Sunday, January 16, 2011

An Open Letter to 2nd Amendment Absolutists

I don’t know much about gun control as a public policy issue, so I will avoid stepping into that bucket. But it drives me crazy, especially in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings, to hear gun-advocates portray the Founders of the Republic as fans of unrestricted gun ownership. Such statements are not well grounded in historical fact.  
When charged with governing, the Founders showed showed no sanctity to gun ownership . From its first days as a proto-national government, the 2nd Continental Congress advised States to disarm individuals suspected (but not convicted) of disloyalty and to impress the arms of those living in areas where arms might fall into British hands. George Washington’s first action of 1776 was a campaign to confiscate the private arms of the citizens in Queens Co., New York. Different local militias in New Jersey confiscated arms from African-Americans and inhabitants of the vulnerable shoreline.  These were not actions taken against a handful of traitors, but against large groups of people. The public's need to wage a war repeatedly trumped an individual's private property right to own a gun.
A decade later, as the Federalists attempted to make the Constitution more attractive to a skeptical public, they added a Bill of Rights (ten amendments to the Constitution) to lessen fears that the Constitution would become "an engine of tyranny". The Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment so that "a well regulated militia" (the key phrase in the 2nd Amendment), properly armed and governed by officers, would exist to resist potential federal encroachment. The 2nd Amendment spoke to the Colonial experience of British soldiers forcing tax collection on localities that had no voice in the creation of the tax.
The Federalist Papers, written by the Founders to explain the benefits of the Constitution, discuss basic rights of American citizens: fair treatment before the law, the right to vote, freedom of religion and the press, etc. To the degree firearms are addressed, the Federalists speak to the right of Americans to organize into militias to resist federal encroachment. Federalist #29 declares “it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia” and Federalist #46 discusses the strength of a militia "with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties." However, The Federalist Papers—85 essays and 200,000 words long—never speak to an individual’s right to own firearms.
Based on actions taken during their presidencies, Washington and Adams had no qualms with seizing private property for a perceived public good. Washington's confiscations of arms and property from the "Whiskey rebels" of Pennsylvania and Adams's impressments under the Alien and Sedition Acts demonstrate this. Even Jefferson, who counseled “the government is best that governs least,” opted to limit the 1st Amendment when he championed "salutary coercion" of a press he believed overly partisan and irresponsible.
Though deeply suspicious of Federal over-reach, the Founders were not libertarians in any modern sense of the term, certainly not when governing. They supported a well regulated militia, but were ambivalent to private gun ownership when gun ownership ran up against a reasonable "public good" argument. Individual families often owned a rifle or two (the muzzle-loaded rifles of the day fired only one bullet and took two minutes to re-load) but it was the responsibility of local government to keep the really dangerous stuff—casks of gun powder, artillery, etc.—under guard in public magazines.
Even the most powerful men of the day did not keep private stores of dangerous weapons (with the exception of privateers battling foreign enemies at sea). Washington’s estate at Mt. Vernon, for example, had nothing more dangerous than a small number hunting rifles. People like John Hancock and Robert Morris purchased huge quantities of war materials, and then immediately turned them over to state and local governments.
When it comes to gun control, argue whatever position you want, but it is inconsistent with the historical record to believe that the Founders supported the private ownership of firearms capable of killing dozens of people.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

An Open Letter to "War on Christmas" Conspiracy Theorists

http://www.michaeladelberg.com/

The week after Thanksgiving, a few things reliably happen. Christmas music fills the radio; Christmas specials fill the TV; Christmas ads fill the newspaper; Christmas decorations light-up the neighborhood. And in recent years, amidst all the red and green, a few voices reliably complain that there is a “War on Christmas”.
Best I can tell, “War on Christmas” complaints are spawned from a handful of local controversies in which a school board bans the singing of Christmas songs in the elementary school, or a city council resolves to remove a manger from city hall’s front lawn. Then news-ish talk shows on cable TV (most famously Bill O’Reilly, but others too) point to these oddball controversies as proof that there is a “War on Christmas.” The charge is leveled loudly and often enough to achieve parity with fact. So now we have a War on Christmas.
Non-Christians, including yours truly, are mostly ambivalent to the small-town controversies about the Christmas carol and the manger. We don’t cheer when the manger is pulled down, and we don’t care whether or not our kids sing Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer in school. These things are small potatoes, and we understand that the majority culture is entitled to set the cultural agenda. We even patronize favorite pieces of Christmas culture: we stroll through Christmas light shows and happily watch the Grinch Who Stole Christmas, again and again.
The U.S. is now and has always been a Christian nation. All non-Christian religions put together claim less than 10% of Americans; another 10% or so are atheist or ‘no preference’. That means that over 80% of Americans are Christian. Even nominal Christians who rarely attend church still love Christmas. The huge majority of non-Christian Americans—whether Muslim, Jew, atheist, or whatever else—understand this. We don’t make waves.
With this in mind, let’s return to the “War on Christmas”. War, by its very definition, implies organized hostility by one group against another. I challenge anyone to find an organized movement to subvert the annual Christmas tsunami. Even the ACLU, the boogeyman of many a “War on Christmas” yarn, has defended the right of Christians to celebrate Christmas a half dozen times since 1999.[i]
If there has been a War on Christmas, it is the lamest offensive in the history of warfare. But don’t trust the word of this secular humanist, do the research yourself. Examine the TV Guide for the month of December and count the number of Christmas-related programs. On broadcast TV alone you will find dozens, and you will find dozens more if you include cable TV. Then examine the number of real cases in which Christmas symbols, carols, books, etc., were defiled or removed from a public setting. You will find only a handful of local provocations, half of which were reversed in short order because of local outcry.
This is no War on Christmas. There are only conspiracy-theorists with megaphones. 


[i] For example:  The ACLU of Rhode Island (2003) interceded on behalf of an interdenominational group of carolers who were told they could not sing Christmas carols on Christmas Eve to inmates at the women's prison in Cranston, Rhode Island. The ACLU of Virginia (1999) represented Rita Warren and her right to erect a crèche on Fairfax County government space that had been set aside as a public forum. The ACLU argued that restricting the use of the public forum to county residents only was an unreasonable restriction. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. The ACLU of Massachusetts (1996) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on behalf of two women who were fired for refusing, on religious grounds, to work at a racetrack on Christmas Day. The ACLU of Massachusetts (2003) intervened on behalf of a group of students at Westfield High School who were suspended for distributing candy canes and a religious message in school. The ACLU succeeded in having the suspensions revoked and filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a lawsuit brought on behalf of the students against the school district. The ACLU of Massachusetts (2002) filed a brief supporting the right of the Church of the Good News to run ads criticizing the secularization of Christmas and promoting Christianity as the "one true religion." The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority had refused to allow the paid advertisements to be posted and refused to sell additional advertising space to the church.