Which part of a “well regulated militia” do they not get?
You know, just after the main part of the Iraq war ended, I had a very snarky comment by a military friend to the extent that when in uniform he wasn’t allowed to shoot anyone who did not present a clear and immediate threat, but when out of it he could shoot someone because he “felt threatened”.
I have a terrible mind for history (as a writer and a reader). That was a very lucid summary. Now I can say I learned many somethings today. Thanks!
If you like that, you might also like this
I’m not ignorant of the history, I simply provided a broad summary (all summaries are reductive by definition but still useful) for someone who simply assumed that our contemporary system of nation-states has always been around, which flies in the face of established scholarship on the subject. Lefebvre and Arendt are great writers on the topic. I’m thinking of The Production of Space and the first part of The Origins of Totalitarianism in particular.
It’s not weaseling to recognize that contemporary nation-states are a relatively new thing, any more than it is to say that capitalism is also new (and contemporary with nation-states) even though markets have been around for an extremely long time. People who assume that things have always been this way just don’t understand the fundamental transition that happened when constitutional/parliamentary governments were formed and those in power had to figure out who was being represented (who the national citizenry were); or when the commons were fenced in as part of the modern state’s creation and transition from agrarian to industrial-based economies; or when mandatory education became widespread. These were important events that defined the nation-state, its people, and its bureaucracies in new and revolutionary ways as feudalism was making the transition to capitalism. A lot of this can be traced back to early French attempts at forming a Republic and to Germany, but also to monarchs in places like Spain and what is now the UK. Of course there are other precedents too, like the Greek and Roman legal systems that informed what would later become Western nation-states. And although feudalism was not everywhere, it was also in Japan and China, and in any case the Western nation state, as well as its favored economic system, have been adopted all over the world. So when we’re talking about the rise of the modern-nation state out of European feudalism, then yes, that is where even other places can trace some of their political roots.
Certainly the Italian communes that became the city-states were definitely unique in a lot of ways, which had a big impact on the trajectory of urbanization and led to the Renaissance. They and other city-states prefigured and provided models for what would later become the modern nation-state. It was their uniqueness that helped the Western world get back on its feet; there are always going to be internal contradictions in any system that lead to changes and new systems–like the manufacturing system before industry, the guild system, banking and mercantilism, etc. which all led to capitalism and the crisis in feudalism that was resolved with rhe bourgeois state. (Some historians and medievalists in particular take issue with the idea of the “dark age” though because this was merely a time when empires no longer held sway in Europe, which was not necessarily a bad thing for the millions of people no longer subject to that kind of tyranny.)
Speaking of which, the fall of the Roman Empire had to have been more influential than the rise of competing powers in the Middle East. In a big way it was the vacuum after Rome’s fall that set the stage for such events.
There are debates on the details like any field but in general the concensus among historians is that nation-states are a relatively new thing. Like I said earlier in the thread, this isn’t a new idea or even an obscure academic current, it has its own well-documented Wiki page which has some pretty good info.
Thank you for this interesting post. It’s not impossible that these examples may actually support aspects of what @Comrade was sharing.
Either way, it feels worthwhile to charitably consider the merits of interesting questions.
Eh - the rules apply to everyone in both cases, just obviously gun laws are made for gun owners/want to be gun owners.
The TSA rules have lopsided enforcement. TECHNICALLY they are for everyone. TECHNICALLY it is a random search. But its is sort of a wink-wink-nudge-nudge that flying while brown will get you targeted. And then they will also pull out a 70 year old white grandma to show they aren’t being biased.
Some of the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, etc were technically for everyone too, but they unfairly targeted on group.
So do I and the NRA doesn’t represent me either.
Surprised that they haven’t proposed a synergistic merger with a funeral-services/casket corporation.
Can you two use the button to fork your “history of nations” discussion into its own thread?
I have a trebuchet.
That would be a great pitch to their collective industries!
It’s not the shooting, that causes the surge in gun sales…it’s the subsequent full-court press for gun control.
What’s the trend of crime in America? What’s the ratio of death by vehicle compared to the ratio of death by terrorism, in America?
However, if you really feel that afraid, that you are “unprotected” and living in America, it would stand to reason that you are a person of color and/or belong to the LGBT community. Otherwise, I’m curious to hear why you don’t feel “protected”.
Saying “gun laws unfairly target gun owners” is like saying “traffic laws unfairly target car owners” or “X-ray machines at airports unfairly target people who fly frequently.”
I think gun owners would due well to avoid comparing themselves to an oppressed and disenfranchised racial minority.
@comrade is correct about nation-states being historically novel. Check out Benedict Anderson’s flawed take on the concept, Imagined Communities:
The distinctions matter, because different kinds of states rule and construct their populations in different ways. In nation-states, it becomes much more about who doesn’t belong than who does belong, and as we’ve seen in modern history, that leads to very terrible and dangerous consequences.
I think it’s also important to note that all types of government are social constructs, none are natural. Keeping that in mind helps us to see that we can perhaps figure out something better than what we have.
Might be worth buying some stock so that I can propose it at a shareholder’s meeting…
That is exactly the way to do it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=the+grand+illusion+by+styx
…
So if you think your life is complete confusion
Because your neighbors got a gun
Just remember that it’s a Grand illusion
…
America spells competition, join us in our blind ambition
Get yourself a brand new assault rifle
Someday soon we’ll stop to ponder what on Earth’s this spell we’re under
…
The constitution does not protect your right to “feel” safe, happy, giddy, fluffy or anything else.
Your freedom to shake hands provably does spread germs that cause preventable deadly infections. Why are you so unwilling to give it up to make others feel safe?
Perhaps the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does. Clue: Article 3.
