Amendment 2.1?

guns

I generally avoid political topics, because I frequently lose my temper, and because of that, I usually lose the argument itself. But this time I’m going to talk, because well, I lost my temper.

About a week ago, yet another attempt at gun control legislation was defeated in the Senate, despite overwhelming public support for such legislation. And not surprisingly, it was the Republicans who did it. The only explanation that anyone has been able to come up with, or at least come up with that makes any sense, is that the NRA and other pro-gun groups pulled a lot of strings, or pulled in a lot of favors, with their supporters (puppets?) in the GOP.

Trouble is, there actually is another explanation: Our very national character won’t permit such restrictions, no matter what the cost.

Looking in context.

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.

Those are the opening words of the Second Amendment. Let’s look at that for a moment. That final phrase is pretty clear: any citizen of the USA has the undisputed right to own a gun. Any law that attempts to curtail that, even for extreme cases, is going to be met with vehement and formidable opposition. It may even be deemed unconstitutional. As with the right to free speech, this is usually given the strictest possible interpretation. As a result, restrictions on gun ownership and use are very difficult to legislate. The NRA is a surprisingly powerful lobby, and people who own guns are downright rabid when it comes to gun ownership. When someone tries to limit gun ownership, or even make it more difficult, they claim “slippery slope” and will fight any bill, no matter how small, until it dies.

However, look at the first phrase. It talks about a well regulated militia. A “well regulated” – as in codes of behavior and conduct that are supposed to be followed – and “militia,” a locally based military force designed to address a local or regional concern. A modern militia is essentially the military reserves, and perhaps law enforcement officers. It looks to me like the second amendment was set up to guarantee the ability to form military units and police forces as the need arose. It wasn’t necessarily designed to put a gun in the hands of each and every citizen of the republic!

That being said, I personally believe the second amendment has been taken out of context for a very long time. That provision was included because it was 1789. Let’s look at history for a moment. In 1789, the natives were still considered a threat, and the possibility of an invasion by a foreign power (hoping to capitalize on Great Britain’s loss) was very, very real. It was in the front of everyone’s mind, all of the time. Very few countries allowed gun ownership back then, so guaranteeing that right to the population was a big deal for the lawmakers of 1789. Also, a lot of people in the young republic lived by sustenance hunting, farming, and trapping. Even today, such people need, at the very least, a hunting rifle. It can be argued that at that point in our history the provision for gun ownership made perfect sense. In fact it might be considered a “no-brainer.”

But things have changed since 1789, in a lot of ways.

Weapon technology, for example, has changed dramatically since the second amendment was written, and that’s important to remember. The guns of the 1780’s were generally non-repeating, black powder rifles; short range, low caliber wheel-lock pistols; and “pepper guns” that would today be considered six- or eight- gauge shotguns. Automatic or semi-automatic weapons of any type were beyond imagination. Even revolvers were considered a fantasy. (The concept existed, but it would be a few decades before the right technology came along.) What would the founders think of modern weapons? I suspect that would depend on the weapon. They would be OK with most hunting rifles, and would probably accept common 12-gauge shotguns. Those guns generally can’t fire more than three or four rounds in a minute, and are designed primarily for hunting. They are also very similar to the types of weapons that were around in 1789. Those weapons can also be used as defensive weapons, if only to hold off an intruder long enough for the user to escape and/or get assistance.

But something like an M16 combat rifle, an AK-47, or an M4-series carbine? Even the founders would draw the line at things like that. Those weapons are designed exclusively for warfare and riot control; they have no other purpose. And unlike the early days of the republic, we now have a police force and a standing military that has been trained in how to use such weapons when the need arises. The general population does not, or should not, need weapons of that level.

The fact that many would insist that “yes, they do,” hints at just how troubled our society has become in other ways. I’ll try to address some of those problems some other time, if I don’t get too depressed.

It’s not only technology that has changed since the amendment was written. Thanks to 227 years of loose gun laws, every fifth household in the USA owns some sort of firearm. Can you imagine trying to occupy or subjugate a territory with such a heavily armed population? No one in their right mind is going to invade the USA in this day and age. And as for the natives, sadly, they aren’t much of a threat any more. A lot of them want to be, and some would even argue that they should be. But they simply don’t have the numbers. The core situations that made the Second Amendment necessary no longer exist.

These days the gun lobby likes to talk about home defense and protecting ourselves from criminals. One of the more popular arguments is that criminals will always be able to acquire guns, so why should be forbid the law abiding citizens from having them? Another one states that if the government forbids gun ownership, it’s telling the citizens that they don’t have the right to defend themselves, and that they have to rely on the government to do the defending for them.

What do I think?

I guess I fall into the group that thinks restrictions should be place on certain types of guns.

Military-grade semi-automatic and automatic weapons should not be available to the general public. End of line. I’ve heard the arguments about criminals always being able to get them and what not, but that just doesn’t hold water for me. If someone needs an AK-47 or M16 for home defense, then there is something seriously wrong with their home area!

And one doesn’t need one of those heavyweights for hunting game. That argument is so absurd that I have to laugh!

Handguns are in a gray zone for me. They are designed specifically for shooting other people, but they can be used for hunting. They are not the best choice, given their relatively short range, but I know some people do use them. I guess handguns should be subject to some very strict restrictions. I don’t have the knowledge to know what those restrictions should be, though. This isn’t something I’ve researched in any detail. But I do know that handguns and automatic weapons are designed to be people killers, first and foremost. So some type of restriction is prudent.

Non-repeating rifles are generally OK. For one thing they can’t shoot dozens of bullets in one minute, and they aren’t designed specifically for shooting other persons. Ergo, you’re not likely to get people going on a rampage with one. There have been a few exceptions, so I may need to think more on this one.

I’m also in favor of background checks, very thorough and highly invasive background checks, for gun ownership. If someone is going to be given a permit for carrying a device that can launch a small piece of metal at the speed of sound, they should have their whole life history and every facet of their life examined from top to bottom. Owning a gun may be a constitutional right, but a gun is still a deadly piece of hardware. Anyone who is going to own one needs to be mentally and emotionally stable, and most importantly, low risk!

Before anyone starts flaming me, I am fully aware that such draconian restrictions have been tried, and in those few cases where they worked, enforcement was very difficult. What I would like to see on this front, and what I can reasonably expect to see, are not the same thing.

I also find it funny that the NRA membership is staunchly against background checks for gun ownership (that slippery slope fear thing). But they are all in favor of the NSA using invasive methods to profile people left right and center, because it supposedly protects us from terrorist threats. There is at least one double standard in there.

And last but certainly not least, the mentally ill, and those with a violent criminal record. Someone who has a history of mental instability, or has been convicted of a violent crime, should not be permitted to own a gun, ever, full stop, end of discussion. That doesn’t apply to a huge percentage of the population, so the NRA and their associates should just chill on this. If someone is known to be very violent, or to be mentally unstable, they shouldn’t be allowed to carry a lethal weapon. That strikes me as another “no-brainer.”

Sidebar:

Personally, I don’t own a gun. But I wouldn’t mind owning a hunting rifle, if only to keep those pesky raccoons out of the garage! (Darn varmints!) However, I would want a modern replica of a classic black powder rifle, like a Sharpe or Winchester. I want it to look attractive as well as function, since it’s going to get more use as a wall decoration than as a weapon. At least not until my daughter is a teenager, anyway. At that point I may brandish it from time to time, but I’m not likely to fire it.

That’s supposed to be a dry joke, by the way. I point that out just in case some rube actually takes me seriously.

Even so, given the fact that I was once hospitalized for being suicidal, have a long history of acute depression, ADHD, and a rotten temper, I would likely be denied gun ownership. I suspect I would be be considered a threat to myself if I had easy access to a gun. So in the final count, I don’t have a horse in this race.

Most Americans believe that there should be restrictions on gun ownership, or at least on the kinds of guns that non-military and non-police should have access too. But even that is unlikely to happen. The option of owning a gun is so ingrained in our national character that restricting it, never mind removing it, is probably impossible.

I guess it can be summed up like this: The freedom to own a firearm, even ones that are intended for military purposes only, is something that too many Americans cherish to ever let change.

OK then, I yield. Americans are going to own guns, and that is an absolute certainty in this space-time continuum. But know this: if you have loose laws regarding gun ownership, then you’re going to have to pay a price. That price is that periodically you’re going to have incidents like the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, the San Bernardino shooting, the Dark Knight shooting in Aurora, Sandy Hook, Columbine, the San Ysidro McDonald’s massacre, and literally dozens of others. That is the trade-off that we as a society are paying for the ability to acquire and own pretty much any type of gun available.

Is it worth the price? Apparently for many Americans it is not, no longer is, or never was. But for many other Americans, that price is perfectly acceptable. And given the current political climate, that view is going to hold sway. So we will continue to pay this price, at least until there is a change in the political climate, and the antiquated and misused second amendment is updated.

And as a 1990’s popular culture icon used to say, “That’s all I have to say about that.”


Afterthought:
There are some who still choose to live by sustenance hunting and farming. It’s no longer necessary to live that way, and doing so probably isn’t healthy, but the option exists. Ownership of a rifle for someone who likes to live frontier-style makes perfect sense, but that’s a pretty small percentage of the population! At least until the zombie apocalypse or something equally grave actually comes to pass.

Dark side of Thanksgiving

mayflower77

Every historical event has at least two sides, and the events leading up to the Thanksgiving holiday are no exception. This particular year, with all the excitement over Syrian refugees, some of the darker elements of Thanksgiving have been brought to center stage.

This meme has been popping up around the Internet all week:

Puritans

The implication of this is religious freedom is less about freedom from persecution and more about the freedom to persecute. And by extension the Pilgrims – the gang that came over on the Mayflower – were a bunch of whack jobs who came to North America so they could practice their own form of religious persecution. As a historian, I am compelled to point out that this is not true. Mostly.

The Pilgrims had the worst luck.

The Pilgrims were rather like the Amish or Mennonites are today. They wanted to be left alone to practice their version of Christianity, and weren’t that interested in what the rest of the world was doing. The congregation took form in the southern part of Yorkshire, specifically the shire of Scrooby, around 1600. They had drifted from the Church of England to the point where they had broken away. But unlike many other groups of the time, they weren’t interested in reforming the whole of England. They just wanted to be left alone. By and large, the English government granted their wish, probably because they weren’t worth fussing over. The local government and the communities in Scrooby, however, harassed them no end. This became an unfortunate pattern for them.

The convictions of the Pilgrims would not allow them to swear loyalty to any king or civil authority, so were always in trouble with the powers that be, on some level. In 1607, the group relocated to Holland, hoping to fare better there. At the time, Holland had a very open view of religious practice, where any form of Protestant faith was accepted, so long as they didn’t cause local problems. This looked like a solution.

Unfortunately, Dutch society didn’t suit them. The Pilgrims were a largely rural minded people, while the Dutch were far more cosmopolitan and urban. The children of Pilgrims were frequently “going native” among the Dutch, and even married into local families. The biggest problem came when Spain began to exert more control over Holland. This would have ended the Dutch “open door” policy on Protestant faiths, and would have isolated the Pilgrims. So, they went back to England to search for another solution.

Before I continue, remember that this was the seventeenth century. The Reformation had just taken place, so European civilization was undergoing a lot of changes. In fact, the Protestant Reformation was one of the prime motivations for colonizing the Americas. The events leading up to the colonial era won’t make much sense unless you study the Reformation first.

The Pilgrims followed a form of Christianity that drew heavily on Calvinist doctrines, which was inherently rigid and slow to accept new ideas. As with any group, some practitioners are more zealous than others. Internally, the Pilgrims were rather strict, but when dealing with the outside world they were fairly lenient. I suspect they figured that the rest of the world would come around eventually, so why make trouble?

Anyway, the fledgling Virginia colony eventually caught their attention, and the Pilgrims started making plans to make a fresh start in the New World. This didn’t go exactly the way they wanted it to. The whole process was troubled by financial problems, and a cast of shady characters. Originally they were to leave for Virginia in April of 1620. They ended up leaving in August, and instead of using two ships, they were crammed into one, the famous Mayflower. And instead of getting a charter for land in the Chesapeake region, they received land much further north.

Note that the Mayflower was not designed to transport passengers, and it wasn’t suited for a transatlantic voyage. It was designed for short cargo trips around the North Sea and along the coast of Europe. The 26 day voyage was a difficult one. Several members of the Plymouth Company, back in England, expected the Mayflower to sink en route, and some were hoping for an insurance payout in such an event. But the ship did make it, and landed in what became Plymouth, on the coast of Cape Cod bay.

Also, the preferred target site was in the Hudson Valley, but the winter storms in the Long Island Sound would have made such a trip exceedingly dangerous, and these people had been through enough already. Given their arrival date, the most sensible choice would have been to turn north, to the French outpost of Port Royal in Nova Scotia. However, there was no way in the world that the Pilgrims were going to spend the winter with a bunch of French Catholics! So, Plymouth it was.

Since they arrived in late fall, it was impossible for the Pilgrims to set up a fall crop. As a result, during that first winter, roughly a third of the Pilgrims died. Merry Christmas.

Still, by the fall of 1621 the colony had settled into a more or less stable routine. When the Pilgrims founded Plymouth, their prime motivation was to have a place where they could practice their faith undisturbed. And that’s exactly what they did. At first.

The Plymouth colony had problems from the start. The colony was expected to produced a certain quota of cash crops and other goods within a growing season. However, the schedule in use was based on Jamestown and other locations in Virginia. The growing season in Massachusetts is much shorter than that of Virginia, so Plymouth was constantly playing “catch up” on their yields. It wasn’t until a few years later that someone suggested altering the schedules to reflect this. (What a concept…) Also, various members of the colony had taken to shady business practices, largely for their own gain, which left the Plymouth Company (back in England) constantly mired in legal problems. Worst of all, supply ships from England were few and far between, and rarely provided the men and materials that Plymouth really needed.

Arrival of the Mayflower
Image credit: Geoff Mangum’s guide to Native American history and culture.

What about the Natives?

This part of the Pilgrim story has been romanticized to the point of absurdity, and the revisionist accounts aren’t any better. The Pilgrims had very little contact with the locals, and it was for the worst possible reason. A large portion of the local population died in a smallpox epidemic, shortly before the Pilgrims arrived.

In all likelihood, the smallpox came via European surveyors, explorers and trappers, who worked in the region before the Pilgrims. These people probably didn’t know they were carriers of smallpox. (The use of smallpox as a chemical weapon against the Natives wasn’t practiced until the 1800’s.)

Some of the remaining natives did trade with the Pilgrims, and it was from these that the Pilgrims learned which crops and game worked in the New World, and which ones didn’t. All in all, the Pilgrims and the Natives generally left one another alone. The Natives didn’t see the Pilgrims as a major threat, and the Pilgrims knew better than the anger the one group that knew the area, so an uneasy truce existed. So there actually is some truth to the stories of the Pilgrims and Natives having a giant harvest party.

Some of the more unscrupulous members of the colony made trouble for both the Natives and other Pilgrims. The Plymouth company in England also had legal and economic problems of nearly every type. There was even a case of a group of trappers selling firearms to the Natives, and generally living like happy-go-lucky heathens up and down Cape Cod. To make a long story short, the charter of the Plymouth colony ceased to be viable, the company was ripe for a takeover, and absorption of the Plymouth colony by another colony was inevitable.

Puritans
Image credit: EndTimePilgrim.org

The real bad guys.

While the Pilgrims were largely a peaceful lot, they had problems. Since they no longer had to contend with external political forces, at least not consistently, human nature kicked in and many of the Pilgrims started acting in much the same way as their former oppressors. That is to say, they became increasingly less tolerant of people who weren’t part of their congregation. The Plymouth colony was absorbed into a new colony charter, the Massachusetts Bay charter, in 1629. And the colony had become fertile ground for a new form of madness, especially when a highly successful group moved in.

This group was the Puritans. If you want to know who the real troublemakers were during this phase of American history, look no further than these guys. Many history books end the story of the Pilgrims before Plymouth started changing, and jump straight to the Puritans. Leaving out the changes in Plymouth during the interim is a lie of omission.

When this zealous group arrived and founded what would later become Boston and New Haven, things really got crazy. Even the Natives noticed the threat they posed. Unlike the Pilgrims, who believed that others would join them in time, the Puritans went on the offensive. They were extremely phobic of any religious sect except their own, and felt it was their sacred duty to “save” people from other “false” or “impure” religions. The Puritans seriously believed that by forcing conversions, they were helping people! Rather like forcing a child to take bad-tasting medicine.

“This is for your own good…”

Their colony grew quickly and prospered, but not without incident. There were several skirmishes with other groups, mostly over religion. One of the most famous of these was in Maryland. Maryland was set up to be a largely Catholic settlement. The Puritans exercised a loophole in the charter to found the city of Annapolis, specifically to create an enclave in the largely Catholic colony, with the long range goal of breaking it apart. Scariest of all, they never tried to hide this agenda. The Puritans were a scary bunch.

Even so, I have to be fair and acknowledge the role the Puritans have played in American history. Their zeal, drive, and work ethic has had a tremendous influence on the development of the United States, and it can not be ignored. The pragmatic determination and “can do” attitude that has long been part of the American character can largely be traced to the Puritans. It can be argued that in the long run they did more good than harm, but even now, 400 years later, that is still a subject of debate.

Regardless, they were not nice people. They went after the pacifist Quakers, for crying out loud! Their particular form of religious xenophobia can still be found in many parts of modern America. A lot of the “right wing nut job” attitudes can trace their origin to the Puritans.

Another thing to consider is that there are, especially in the modern world, religious groups within the United States who define themselves by who they hate. This attitude can also be traced to the Puritans. When someone comes up to one of these groups and says “you have to stop persecuting Group X,” they respond with “you are violating my freedom of religion,” because the hatred of Group X is their religion. Telling them to stop hating is equal to telling them to abandoning one of their core beliefs. In cases like these, I’m tempted to tell them tough cookies, but the problem remains.

I’ve long maintained that if you scratch any organized religion deep enough you will find the notion of “I am right, you are wrong, and you must conform to me.” Some religions, like the Puritan version of Calvinism, doesn’t need to be scratched very deep at all.

And again, what about the Natives?

The plight of the Native American is an ugly one, and on the whole, the Native American has had a rough deal. I don’t know what more can be done about it at this point in time. One sad thing to consider is what happens when two different levels of technology come into contact with one another. The lower tech level always gets trounced. History is very unforgiving on this point. It has happened many times in the past, and it’s likely to happen again.

As an aside, I have some Laurentian Mohawk far back in my own lineage, on my mother’s French-Canadian side. I sometimes wonder how my own past might have changed if certain historical events had turned out differently.

In conclusion…

OK, the Pilgrims were a weird bunch. They were isolationist, and very territorial about their little enclave. But on the whole they were just a bunch of people who wanted to build a new life, like most immigrants and refugees. Comparing them to persecutors isn’t fair.

But if you really want to single out some villains from this time period, at least in this region of America, the Puritans are a good candidate. But you must take into account the influence that they had on American history as a whole. And after you have considered the implications of that, go take an aspirin. You’ll probably want one.


Most of my historical information came from one of my old textbooks:

Hawke, David. The Colonial Experience. New York, Macmillan, 1966.

It’s an older textbook, but it’s very well researched, and has held up well. Part of this is because Hawke went out of his way to keep modern biases out of his narrative, and to present things as they were seen as the time. Ignoring a contemporary mindset and attempting to take on that of another time is not an easy task, but to truly understand history, one needs to try.

Remembering those who served

Veterans_Day

This is a story my brother likes to relay on Veteran’s Day.

Our maternal grandfather, Joseph Habecker, at the age of 18, was drafted into the United States army in Lawrence, Massachusetts.

warbonds

As he headed to the draft board on the assigned day, he saw his friends running back from the board excited and shouting “The war is over!” My grandfather and his friends threw their draft cards into the Merrimack River.

overthere

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the Germans had just surrendered to the Allies. An armistice was arranged such that all hostilities would cease on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918. Why all the elevens? So no one would forget the sacrifices of the last war we would ever have.

Sadly, other wars came, and Armistice Day became Veterans Day.


This leads me to stories of some other Veterans from another era. Our maternal grandmother (“Memere”) had one sister and nine brothers, three of which saw combat during World War II.

Guadalcanal battlefield image

Leo Langlais served with the US Marines during the “island hopping” campaign in the Pacific theater. He even fought at the battle of Guadalcanal. As some point he contracted malaria, and was moved to a medical facility away from the front lines. When he was strong enough to return to duty, the military sent him to the machine shops that worked on the tanks and jeeps used by the ground troops. There he worked as a machinist until VJ Day. As he once put it, “they took away my rifle and gave me a tool box.” He died in the early 1980’s at his home in Salem, New Hampshire.

Tench class submarine

Donald Langlais served in the US Navy, first on destroyers and then on a submarine, both in the Pacific theater. According to family legend, he had two ships shot out from under him, and witnessed the destruction of at least a dozen others (both American and Japanese). I know very little about Donald, as he died before I was born. From what I’ve been told, he had what is sometimes called “a bad war,” and he never fully recovered from the experiences he had. The nightmares and visions plagued him until the very end. Today, we call this Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Back then it was called “shell shock” or “battle fatigue,” but it’s the same thing, and it’s a very real and debilitating condition. Donald died in the late 1950’s, if I recall correctly.

redball

Roland Langlais was with the US Army, and unlike his brothers, was in the European theater. He served under General Patton, as a mechanic and heavy equipment operator with the Red Ball Express. The Red Ball convoy moved tons of supplies from bases in Normandy to the front lines of the Allied invasion forces, as they slowly but surely crept toward Berlin. Roland himself, if I remember correctly, initially worked with the heavy equipment that helped build and maintain the highways through the French countryside. Later, when the truck convoys were replaced with railroads, he was among those who maintained and repaired the rail lines and equipment. Roland died at his home in Tilton, New Hampshire, in the 1990’s.

kilroy

I’m probably off with many of the specifics, but I do know that all three of them served with distinction – each of them came home with a Purple Heart – and they were all proud to have served their country in it’s time of need.


At 11:11am, on November 11, please stop what you’re doing and pause to remember all the veterans of all the wars. Those who, like the Langlais brothers, served with distinction, and gave the full measure so that people like Joseph Habecker wouldn’t have to.