You've heard the census naysayers, the Michelle Bachmanns, the Glenn Becks, the Tea Party movement activists who are calling for a "partial boycott" that urges people to only report the number of persons in their households. Some are calling for an outright boycott. The commonly cited reasons coalesce around charges that the modern federal count is an unnecessary, unwarranted, and dangerous invasion of privacy that strays from our nation's founding practices. Libertarian Party Chairman William Redpath, for example, charges that the census is an attempt by the government to exercise "control over the lives and money of the American people."
But these anti-government types who wax nostalgic for America as it existed in its early decades can't even get their history right. After all, the nation's first census in 1790 asked ten questions, like this year's census, and the list of general census questions grew throughout the 19th century. By 1930, the census canvas asked more than thirty questions, and this was two years before the country elected that closet-socialist Franklin Roosevelt.
Imagine the outcry if the government did today what it did early in the country's history: conduct a census of arms among the general population. In the days when national defense needs rested heavily with citizen militias, it was important for the government to know who owned how many guns, and in what condition. While procedures varied around the country, the counting generally occurred by militia officers or constables going door-to-door in their local districts, inquiring not only about the number of firearms, but their conditions (firearms were mostly made of iron at the time, so they often broke down or rusted, rendering them inoperable; generally, even broken weapons were counted in the totals).
The nation's first Secretary of War, Henry Knox, ordered several nationwide counts of guns during George Washington's presidency. During Thomas Jefferson's administration, a more ambitious and careful national count was launched by War Secretary Henry Dearborn in 1803, covering arms held both publicly and privately. The result showed that about 45 percent of militia-eligible men (roughly between the ages of 18-45) had arms, or about 24 percent of adult white males. President James Madison's Secretary of War, William Eustis, reported similar numbers in 1810. Censuses of firearms continued to be conducted sporadically up until the Civil War.
It's no small irony that a government census of population now arouses such ire, when counting not only people but guns was entirely unexceptional early in our nation's history, and that the only militias that make news today are the government-hating pseudo private "militias," some of whom were arrested last week by the FBI for plotting to kill police and instigate rebellion against the government.
Spitzer's recent books include The Politics of Gun Control (4th ed. 2008), Saving the Constitution from Lawyers (2008), and Gun Control: A Documentary and Reference Guide (2009)
I wish you people would stop relying upon Michael Bellesiles. Your statement is totally misleading. What you are referring to is what was termed a "'Return of the Militia" which attempted to count firearms employed in the militia, both owned by the government and by militiamen. The count itself was rather incomplete, as it asked the state governors to report on 'the military strength of each State, the actual situation of the arms, accoutrements, and ammunition of the several corps". Some governors did not respond, and others gave only partial returns. It was generally accomplished by counting the number of muskets these militia men brought with them on official days of muster. It did not attempt to go door to door and ask every american how many guns they had, what type of guns they had or anything like that..
It would be comparable to counting the number of privately owned firearms used by police officers while on duty as a police officer.... Then trying to claim that this is a complete survey of all firearms owned by everyone in the USA.
It was not, and it was never intended as such.
It is exactly those types of lists of firearms that were used for the banning of (defacto or dejure) of firearms in numerous states and locals (including Chicago and DC) as well as confiscations in CA.
Gun control groups as well as cabinet members are advocating using 'lists' to eliminate Due Process.
Sorry to spoil your propaganda fest, but there are some of us out there who do know the facts on this issue.
Even if this was just ment to be a "history lesson", he still should have pointed out that such a registry would not be legal today.
Thus outrage over a gun registry would be justfied, as it would require the government to violate a law that has been in place for nearly a quarter of a century
White male. Drinks too much. Fell off medication. Owns a gun. Has ammo socked away.
What's your answer?
Thermite, for those who do not know, is very simple to make. Simply grind aluminum (pop cans) and rust (any rusted iron will work), and mix together, perfectly safe until you put some ignited magnesium into it, then it burns so hot that a thimble of the stuff placed on top of an M1Abrams will melt through the entire tank and blister the ground beneath it...
Remember that advice not to mix bleach and ammonia? That is cause you don't want to create an oderless, colourless poison gas...
Anyone who thinks they need guns to defend themselves doesn't understand chemistry or research...
I pity the poor census taker who has to knock on doors for that one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
After all the SC said in 1939 (Miller) that the "militia comprises all able bodied men" and that "when called to service" we are "expected to appear bearing arms of the kind in common use at the time" (ie a rifle similer to what is being carried by regular soldiers at the time).
I actually can't quite meet my obligations though as I am prohibited from obtaining a full-auto M16 (techinically I can but since the law has prevented new FA weapons from being sold to private citizens since 1986 the price of the "grandfathered" full-auto weapons is now beyond the reach of the average citizen, plus there is the $200 ATF fee, fingerprints, local police approval etc necessary to own a full-auto weapon since the 1934 National Firearms Act).
So, my semi-automatic copy of a military rifle is all that I can report with.
If the gov't wants to give me back my Second Amendment rights I'll be happy to report to them every year if necessary that I still own the M16 they want me to have so that I can participate in the militia.
As to telling them what other guns I may own.
Forget it. Ain't gonna happen.
When you're drafted, show up with a .32 cal flint-fired squirrel piece. The gov't will gladly replace it with a full-auto AR style rifle. That should make you happy, eh?
But yes, in early militia laws, the people were REQUIRED to own a suitable firearm, and if he could not afford it the law stipulated that the gov't would provide him with one.
Since I am by law (look it up) a part of the militia (the National Guard is the "organized" militia") I think it is only right that I be provided with the means to fullfill my service.
The argentinean troops had the automatic version of the same rifle design (FN-FAL) although the brittish manufactured their version of the same design. Things you learn watching the military channel.
The elelction on 2000 sealed the patriot act, but a lot of people knew the wars were wrong and so was that act. That is why we have electons--but to say that government is the problem and mean all government is just ridiculis.
FOLKS -- IT'S NOT A CURRENT PRACTICE --IT'S NOT HAPPENING -- THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE 1800
Obviously, norms change. But it is interesting that even in the Wild West no one was a Second Amendment absolutist on gun control.
I was just wondering if you recall that.
See also the North Deerfield raid whereing the townspeople shot up a gang attempting to rob the bank.
The myth that the wild west restricted gun ownership is a MYTH.
The same logic applied by thinking Americans when GW Bush pushed for privatizing Social Security.
The way things are now, there'd be no such need, and far too much potential for violation of the 2A.
If we outlawed opportunistic wars and disbanded the large-scale force projection militaries that do not serve the needs of narrowly-defined defense of the nation then maybe such a thing would serve everyone's best interests (as opposed to a uniformed mercenary force supporting the corporate interests that keep the capitalist oligarchy in power -Search for the writings of General Smedley Butler)
If "militias" were formed in place of uniformed government troops (police, Spec-Ops police squads, other violations of Posse Comitatus, etc), then armed militias and equipment census would be OK.
Today, with the political winds varying and some seated government officials who'd be all too ready to launch confiscation efforts, it obviously shouldn't happen.
Do you think criminals are going to comply?
This is another nonsensical 'feel good' idea that will acomplish absolutely nothing.