Gun Ownership, the Gun Culture, and Gun Control, Essay Example

Introduction

According to Saul Cornell, author of A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America, the history and presence of guns in the United States has been debated by historians, gun advocates, and the general American public for more than two hundred and fifty years since the days of the American Revolution when the colonies won their independence from the tyrannical monarchy of King George III of Great Britain. The main sticking point is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which declares that all Americans have the right to keep and bear arms for “self-defense, recreation, and if necessary, to take up arms” against their own government (2). However, this is not actually true, due to the fact that gun ownership in America was intended by the Founding Fathers as a protective measure related to maintaining a well-regulated militia or standing army composed of ordinary patriotic Americans.

Gun Ownership as a Civic Obligation

Historically, the right to keep and bear arms as defined by the Second Amendment was originally created as way to guarantee that all American citizens would be armed and ready in case of an incursion or attack by an outside country, such as Great Britain during the Revolutionary War. In other words, it was every American’s civic right or responsibility to keep weapons at their disposal in order to participate in the militia, being a group of armed citizens rather than as a military unit (Cornell 2).

Although the original concept of gun ownership and participation in a militia dates back to the Revolutionary War period, it is more aligned with specific rights theories that date back to the days of President Andrew Jackson during the early 1800’s. Later on during the Reconstruction Period which followed the American Civil War (1861-1865), gun ownership as a civic right and responsibility became a hot issue of debate, especially after President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation which freed the slaves from bondage in the South. By the 20th century, gun ownership became an issue of national importance, due to the First World War which stressed the importance of owning and having access to weapons in order to protect America via a well-regulated or controlled national militia (Cornell 7).

Rebellion and the Debate Over Militias

The first rebellion prior to the American Revolution which set the stage for the debate over a standing militia was the Liberty Riot of 1768 in which a ship owned by John Hancock was seized by British authorities in the city of Boston. As Samuel Adams saw it, the seizure of the ship called Liberty was illegal with the only response being to take up arms via a standing army or militia (Cornell 10).

Perhaps the most important rebellion was Shay’s Rebellion in 1786 which came about when farmers in Massachusetts became concerned over attempts by the state government in Boston to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. As Cornell relates, Shay’s Rebellion was the first national test of the “radical potential of the militia and the right to bear arms” (31) after the Revolutionary War.

Gun Ownership: The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists

Basically, the Federalists believed that the U.S. Constitution and the Articles of Confederation were suitably clear in relation to gun ownership and the idea of a standing militia as outlined in the Second Amendment. Thus, the Federalists wished to see the newly-formed U.S. government as possessing the power to call up the militia when required so as to suppress insurrections or rebellions by the people against the government and to repel all outside invasions. Also, the Federalists wanted the states to have limited powers related to a standing militia, such as having the power to appoint officers and train the members of the militia (Cornell 43). The Federalist also preferred a regular army as opposed to a standing militia composed of ordinary gun-toting Americans.

In contrast, the Anti-Federalists were in full support of a standing militia that stood outside of the powers of the federal government. Basically, the Anti-Federalists were concerned that without a standing militia to protect American citizens, the states would be under the control of the federal government related to protecting their citizens from uprisings and rebellions. As Maryland lawyer Luther Martin who refused to sign the original U.S. Constitution out of protest to some of its principles, state-controlled militias were necessary in order to prevent the federal government from encroaching upon state’s rights related to gun ownership and the right to bear arms. Martin, like many of his fellow Anti-Federalists, also believed that the day may come when it would be the duty of the states to protect themselves from federal oppression (Cornell 46).

Standing Armies

Overall, Anti-Federalists like Robert Whitehall of Pennsylvania argued that there must be a ban on standing armies and that the states must be allowed to control their own standing militias. Whitehall’s position, echoed by other Anti-Federalists, also included as found in his “Dissent” that standing armies are “dangerous to liberty” during times of peace, and “ought not to be kept up” (Cornell 51).

In contrast, Federalists like James Madison and future Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John Marshall argued that the U.S. Congress must be allowed to control a standing army via its ability to control funding. Thus, from the Federalists viewpoint, a standing army was mandatory, due to possible threats to the civil liberties of all Americans and the possible need for the army to step in to deal with state-based riots and insurrections (Cornell 54).

America’s Gun Culture

The evolution of America’s gun culture appears to have begun during the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson. The turning point for America’s gun culture occurred shortly after the Hamilton-Burr duel of 1804 in which Hamilton was killed via the shooting death of Harvard student Charles Austin by Thomas Selfridge. This incident fueled the debate over whether Americans had the constitutional right to arm themselves and to act in self-defense via the use of a deadly weapon (Cornell 111-113).

Also as a result of this incident, a new standard or approach to gun ownership and the use of a firearm to protect oneself arose which over the course of several decades proved to be highly controversial. In basic terms, this standard asserted by a person only needed a reasonable cause to fear for his life upon using a gun in self-defense. This standard also raised questions related to carrying a concealed weapon and eventually led to new laws and federal/state regulations on the meaning of murder, manslaughter, and excusable homicide or killing another person in self-defense (Cornell 114-116).

America’s gun culture continued to evolve well into the 1840’s, especially related to the effects of the Selfridge incident on justifiable homicide. In this instance, courts began to allow defendants to plead that their violent actions against another person involving a gun were based on a potential threat to their lives, rather than on an actual threat (Cornell 117).

As to the first efforts related to gun control, this dates back to 1813 when the state of Kentucky enacted a law to dissuade citizens from carrying a concealed weapon. In 1813, the state of Louisiana also passed a law that entirely banned carrying a concealed weapon. The result of these and other gun control measures was that citizens in support of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms began to challenge them which then led to individual states creating laws and regulations concerning a citizen’s right to bear arms as a civic duty (Cornell 141-144).

Gun Control, Slavery, and the Abolition Movement

In relation to the abolitionist movement which aimed to bring an end to the institution of slavery in the South and throughout America, the abolitionists developed a radial new theory or idea that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution not only protected an individual’s right to keep and bear arms but also the right of revolution separate from any and all established militias. What this means is that an American citizen had the right to revolt against any form of government that served to oppress individuals rights and liberties. Strange as it may seem, this new approach included not only freemen but also slaves which inevitably led to John Brown’s failed attempt to seize Harper’s Ferry in 1859 (Cornell 152-153).

It would appear that some radical abolitionists utilized the institution of slavery as a weapon or tool in order to fuel the ongoing movement toward violence as a way to end slavery in America. For example, Henry C. Wright changed from a strict pacifist into a militant abolitionist by declaring that every American must “arm himself with a pistol. . . a rifle, or any deadly weapon and kill any individual who would attempt to re-capture and return to bondage fugitive slaves” or those who had escaped from their Southern masters. Thus, gun control measures and attempts to regulate gun ownership slowly increased as a direct result of Harper’s Ferry, the violence in the state of Kansas related to state’s rights and slavery, and Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (Cornell 154).

Works Cited

Cornell, Saul. A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.