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.

Read More

On Gun Control, Disarmament, and Demilitarization

There has been a renewed call for gun control legislation by liberals in the wake of the recent school shooting in Parkland, Florida, just one of many daily acts of gun violence that take place in the United States. Given the size and scope of the problem, this response is reasonable. However, I am concerned that the push for such policies misses the broader problems presented to American society, and may not serve as the silver bullet, so to speak, that liberals believe them to be.

The United States is the most heavily armed and militarized country in the history of humanity. However, when liberals call for gun control, they are only referring to reducing and/or eliminating the possession of guns by the civilian population. While doing so is certainly a worthy goal, it is woefully incomplete. In my opinion, the following steps should also be taken to demilitarize and disarm the United States: elimination of the US's stockpile of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; banning of arms exports to foreign countries and non-state actors; withdrawal of US special operations and other armed forces stationed abroad; closure of US military bases in foreign countries; demilitarization of US law enforcement; and disarming of US police forces. These policy changes would go a long way toward reducing the (usually ignored) systemic violence perpetrated by the US government against populations both foreign and domestic.

Of course, such policies would not necessarily address the culture of violence that emanates through American society. Much of this culture is based on the masculine ideology that I have referred to before, which may be more pervasive and deep-rooted in the United States than in any other nation. (There is no more perfect example of this than the militarism and violence associated with American football - which has been dubbed the "national religion" of the United States.) Confronting this masculine ideology head-on with a broad-based feminist movement is thus also a major prerequisite toward reducing gun violence and militarism in the US.

In addition to these measures, attention must be paid to other factors that contribute to the demand for and use of guns in the US. As Johann Hari points out, one of the most significant is the War on Drugs - or, perhaps more accurately, the "War for Drugs" - the fight among criminals for control of the drug trade. This "drug-related violence" - acts done to establish, protect, and defend drug territory in an illegal market - could effectively be eliminated with the legalization of narcotics. Some experts have estimated that ending drug prohibition could reduce the murder rate by as much as 75%.

There has also been much discussion around the relationship between mental illness and gun violence. For instance, liberals have derided President Trump's decision last year to repeal a rule blocking mentally ill people from buying guns. While such policies certainly have merit, there must be caution regarding potential unintended consequences. I and others noted at the time that such a policy may actually discourage those with mental illness from seeking counseling and treatment, for fear that they may lose access to their guns - potentially exacerbating the problem. It is important to work to destigmatize mental illness and ensure access to treatment and care for all those who do have mental and emotional health issues.

As long as we do continue to have such a prolific quantity of guns in American society, it is also important to educate the public about proper use, handling, and storage of said firearms, particularly among youth. Liberals have generally ignored or rejected such an approach, on grounds that sound similar to the conservative arguments for "abstinence-only" education and "Just Say No" drug policy. Encouraging ignorance does nothing to address the problem of accidental shootings that seem increasingly common in American society any more than it did for teenage pregnancies or drug overdoses.

This is certainly not a complete assessment of the causes of gun violence and issues related to gun control policy in the US. I have not discussed, for instance, the role of poverty in gun violence, the history of the racial politics of gun control, or the need to build trust within communities as a potential solution. However, I hope I have laid out a way of looking at gun violence and gun control that moves beyond the traditional liberal-conservative dichotomy and encourages a deeper, reality-based conversation

Read More