 2016: Richard Spenser, a leading American white supremacist, called Russia the “sole white power in the world.”
In the Motion for Pre-Trial Detention for Christopher Paul Hasson (the guy planning to mass murder liberals) is quoted as saying “Looking to Russia with hopeful eyes.”
[Narrator: We see Russia beckoning to America’s far right wing, establishing itself as the savior of the white (Christian) race.]
March 16, 2016: Sen. McCain accused Sen. Rand Paul of working for Putin
Modern White Power Militias
Now I’ll talk about the connection between the Second Amendment and modern right-wing militias.
For more information on this, see:
The modern militia movement was born in the early 1990s as a response to Clinton’s gun control laws and the fatal shootouts at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas.
Thomas Jefferson once said that “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.” The idea is that when governments become too tyrannical, people should rebel.
Modern white power militias embrace this idea. They don’t think the federal government represents them. Therefore, they think it is illegitimate and tyrannical. Therefore, they arm themselves to fight against it.
They embrace what has been called the insurrection theory of the Second Amendment, which says that the Second Amendment protects the unconditional right to bear arms for self-defense and to rebel against a tyrannical government.
According to this theory, when a government turns oppressive, private citizens have a duty to take up arms against the government.
Remember when Trump suggested that “Second Amendment People” could act against Hillary Clinton? He was talking about the white power militias, which he imagined would act as an anti-government right-wing paramilitary.
A modern white power militia, the Wolverines, formed because they were furious at Governor Witmer’s response to the pandemic. They believed her response and oppressive rules were the very tyranny that the drafters of our Constitution worried about. Trump encouraged them by tweeting, “Liberate Michigan.”
The Proud Boys was the modern militia that helped plan and carry out the attack on the Capitol on January 6.
The Proud Boys and their leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists. They are known for anti-Muslim and misogynistic rhetoric. Proud Boys have appeared alongside other hate groups at extremist gatherings such as the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. They want guns as “defense” against the government.
Destabilization is the Goal
Q: What do America’s radical right-wing, Putin, and the NRA have in common?
A: The desire to destabilize the federal government (which America’s far right-wing sees as illegitimate) and replace it with something else.
This brings us back to where I started: The “everyone should have a gun” position is absurd and is not supported by the Second Amendment (see U.S. v. Heller). But if the goal is to destabilize the nation and create a never-ending crisis and constant pain, a gun in every hand will do it.
“A gun in every hand” is another way to get to this:
After That, You Need Some Canine Content, Right?
Thanks for the writeup Teri.
> Actually, I know why. Early militias were all about keeping enslaved people in line.
Do you have another more direct sources for this? The following lines make it clear they were limited to white people, but I’m wondering if there are more compelling sources that link the primary motivation for militias being able to keep slaves in line. I read this somewhere else recently and found it intriguing.
Try google.
This book is helpful. https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-second-amendment-a-biography_michael-waldman/3223836/item/36081945/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=pmax_high_vol_scarce_under_%2410&utm_adgroup=&utm_term=&utm_content=&gclid=Cj0KCQjwlumhBhClARIsABO6p-z8A_iaqQqVljwpI8leMQbhzqdAwI8qae7j7xrQJxj2ux6EPKCeO7waAmmqEALw_wcB#idiq=36081945&edition=7871658
Thanks for this, Teri. I wish more Americans were aware of just how recent the current violently extreme interpretation of the 2nd Amendment actually is. I remember very clearly when the NRA was all about shooting sports, hunting, etc. The average NRA member of THAT time would probably have been horrified at the idea of camo-wearing goobers prancing around a shopping mall wearing military firepower (and militantly exercising a made-up “right” that simply didn’t exist in law or society fifty years ago). Of course that WAS the Eisenhower years, before conservatism polluted the ideology of the NRA (and pretty much everything else), and turned it into something vile and unrecognizable.
As to what types of gun restrictions should be enacted, I’d like to point to a study done at Boston University recently that uses FBI data from several contiguous states, indicating what would actually decrease gun deaths. (This assumes that the political will of the majority can somehow overcome the stranglehold of a small, vicious, sociopathic minority, which is something to hope for.) Link: https://www.bu.edu/bostonia/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/
If there comes a time when I see JJ assuming his post with a miniature AR-15 strapped around his neck, I’ll know all is truly lost. Till then, endlessly grateful for your work, Teri.
I wonder if I could ask you, though, whether you think all the bloody chaos and destabilization that gun-restriction repeal brings about are deliberate intentions, or merely (merely?) results of ever-ratcheting-more extreme appeals to the base? Maybe a distinction without a difference, but
(if it isn’t obvious, that last paragraph should have been cut…didn’t intend to include it. Keyboard gremlins clearly at fault. Sorry!)
Actually, I was answering it :). The question trailed off but I understood the question.
Thanks for this question. I may be dealing with it in this week’s blog post as part of a larger post, but if you do a google search you can find Timothy Snyder’s argument that the Russians have been pumping up the NRA to create troubles here.
Teri, your blog posts are always interesting & informative, but wow…this week’s posting indicates to me (by circumstantial evidence) that you clearly outdid yourself!! Some of this information I knew of, some I did not but to put all these puzzle pieces together was incredibly informative.
I have been trying & often in vain, to objectively “step into” the mindset of the right-wing mentality in order to understand their POV. Tho of course I do not agree with it, we can hopefully aim to deal with something so obhorant (like the RW folks) if we can better grasp where they are coming from & how they got there. This essay has helped me in that regard, while also taking apart some of their arguments in order to dispel the myths they hold as gospel. No easy task in this day & age.
Thank you for such an astounding piece of scholarly work. And the last part of including JJ’s alleged “crime” (& evidence!) was PRICELESS! You’re a gem…so is JJ.
Thank you for an excellent read on the history of the 2nd Amendment.
I lived in South Central LA in the 60’s and 70’s, falling asleep to gunshots every night as a child. The last year we lived there, in 1977, there were 10 murders on our block alone. I witnessed two gun-related killings before the age of 11. Later, while attending high school in the affluent Palos Verdes, we had a gun-related lockdown where a recent graduate shot up cars in the parking lot. I’ve also lived in areas without such violence.
I think the right answer is to allow for local gun restrictions, like in the old West. The gun lobby will do its best to keep this a national debate to make the debates irreconcilable. It is so, so, sad to see our children pay the price for our failings, but I have faith and hope that they will fix what we could not.
Late in life, I tried to go to a gun range to see if I could shoot a handgun. I could not. Watching two people bleed to death at close range as a youth left me unable to hold the gun without breaking down in tears.
Same. I am a war refugee and to this day, I can not pick up a weapon of any kind, not even an antique rifle without a lot of sweat and anxiety.
JJ is innocent!