From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: An Historical Perspective on the U.S. RKBA
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:12:18 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Viewing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Perspective

Introduction

One hears today many people claiming that the Second Amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution means one thing or another.  Upon close examination, it 
usually develops that the interpretation a person puts on this amendment is 
directly related to their own personal goals, desires and opinions.  For 
example, one hears today in some circles that this amendment refers to a 
collective right, not an individual right.  That various so called gun 
control laws do or do not contravene either the wording or the intent (or 
both) of this amendment.  As with any contentious issue, what one hears 
depends on who is doing the talking and what their opinions are.

The purpose of this essay is to examine the Second Amendment in a 
historical context as objectively as possible to see if the reasons for its 
existence can be understood.  Once that is done, this essay will go on to 
address the question of relevancy in the context of the present and the future.

For the record, the author is fully in favour of the Second Amendment and 
is not without bias.

Arms in the Ancient Greece

Though one hears little enough of it in the current educational system in 
North America, there was life prior to 1776.  In fact, recorded history 
goes back quite far.  If one were to read English translations of a great 
deal of human history, one would discover that the ancient Greeks, for 
example, were not so very different from us.  There were substantial 
technological differences to be sure, but they asked many of the same 
questions that we are still asking today.  They were every bit as curious 
and inquisitive as we are today.  The ancient Greeks in particular explored 
many differnt forms of government, from tyranny to democracy.

In many places, Athens among them, the army was comprised of citizens.  
These citizens were responsible for furnishing, from their own pockets, 
their arms and armor.  If they were well off, they tended to be in the 
cavalry.  In any case, they were completely responsible for their own 
equipment, including their horse (if appropriate).

Armor in those days was highly developed.  One did not see the tin cans 
associated with Knights of the middle ages.  Rather, soldiers wore 
breastplates, greeves (long thin metal bands to protect the arms and shins) 
and a helmet.  They carried a shield, a sword, and usually one or more 
javelins.  Even plain armor was expensive and some armor was decorated 
lavishly with gold and silver.

The political history of Athens is full of upheaval.  For this discussion 
though, one event stands out like a beacon above all others.  Around 400 BC, 
Athens agreed to surrender to Sparta (another Greek city state).  The two 
cities had been at war for over 25 years at this point and despite this, 
Sparta refused to destroy the city and enslave its citizens.  This was 
standard treatment in those times.  Prisoners were either kept to be sold 
into slavery or they were killed.  It was not uncommon for a city to be 
burned to the ground and every man, woman and child either slain or 
enslaved.

Athens, after a long siege, agreed to a truce on Sparta's terms.  Sparta in 
its turn insisted that the democratic government of Athens be replaced with 
an oligarcy of thirty men.  In the name of peace and public order the 
thirty began their rule.  They were often accompanied by armed Spartan 
soldiers.  To help them govern, a council of 3000 was elected.  Shortly 
after this election, all arms and armor belonging to Athenian citizens who 
were not members of the 3000 or the thirty were confiscated.

After this act, Athens was subjected to one of the bloodiest and most 
tyranical governments she had ever experienced.  People were brought before 
the assembly of 3000, charged, and executed shortly thereafter.  When the 
thirty required the complete, unhesitating co-operation of the 3000 (many of 
whom became quite disgusted at the turn of events) they packed the meeting 
place with armed Spartan soldiers.  Eventually, one Theomenes (a member of the 
3000) got so disgusted, that he began to openly oppose the thirty.  Only 
members of the 3000 were entitled to trial, all others could be summarily 
executed.  Rather than try Theomenes, the thirty crossed his name off the list 
and executed him forthwith.  So much for justice.

Arms and Armor in the Roman Republic

While most people are at least dimly aware of the Roman Empire, many people 
today are unaware of the fact that Rome was once a Republic.  Indeed, the 
Roman Republic, depending on how you number her years, was about 500 at the 
time of her demise.

Weaponry at this time had changed only slightly, as there is a time span of 
about 100-200 years between the events related above and the Roman Republic 
as described here.  The principle change was in the sword.  The Romans used 
a sword considerably shorter than that used traditionally at the time.  
This combined with their ability to move and fight in an organized and 
disiplined formation gave the Roman military a huge advantage over most of 
the rest of the world at that time.

The Roman army mentioned here was comprised of the land holding Roman 
citizens.  The less wealthy typically were in the infantry, while those who 
could afford horses comprised the cavalry.  Once again, each member of the 
'legions' as they were called was responsible for providing their own arms 
and equipment.  When called upon, these men came with their gear and 
fought, either in defense of Rome or in Rome's conquests.

The Roman system, while basically republican in nature, had many faults.  
Among them the fact that military command tended to go to those who were 
most aristocratically qualified to hold it, not those who were most 
militarily talented.  There were exceptions, but these exceptions were so few 
and far between that around 150 BC Rome stood in grave danger of being 
anihiliated. The German tribes were swarming down out of the north and while 
their exact number is not known, it is thought to be in the millions.  At the 
same time, due to incompetent generalship, Rome had very few small land holders 
left.  Those that did exist were already serving in legions engaged in 
putting down rebelions in one place or another.  In short, Rome's human 
resources were exhausted.

At this time, most battles consisted of both sides meeting and fighting 
until one side or the other paniced and fled.  During the actual fighting, 
casualties were fairly light.  When the other side broke and ran, it was 
pursued, hunted down, and its members were either killed or captured.  That 
is one reason why casualties seem to be so disproportionate at times.

A man named Gaius Marius, an extrodinary soldier by all accounts, was 
elected consul around this time.  The office of consul was the highest in 
the republic and with it went command of the armed forces and the authority 
to raise an army.  Seeing that Rome's traditional source of manpower was no 
longer available and being a non-traditionalist in the truest sense of the 
word, he did what had to be done.  He raised an army from members of the 
Roman proletariet.  That is, the Roman citizens who did not posses land and 
who could not afford to provide their own arms and armor.  He then equiped 
that army out of the Roman treasury (a truely novel thing at the time), 
trained it, and defeated the Germans so soundly that they ceased to be a 
threat for a very long time indeed.  By all accounts, the German tribe that 
faced Gaius Marius, the Cimbric tribe, was wiped out almost down to last 
woman and child.  There were three tribes in total, one of which retreated 
prior to engaging the Romans after its leaders heard the results of the 
other two battles.

These citizen soldiers in both Greece and Rome were very effective when 
properly lead.  Now let us examine what happened after the battle between 
Rome and the Germans.

Gaius Marius' action of equiping the proletariat created a precedent.  
Rome's need was great and this was done more and more as time went on.  
This quickly led to a situation where the army was more loyal to its 
general than it was to Rome.  Sulla was the first to use this loyalty to 
march on and occupy Rome herself, but he was by no means the last.  The 
loyalty of the troops towards their general was increased by the knowledge 
that when their tour of duty was up, they would be rewarded with small plot 
of land that would be their own.

By the time of Christ, the Roman Republic had become the Roman Empire.  The 
Emperor was whoever could get and keep control of the armed forces.  Rome 
never did get back to the principle of the citizen soldier.  Mercenaries 
(paid troops) were easier to control.  Rome spent untold amounts of time, 
energy and money fighting civil wars.  Roman history became the history of 
civil war punctuated by short bouts of peace.  The Roman Empire eventually 
was divided into two parts, an eastern and western half.  The western half 
fell around 475 AD, the eastern half continued and is sometimes referred to 
as the Byzantine Empire.  It lasted until about 1275 when it was conqured 
by the Ottoman Turks.

The collapse of the Roman Empire in the west came at a time when most men, 
not being mercenaries in the army, did not carry or know the use of 
weapons.  Europe descended into what is sometimes called the Dark Ages, a 
very dark time indeed compared to the civilization that preceeded it.

The Education of the Founding Fathers

It has been said that education today is not what it used to be.  Somehow, 
in educating many more people than were educated in days past, we seem to have 
lowered the quality of that education.  The Founding Fathers were by and 
large a very well educated group of men.  They could and did read Greek and 
Roman history in Latin, and sometimes in the original Greek.  They were 
well aware of the historical events I've outlined above, and I'm sure, much 
much more.  They were aware of and admired the structure of Roman 
Republican armies and their comments with regard to the dangers of standing 
armies stem in part from the transition of the Roman Republic to Empire.


The Second Amendment in Context

It was within this framework that the Second Amendment was created.  
Defense was to be carried out primarily by the militia, which would consist of 
all citizen.  Citizens would be responsible for providing their own arms 
and equipment (as in the Roman Republic) and in times of peace, the militia 
would disband and people would return to their homes.  If the government 
became tyranical, the people would be armed, would organize and would put 
the government down.

The Dynamics of Civil War

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the dynamics of a civil war.  For a 
modern day example, consider China and the uprising in Tianemann Square.  
If you remember the news reports, the Chineese Government brought an army 
in from the provinces to deal with the uprising.  This army was known for 
its loyalty TO THE GOVERNMENT.  Even though there was an army stationed in 
Peking at the time, the government did not use this army heavily because 
they were afraid it would turn on them.  In short, they were afraid the 
army would be more loyal to the Chineese citizens than the government.  The 
American Revolution was a guerilla war.  The Founding Fathers were 
consequently well aware of the power of an armed populace.

The Second Amendment Today

It has been said in this forum and others that a population armed with hunting
rifles, modern pistols and other weapons and armament that are currently 
avaiable to the American public would be unable to resist a modern army.  
It should be self evident that such a collection of citizens would be 
unable to defeat such an army in a pitched battle.  George Washington did 
not win the Revolutionary War in a pitched battle.  He won it by out 
lasting the British.  By tiring them out with gurellia warfare.  He made 
them want to go home.  So we must conceed that an armed civilian population 
would be quite able to harrass a foreign invader sufficiently to achieve an 
ultimate victory.

What about a domestic army?  What would be the chances for success in a 
civil war.  Consider, that not counting the police we have three groups, 
the regular armed forces, the National Guard, and the population at large.  
In any civil war, by definition, it is unlikely that all members of either 
the National Guard or the armed forces would be on the side of the 
government.  Armed citizens could very easily end up in a decisive 
position.  Their support could mean success or failure for either side.

Conclusion

The Second Amendment, when it was drafted, was drafted with the intention 
of maintaining the other rights.  This amendment was designed to ensure 
that the people would have the means to attempt to overthrow a tyranical 
government and to repulse a foreign invader.  In the context in which it 
was conceived, it made a great deal of sense.  It still makes sense today, 
every bit as much as it did then.  The Founding Fathers clearly understood 
the lesson of history, that political power, if it is to be effective, must 
be backed up by force.  For this reason, they gave the population at large 
the means to assert itself in extreeme situations.

To preserve this power and freedom, it is vital that the average law 
abiding citizen be able to acquire and be familiar with the usuage of state 
of the art weaponry.  Under a broad interpretation of the word 'arms' one 
could argue that there is no reason to restrict the ownership of machine 
guns, handgrenades, morters and perhaps even howitzers.  Anything that 
could concievably be used by a militia in defense of life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness should be available.

When viewed in this perspective, it should also be obvious that virtually 
every gun control law on the books violates the Second Amendment.
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns