Observations of an expat: gun control v. tyranny

Chiselled on the wall of the entrance lobby of the National Rifle Association are the words: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

This, claims the gun lobby is the Second Amendment of the US constitution. It is not. The oft-quoted right to bear arms clause is preceded by the words “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right….”

Should the amendment be read in its entirety with the second half contingent on the first? Or has the need for a citizens’ militia become redundant in the modern age and therefore only the second half remains relevant?

The NRA is in no doubt. It only every quotes the second half. All references to militias are conspicuous by their absence.

But why do Americans need guns? Conservatives say it is to protect themselves and their families from bad people with guns. Liberals reply: then take the guns away from the baddies as well as the goodies so no one can shoot. It is a policy that has worked in Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other developed countries.

American conservatives retort with what may be the real reason for hanging onto their firearms: Individual gun ownership is the ultimate defence against tyranny – the tyranny of anarchy and the tyranny of overbearing government.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz – one of the most prominent supporters of the NRA and a major beneficiary of the gun lobby’s largesse – was crystal clear on the tyranny issue when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. He wrote in his campaign literature:

“The Second Amendment isn’t just for protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It’s a constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny – for the protection of liberty.”

But from whence does this need for weapons as protection against tyranny come? The answer is Britain.

For centuries, successive British monarchs required a well-armed citizens’ army to fight their wars. The weapon of choice was the English (or, if you prefer, Welsh) longbow. Every able-bodied male was forced to participate in regular archery sessions to ensure top notch fighting skills were kept on tap. It was not until the 17th century that Britain had anything resembling the standing armies of today. And the efforts of King James II to create a Catholic-officered standing army was one of the main reasons for his forced abdication.

A year later, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, forbade the “raising and keeping of a standing army… without the consent of parliament.” The Bill of Rights also included a passage (clause 7) which is claimed to be a herald of America’s Second Amendment: “Protestants may have arms for their defence” with the clear implication that the weapons were for defence against monarchical-inspired Catholic tyranny.

By the middle of the 18th century a standing army had become a fact of British life but in America they still relied on a citizens’ militia to fight the constant wars against Native Americans and the dreaded French. That changed with the 1756-63 Seven Years’ War (the French and Indian Wars in America).

To protect the Thirteen Colonies from French attacks, the British sent a large standing army across the Atlantic. This cost money which the British government tried to recoup by imposing taxes on the colonists and ordering them to house the troops that remained. Both were major issues which led to the American War of Independence.

It was those combined factors – the fear of government tyranny and a standing army to enforce that tyranny – that led American Founding Father James Madison to write the Second Amendment. He was not, as Senator Cruz, would say, concerned about hunting rights or target practice.

Clause Seven of the 1689 English Bill of Rights has an additional – and important line. After protecting Protestants right to bear arms it adds three important words “according to law.”

This short phrase has enabled successive British governments to pass a series of gun control laws as responsibility for protection from violence passed from the weapons-bearing individual to a police force controlled by a directly elected government. In 1903, Parliament passed the first gun control law of modern times. The Pistol Act was followed by a series of increasingly restrictive laws on gun ownership passed in 1920, 1930, 1933, 1937 and 1968. Then came the Dunblane Massacre of 1996 when 16 children and one teacher were shot dead in Dunblane, Scotland. The following year pistols were banned.

The NRA is adamant that Americans need protection from the tyranny of their government. Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the NRA, wrote in an attack on pro-gun control legislators: “It doesn’t matter to them that the semi-auto ban gives jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property and even injure or kill us.”

The tyranny argument held water when the tyrant was an unelected dictator or a monarch driven by religious and political beliefs contrary to the wider public good, or a government intent on taxing a populace without offering them parliamentary representation. A democratically elected government cannot – by its very nature – be a tyrannical one. If it is, then that democratic system is seriously flawed.

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and the author of “The Encyclopedia of the Cold War” and the recently published “America Made in Britain” that has sold out in the US after six weeks but is still available in the UK.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

14 Comments

  • Brad Barrows 27th May '22 - 6:23pm

    So police officers turned up at the school, waited in the corridor outside the classroom, and then failed to enter to confront the gunman even when they heard him shooting children inside. Little wonder that many in the USA believe they need their own guns so they have the opportunity to defend themselves and their homes – who would be willing to trust that the police will either turn up in good time – or even intervene – if they were unfortunate to be attacked?

  • The only point where I would query Tom’s article is where he says with total confidence “The answer is Britain.”

    I’m not a historian, but I would only ask Tom – “Are you sure Britain in the *only* answer?” The way you put it makes it sound a bit too much like ‘There you go. It’s Britain’s fault in the first place?’

  • Britain, and most of the ‘civilised’ world, has moved on…The USA, as far as guns are concerned, seems to have passed from infancy to senility without ever embracing maturity..

  • Yeovil Yokel 28th May '22 - 10:36am

    Thank you, Tom, for one of your best pieces.

    It seems that the US Constitution was framed so that, in the absence of a regular police force or army, citizens could defend themselves; but, in the modern era, firearms are primarily used for attack.

    What is the mechanism for changing the US Constitution?

  • @ Yeovil Yokel, Thanks, glad you liked it. Now for the blatant plug: If you want more than read my book America Made in Britain. My pension needs topping up. As for amending the constitution. That is not easy. It takes two-thirds of Congress and two-thirds of the state legislatures.
    @Davd Evans, It is not so much a matter of blame as historical fact. Britain is the country most responsible for the ideas and institutions that created the United States of America. Again (and sorry for the second plug), read my book

  • The NRA, as shorthand for the “no gun control lobby” works by creating the appearance that its adherents make gun control a deciding factor in which lawmakers they vote for. The gun control lobby needs to do the same and make gun control the deciding factor for its adherents at election time. The important point is that they would need to do it only the once. Once gun control legislators control the legislature, the NRA’s spell will have been broken, the NRA will have lost its traction, and legislators can bring in sensible gun control legislation and enforcement. Once done, there will be no return to the status quo ante. Once the NRA’s spell is broken, there will never be a fresh majority to overturn gun control and put the love of guns ahead of the love of one’s children.

  • Lorenzo Cherin 28th May '22 - 1:02pm

    Very fine historical and sensible analysis.

    I have just written about the earlier incident, from a different perspective.

    http://www.ustinovforum.com/articles/hate-crime

    We must get together soon online, am in the midst of planning future activities I am organising along those lines, as mentioned, Tom, keep up the good work, as ever here etc. And yes I must get the book!

  • @John Leach– In fact, the gun lobby has its problems. The NRA is facing a number of law suits and corruption cases. The leadership has applied for Chapter 11 protection under the bankruptcy laws. This has been refused by the courts. BUT, at the same time, pro-gun lobbies are springing up at the state level and many of these are more unbending in their pro-gun lobbying efforts than the NRA. As the vast majority of gun legislation is at the state level, this is not good news.

  • @Ian. While US gun control laws are their business, not ours, I wonder if anyone needs a an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle (used in the school massacre – carries up to 30 rounds) to shoot foxes or the occasional dangerous dog?

  • Jane Ann Liston 28th May '22 - 8:01pm

    Ian Sanderson it was James II in 1457 who banned golf (and football) because it took people away from practising archery. James III and then James IV also banned golf, but then the latter started to play it himself!

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • Peter Watson
    @Fiona "I don’t think it’s correct to say that a cut in VAT is regressive." In Coalition, the party defended an increase in VAT as "mildly progressive", ...
  • Joseph Gerald Bourke
    Plain digestives are zero-rated. Biscuits covered or partly covered in chocolate or some other products similar in taste and appearance to chocolate are standar...
  • Brad Barrows
    @John Roffey And to extend your thinking, if Scotland had been a separate country and the rest of the UK has been an ally of Germany, maybe Scotland would have...
  • Jeff
    John Roffey 30th Jun '22 - 6:13pm: I thought this short video from the Dalai Lama provided much needed hope on Climate Change: His prayers do ...
  • Roland
    @Fiona - "Do we really think that poorer people aren’t allowed nice things, like chocolate biscuits" A packet of McVities Chocolate Digestives costs...