Mediaboss Marketing

By Noah Shusterman By Noah Shusterman July 14 at 6:00 AM

Noah Shusterman is the author of "The French Revolution: Faith, Desire, and Politics," and is currently researching 18th-century militias. He teaches history at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Every year on July 14, France celebrates its national holiday, commemorating the storming of the Bastille in 1789. The festivities include fireworks, dances and a military procession through Paris.

Ironically, it was fear of the French army that first led Parisians to storm the Bastille. And distant though that event may be in both time and place, Americans should take note: this kind of scenario is why the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution exists. Both those storming the Bastille and those ratifying the Bill of Rights had a genuine fear of a standing army as the enemy of a true republic a fear that shows just how disconnected modern readings of the Second Amendment have become.

[Trump loves a military parade its one reason hes gone to Paris]

Gun rights advocates argue that the founders included the amendment to protect the people from a tyrannical government. To an extent, they are correct. But the founders were concerned about a specific kind of tyranny. They were worried about the same thing that the Parisians were worried about on the eve of the storming of the Bastille: that a despot would order his soldiers to attack the citizens. A citizens militia, by replacing the army, could prevent that scenario from happening.

In recent years, the idea of the Second Amendment as a justification for standing up to the government has become more popular. Todays visions of armed resistance, though, have become unhinged from the Amendments 18th-century moorings, in ways that make appeals to what the founders thought ring hollow. The story of the storming of the Bastille can help, by showing how an 18th-century Second Amendment solution was meant to work and how ideas of military service have changed since the Early Republic.

In early July 1789, Frances National Assembly was less than a month old. It represented a new beginning for a nation accustomed to absolutist rule. When the troops arrived in the region, Parisians believed that the king or someone close to him had ordered them to destroy the Assembly and put an end to Frances Revolution. This, in a nutshell, was the kind of action that the Second Amendment was meant to prevent.

Parisians were unwilling to wait andsee what would happen. On July 12, on the initiative of the citys government, Parisian men began arming and organizing themselves into a militia. In a well-constituted state, one city leader told a town meeting, every citizen is obliged to bear arms in defense of the fatherland.

By the morning of July 14, 1789, tens of thousands of Parisian men had joined the new militia. They seized guns from a Paris arsenal. Lacking gunpowder and ammunition, they attacked the Bastille prison, which had a large supply inside its walls. The storming of the Bastille had begun.

It had begun, moreover, so that the Parisian citizens, organized into a militia and under local government leadership, could fight against Frances professional army. This, in a nutshell, was the Second Amendment solution, tested two months before the Bill of Rights and with it, the Second Amendment would be written, and two years before itwould be added to the Constitution.

To be clear, there was no causal link between the storming of the Bastille and the writing of the U.S. Bill of Rights. Both, though, borrowed from the same groups of ideas. Americans were even more fearful than the French of a standing army of professional career soldiers. For the founders, such an army was incompatible with a free society, because salaried career soldiers were loyal to their leaders, not to the society they served. Kings or generals could order their soldiers to do anything, including marching on the citizens themselves. That Frances king could order his troops into the Paris region seemed to confirm such fears.

How could a society defend itself, though, without relying on professional soldiers? The 18th-century answer to standing armies was the citizens militia, in which all citizens were part-time militiamen. In any other society, freedom existed at the whim of the military leaders, but an armed, trained, and organized society depended only on itself. Hence the militias necessity to a free state.

The Second Amendment said all of this in its first 13 words A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state without spelling it out as explicitly as it might have. Virginias 1776 Bill of Rights made the links clearer: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power. The phrasing was different but the ideas were the same: for a society to be free, there could be no professional army. Citizens had to be soldiers, and soldiers citizens.

At the Bastille, French citizens were putting those ideas into action. Storming the prison began as a means to an end, a way to better prepare Parisians to face off against the army. Once the attackers took over the prison, though, the gunpowder became an afterthought. A multiday celebration began.

Still, the militia formed during the preceding days remained in place. Thomas Jefferson, in France at the time, wrote of 50, or 60,000 men in arms in Paris. The king ordered his soldiers back to the border.

The people, armed, organized and under the leadership of the local government, had stood up to Frances Royal Army, and the king had backed down. This was the kind of resistance to the government that the founders had in mind, and it was a far cry from the kinds of resistance seen or even proposed in the United States today.

Over the past two centuries, changes in public perception of the military have made the original vision of the Second Amendment unrecognizable. The nation has moved away from the mandatory militia service that the founders took from granted. As part-time militia service became unpopular among citizens, Americans came to embrace their professional army, and being a career soldier became the highest form of patriotism.

As a result, it has become harder to understand what these well regulated militias were and why they were necessary for the security of the free state. But the storming of the Bastille serves as a reminder that those who would haul out the founders to defend the modern Second Amendment would do well to remember how much American society has changed since the 1790s.

Follow this link:
Bastille Day reminds us that our Second Amendment debates are distorted - Washington Post

Interviews from the past several years provide clear insight into the Romeo, Michigan, natives position on firearms.

During an April 13, 2013, interview, then-CNN host Piers Morgan asked Kid Rock if he owned a lot of guns and he responded, Yes, tons. Morgan then asked if Kid Rock was safe with his guns, to which he responded, Yes. Morgan then appeared to search for a flaw he could exploit by asking, Why do you trust 315 million other Americans to be safe with them?

Kid Rock simply smiled and said, Cause I got one.

Morgan asked, Do you need to have one for protection? Kid Rock responded, I need to have one. When I go to Detroit, I am never in Detroit without my gun. Ever. Right by my sideloaded, ready. Morgan added, And you wouldnt hesitate to use it? to which Kid Rock replied, No, not at all.

Love for firearms check.

Firearms are for self-defense check.

Now, how about hunting?

On June 20, 2016, Kid Rock gave an interview to Petersens Hunting in which he explained that Hank Williams Jr., introduced him to hunting and the two now share ownership of some hunting grounds in Alabama. Kid Rock said, I always loved guns, but we never really hunted. [Hank]got me into it, and I finally got the itch. I got the bug. The more time I spent with Hank, well, he just doesnt do much other than hunt, collect guns, and make music. Going to visit him in Tennessee and Alabama was what hooked me. I have to give all the credit to him.

When Petersens asked Kid Rock how he responds to anti-hunting propaganda in 21st-century America, he said:

I like win-wins in life. I like things that are all positive. To me, thats hunting. You form bonds with other hunters, you eat healthier, and you become better at, well, life. I see hunting as an American tradition. Its a rite of passage to me. Theres so much family and friendship involved that its really just the backbone of this country.

It is interesting to note that Kid Rock celebrated Donald Trumps presidential victory by releasing a t-shirt emblazoned with the words, God, Guns & Trump. Now might be the time for aGod, Guns, & Senator Kid Rock t-shirt; it could be a shirt made to celebrate the fact that a Second Amendment candidate is running against gun control Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Excerpt from:
What Senator Kid Rock Might Mean for the Second Amendment - Breitbart News

We recently celebrated Independence Day, and now that the echoes of the fireworks have faded, the hot dogs eaten and the bunting put away, lets reflect on what it really means.

At the heart of it is the Second Amendment.

Its customary on national holidays to express appreciation for people in the military and veterans. They indeed deserve the recognition and gratitude of the citizenry they serve.

However, those who fought in the American Revolution were not professional soldiers, sailors or marines. They were farmers, shopkeepers and tradesmen. They were revolutionaries.

They knew there would be bloodshed and violence when they signed the Declaration of Independence because monarchs, even as urbane and sophisticated as Englands king, do not give up power easily.

The American Revolution was indeed bloody and long. After it ended, when the men who fought in it took the reins of government themselves, they continued to think like revolutionaries rather than as noblemen with some divine right to rule. To their credit, they wanted to ensure American citizens never lost the ability to take back control of the government, through violent means if necessary.

They expected another revolution, perhaps in their own lifetimes. So, they saw the need to state explicitly in the Bill of Rights that citizens have a right to bear arms in order to be able to launch armed uprisings against the government.

Hunting was such a common activity in the 18th century that it never entered the minds of people then that it would require any constitutional protections. But armed revolt was something that dictators have always harbored an interest in preventing, and so the purpose of the amendment was to ensure no king, tyrant or democratic government would stand in the way.

No careful reading of history can lead to any other conclusion on the amendment's meaning.

Understanding how the authors interpreted the Constitution is important because it is a contract of sorts. Courts evaluate contracts in light of the meaning attached to phrases by the people entering into the agreement, in this case the Founding Fathers and the citizens of the states that ratified the Bill of Rights. Meanings change over time, but the only way to change the terms of a contract is to amend it. The Constitution has a process for amending it.

If you think the need for the Second Amendment to arm future revolutionaries is no longer valid because human nature has changed or 250 years of legal precedent is an ironclad safeguard, then it should be amended through the assent of the citizens who are a party to the agreement.

However, it would be wrong to attempt to change the interpretation of the words to reflect modern thinking the way some judges suggest when they describe the Constitution as "a living document." Because if it is that easy to do for one provision, then it could be easily done for others. And all citizens have an interest in safeguarding our personal liberties.

Read more here:
Independence Day and the Second Amendment - Newnan Times-Herald

WASHINGTONThe Food and Drug Administration reauthorization bill included an amendment that would ban the regulation of hearing devices intended to be used in relation to hunting or other activities associated to Second Amendment rights.

North Carolina Republican Rep. Richard Hudson proposed the amendment countering a previous bill, proposed by Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Joseph Kennedy back in March and its Senate partner bill by Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Liz Warren.

The Democrats pieces of legislation would force hearing amplifying devices created for hunters or recreational bird watchers, for example, to be regulated by the federal government, so sound amplification products (PSAP) for recreational purposes would have to be regulatedlike present medically prescribed hearing devices.

Todays bill is critical because it will keep the innovation pipeline for cures, treatments and drugs open for patients. Additionally, it includes my language that protects hearing enhancers and devices used by hunters and bird watchers from potential bureaucratic government overreach. Its a small win for common sense, our freedoms and our Second Amendment rights, Hudson said of his amendment in a statement.

Gun Owners of America criticized the Democrats legislation on the issue, Bearing Arms reported, saying in a letter back in May, Theres a pretty good chance that these hunting devices would fall within Warrens definition of over-the-counter hearing aid. Which would mean that a new federal bureaucracy would be in charge of regulating hunting.

Follow Kerry on Twitter

See more here:
Pro-Second Amendment Measure Passes House Through FDA Funding Bill - The Daily Caller

July 11, 2017 AtlantaLike many African-Americans of his generation, Phillip Smith, a Californian in his 50s, grew up without a gun in the house. To his parents, gun ownership was not just politically unacceptable, but morally wrong a fount, if anything, of trouble and tragedy.

When he moved his own family to the South in 2002, he found a different tradition, where black families, many of them fresh from the farms, had hunting rifles for sport and, to an extent, self-defense. Mr. Smith was intrigued. As he bought his first guns and began practicing at a gun range, he had an epiphany: Perhaps the Second Amendment is the black mans ultimate sign of full citizenship.

Smiths crossover into the world of guns and ammo makes him part of a widening attempt to, as he says, normalize a black gun-carrying tradition fraught with historical pain and tragedy.

His advocacy for African-American gun rights has turned out to be a potent message. TheNational African-American Gun Associationhe founded has grown from 800 to 20,000 members since 2015. Unlike the primarily white and male National Rifle Association, NAAGA is diverse in both color and gender; 60 percent of its members are women.

The main thing and Id be lying if I said something else is that in the last 18 months the racial tone of the country has tilted in a direction that is alarming, at a minimum, says Smith, who lives in an Atlanta suburb. For African-Americans, were seeing the same old faces, the same type of conversations we saw in the 50s and 60s, and we thought they were dead and gone.

Given that white Americans have led the liberalization of gun laws in the past decade, black gun carry is becoming a test of constitutional agency, injecting what University of Arizona gun culture expert Jennifer Carlson calls the specter of legitimate violence into an already tense political climate. Incidents like the June acquittal of the Minnesota police officer who shot Philando Castile, a legal gun owner, during a traffic stop have added to that tension, gun owners like Smith say as did the National Rifle Associations silence over both his shooting and the verdict.

For some black gun owners, the question is a stark one: Can African-Americans reasonably expect to be covered by the Second Amendment in a country still marbled by racist rhetoric, attitudes, and acts?

In one way, it is saddening and troubling how much hopelessness there must be to make such a massive shift to decide guns might be a necessary answer to a documented rise in overt racism, says Nancy Beck Young, a political historian at the University of Houston.

The shooting of Mr. Castile and the election of President Trump changed things for Dickson Q Amoah, a former Air Force reservist from the outskirts of Chicago.

Like Smith, Mr. Amoah says his parents were vehemently anti-gun.To this day, he says, Honestly I still think that getting rid of all these excess guns in Chicago and the country would be a good thing.

Then he saw the white nationalist salute of Hail Trump near the White House in January. His first thought was: Oh, hell no.

For him, carrying a gun has become a test of a stereotype, as Professor Young says,built on the myth of what the black man was after and what he might do.

I used to worry about what people thought of me as a black man, says Amoah, the president of the 761st Gun Club of Illinois. As a gun-carrier, he says, Now, I just dont care anymore.

The extent of the risk legally armed black men take to carry guns is hard to measure. The Washington Post has found that unarmed black men are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than unarmed white men. But there are no hard studies on that have looked at how officers react to armed black men versus armed white ones. Moreover, privacy laws prohibit deep-dive studies of gun registration data to look for patterns by race.

But Ms. Carlson, author of Citizen-Protectors: The Everyday Politics of Guns in an Age of Decline, found a proxy in administrative gun boards that exist in several states to adjudicate gun license issues. She found, in two adjacent Michigan counties,that black concealed-carry applicants are routinely lectured and quizzed in public forums what she calls degradation ceremonies. White gun owners, meanwhile, are addressed without lectures in hearings where they can plead their case in a semi-private room.

Her findings suggest such proceedings for concealed-carry licenses now serve as mechanisms ... to encourage black men to internalize their position at the bottom of the racial ... hierarchy.

That evidence, she says, underscores how some policing strategies, like stop-and-frisk, only work if you can presume that the guns that are being carried are illegal, says Carlson. In that way, gun laws change the ordering of how people think about danger in a way that is way beyond whether there is a gun there or not.

Only about half as many African-American households have guns as white ones 19 percent, compared with 41 percent.And attitudes toward guns remain starkly divided along racial lines. Sixty percent of black voters favor more gun control, while 61 percent of white voters seek more gun rights.

That reflects a deep resistance to guns in African-American communities that goes back to the civil rights era, when blacks, often victims of gun crimes, began to see gun ownership as counterproductive and dangerous. But that doesn't tell the whole story, gun-carry proponents say.

You dig and you realize the civil rights movement wasnt just a nonviolent movement, counters Amoah. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a gun carrier. And you look at Malcolm X differently. He was a self-defense guy.

Smith in Atlanta says he has had heated debates with preachers over his gun carry advocacy. To some, it seems a reprise of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense movement, which led to a wave of gun control laws in the US. After 30 of its members marched, armed and defiant, into the California state capitol in 1967, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan, who ran for president as a staunch Second Amendment defender, signed a law prohibiting open carry in the state.

Scholars say that Second Amendment rights for African-Americans cannot be fought for separately from other rights.

No. 1, Philando Castile was seeking to show an officer his permit when he was killed, so having a gun is not an escape from being killed, says historian Gerald Horne, author of The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America.But while that case suggests that African-Americans SecondAmendment rights are not worth as much as those of others, it also brings us to the devalued citizenship of black Americans in 2017. In order to re-value that citizenship it will take a political movement that goes beyond SecondAmendment rights and focuses on the whole panoply of rights generally.

The coast-to-coast growth of NAAGA chapters from a handful to 32 in less than two years seems to mirror a shift, partly a generational one, in that thinking. The number of blacks who prioritize gun rights over gun control rose from 18 percent in 1993 to 34 percent in 2014, according to the Pew Research Center.

Black-owned gun shops say they have seen business increase in the last six months, even as gun sales overall have softened, leading to price cuts of more than 50 percent.

At 280 pounds, Louis Dennard says he can be an intimidating presence until people get to know him as the kind-hearted gardener and pitmaster that he is.

His worry is that racist stereotypes get enshrined into law, under a president who openly questioned former President Barack Obamas citizenship and, in Mr. Dennard's view, is basing his legacy on dismantling the work of the countrys first black president. Right now, they are in the process of prejudicing the system, he says.

Though the growth of his gun club is tied to national politics, Smith is careful to not focus his advocacy on the president or the NRA. He says his toughest critics, so far, have been others in the African-American community, who dont see a strong correlation between the Second Amendment and a sense of full citizenship.

Im trying to let everyone know that you have the right not the God-given right, but the right as an American to carry a gun, says Smith. We have things to overcome in the black community in terms of what you believe you have a right to do as a citizen.

My job is to convince people that it is not radical to have a gun ... to protect your family.

See the original post:
Black gun owners ask: Does the Second Amendment apply to us? - Christian Science Monitor