So, Forham Law published a really terrific roundup of information about early American gun law. It’s lengthy, but I urge everyone to read it. It’s also extensively cited, so I’m not going to provide citations for every single point I make; if you want granular evidence, please refer to the Fordham writeup.
There’s a persistent mythology in modern gun debate that the term “militia” is vague. It might be vague to today’s Americans, but to the people who wrote the Constitution it was very, very clear what that term meant. At the time, the federal military was limited to a very small group of “regulars,” which was by design — a standing military, especially a federal standing military, was perceived as a threat to liberty. The vast majority of armed men were civilians who, in times of conflict, took up arms — and they did so not for the federal government, but for their state. This was the militia.
By the way, state militias still exist. They changed their name in the early 20th Century; today they are known as state National Guard.
The militia idea is not totally foreign today; at CNN’s town hall with the Parkland survivors, Dana Loesch herself pointed out that the “militia” refers to all men and women (at the time, this was limited to men) who are able to wield a weapon. This by the way was the documented origin of the NRA — union commanders wanted civilians to be better trained with firearms, in preparation for the time when they might be called up to serve. What Loesh leaves out is that, to our founders, this was compulsory and at the will of the state government.
The Militia Act of 1792 required all “able-bodied” white male Americans buy a firearm and ammunition in preparation for service. This was at their own expense, by the way — which became especially relevant when Obamacare went to court, as precedent for the federal government to mandate commercial purchases. Various state laws made it compulsory for Americans (and colonists, pre-Constitution) to carry their weapons, especially those on the frontier — many colonial states had laws requiring that colonists carry their guns to church, with a fine for those who failed.
Of course, nearly every state also had laws prohibiting gun ownership by black and Native American people — and also Catholics, in Maryland.
As to your point about colonists and settlers living in peace with Indians…there are myriad examples of such, if we choose to look at isolated populations in a specific, generally narrow, window of time. But peace between European and indigenous populations was always informed by the threat of violence if the Europeans did not get their way — as evidence, look at the entire history of US relations with Indians, up to and including the modern day when the federal government continues to violate treaties in the interest of commercial enterprise.
To suggest the American approach to indigenous people was anything other than a protracted genocide, with occasional periods of peace and coexistence, is naive to the point of absurdity. Again, the Declaration of Independence itself, a foundational document of the nation, refers to “merciless Indian savages,” and includes among King George’s crimes his prohibition on taking land west of the Alleghenies from the native tribes. A federal census has been mandated since the Constitution was ratified, and yet Indians were not even included in that count until 1860, even if they were living within the United States and not in bordering territories.
Lastly, you raise a point about the demographics of gun ownership; Pew research shows that 49% of white households own a gun; this is well ahead of the national average of 42%; about 32% of black households and 21% of Hispanic households (their word) own guns. Notably, the same study shows that white households in urban, rural, and suburban settings are about equally likely to own guns, and that the #1 reason cited for gun ownership is “protection.” What’s especially interesting is that the reason doesn’t change much among gun owners who say they live in very safe areas, versus those who identify their region as unsafe — even people who think their home is safe expect trouble to come calling.
However I think that is less illustrative about the racial nature of gun ownership than one simple graph: Gun sales following the election of President Obama. Obama did nothing, said nothing, about limiting gun sales or ownership until the last year of his presidency. And yet, beginning during his campaign for President in 2007, gun sales spiked incredibly, to unprecedented levels. Why is that? It didn’t happen during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, who actually did pass strong legislation limiting gun sales, and whose Justice Department actually went after white supremacist gun nuts — so we know it’s not about politics or gun policy.
The explanation is pretty clear: President Obama is black, which feeds the paranoia of Turner Diary-inspired racist gun nuts. So, again, and now hopefully backed by citations to your satisfaction… it’s pretty clear that the biggest factor driving gun sales and gun culture in the US today is racism.
