Wednesday, March 30, 2022

Shooting Reagan and Terrifying Slaves


On this day in 1981, John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan a block from my parent's house in Washington, D.C.

John Hinckley was a mentally ill young man who acquired a gun to shoot Reagan in a misplaced and deeply confused plan to impress a Hollywood actress. Reagan was surrounded by well-armed and well-trained Secret Service agents.

The shooting of Ronald Reagan, and the concurrent shooting and serious wounding of White House press secretary James Brady, Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy, and D.C. police officer Thomas Delahanty, led to a new and sustained debate on the Second Amendment.

Lost in discussion at the time was the fact that the Second Amendment was written by our slaver- and slaver-adjacent founding fathers to ensure that local and state militias would always be well-armed in order to put down slave revolts.

People forget that our Founders wrote the Constitution in a serious and deep debate about the future of slavery.  In the end, Jefferson (a slave owner) began the process of ending slavery by pushing for a federal ban on the importation of slaves after 1807.

But Jefferson's federal push to end slavery was exactly the problem as far as Virginia and other slaver states were concerned.  

What if the federal government could not be counted on to come to the aid of white plantation owners in case of a slave rebellion?  

Enter local and state militias and the right to bear arms.  

What were these local and state militias about?  To put it simply, the mandate of these local and state militias was to put down slave revolts -- the looming fear of every Virginia, North Carolina, Mississippi and Georgia planter.

So when did the United States embrace an expanded interpretation of the Second Amendment that included an individual right to own guns?

It was certainly not there in the beginning.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is NOT granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did NOT protect weapon types NOT having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".


To this day, the NRA's basic position is that gun ownership is a white right.  The subtext of America's gun culture is that gun ownership is necessary in case "they" rise up and chaos ensues. No one has to say who "they" are. The fear of BLM is not a fear of Baptists!

Nothing terrifies NRA members as much as black men and women standing in support of civil rights. “Where are the police," they ask? Where is the armed militia to put down this slave insurrection? And my God, are those people selling drugs?"

As I noted back in 2013:

The quickest way to gun control is if black folks and Hispanics "Open Carry" handguns to their State Capitols and loiter near the parking lots where state and federal legislators and their staffs park their cars.

A really smart gun control group would organize this to make this happen.


But, of course, that has never happened
, because police shoot and beat unarmed protestors with impunity.  Black protestors with guns?  They would drop bombs on them, and no I am not kidding.

It's important to acknowledge that guns are inherently dangerous, but also to acknowledge that so too are swimming pools, hammers, chainsaws, cars, and gasoline. We ban none of those things, but we regulate quite a number of them.

Can we regulate gun ownership to require background checks, mandatory insurance, licensing, and training?

Of course.

Can we ban certain kinds of guns, bullets, and munitions?

Of course.

But are guns here to stay?

Of course.

No comments: