A Well-Regulated Militia: Perspectives on the Second Amendment
I have recently taken the time to read two fascinating books on the history of the Second Amendment: Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz's Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment, published in 2018, and Michael Waldman's The Second Amendment: A Biography, published in 2014. Both authors argue that the United States has a long-standing "gun culture", with the right to gun ownership taken for granted down through the generations, particularly among white men. They differ, however, in how this gun culture affected the drafting of the Second Amendment. Waldman argues that the amendment was created simply to ensure that the state militias could continue to be armed without interference, reflecting fears that a powerful standing army would emerge following the enactment of the Constitution. Dunbar-Ortiz, going a step-further, argues that these militias themselves were a reflection of America's then-nascent gun culture, one already deeply rooted in racism and settler-colonialism. Even if her interpretation of the historical record is not as precisely argued as Waldman's, it is still highly valuable due to her narrative framing in the context of America's long-standing white supremacy, particularly regarding Indigenous peoples and African-Americans.
The two authors take separate approaches to lay out their arguments. Dunbar-Ortiz emphasizes the social and cultural history of gun ownership and violence in the context of the Second Amendment, whereas Waldman focuses on the legal and judicial history of the Second Amendment itself. Despite these differences, and despite the differing theses put forward, I believe their arguments are wholly compatible and can be coherently interwoven. As Waldman explains, the Second Amendment protected the individual right to a gun to fulfill the duty to serve in a militia. Dunbar-Ortiz encourages the reader to think more expansively about what the purpose of the militia actually was. Beyond just serving as a military force designed to prevent the rise of tyranny - whether from within or without - the militia was also, perhaps primarily so, used to conquer the Native nations of the continent (often through ranger units) and preserve the institution of slavery (through slave patrols). Dunbar-Ortiz traces this history throughout her book, while Waldman's book alludes to it as well, though never focuses on it.
Dunbar-Ortiz, both through Loaded and her previous work An Indigenous People's History of the United States, has helped to reframe my views on US history in at least two major ways. First, she argues that the United States is not just an ethnically-based settler-colonial project, but one that is based on the idea of the "covenant", with Americans viewing themselves as God's chosen people. She compares the US to apartheid South Africa and Israel; all three nations have promoted this covenant ideology, with some version of ethnic "exceptionalism" being core to their national identity. The US version has taken on many names and faces over the years, from being "a shining city on a hill" and having a "Manifest Destiny" to being "leader of the Free World" and mankind's one "indispensable nation". Of course, such mythology has almost always been far removed from reality, and has usually been used to advance the causes of militarism, imperialism, and white supremacy.
Secondly, Dunbar-Ortiz views the early development of the United States through the lens of its impacts on Native Americans. She argues that the genocidal tactics employed by colonial militias formed the basis for the counterinsurgent and anti-guerrilla strategies that have proliferated through to the present day, used by the US military from the Philippines to Vietnam to Iraq and beyond. She frames conflicts such as the American Revolution and the War of 1812 as being driven by a desire by settlers to conquer Native lands, and that they were as much Indian Wars as conflicts against British imperial power. In doing so, she reminds the reader that it was not just the American West but also eastern North America that was conquered by European-Americans, a fact often conveniently glossed-over in the mainstream narrative of US history.
It is worth noting that, in telling their stories of the modern developments surrounding gun violence and the Second Amendment, both Waldman and Dunbar-Ortiz tangentially trace the rise of the Right over the past few decades. Waldman focuses on the institutional New Right, including the NRA, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the Federalist Society, as envisioned by future Supreme Court justice Lewis Powell in the early 1970s. Dunbar-Ortiz, meanwhile, traces the rise of the "grassroots" Right, particularly white nationalist militias, the Tea Party, and the so-called "alt-right". In the face of a weakened institutional Left after the Sixties, these forces combined to propel Ronald Reagan to the White House in the 1980 election, and later Donald Trump in 2016. Both authors implicitly argue that a stronger institutional Left is necessary not just to counter the power of the NRA and the gun lobby, but also the broader Right as a whole. This is a lesson that should certainly be taken to heart given the present political climate.