Family Research Center Shooting

[BridgeTroll]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland

[BridgeTroll]

I would love to see something supporting this...

For example it was illegal for most of the people to own guns.

[BridgeTroll]

what do you think the numbers were like when you only count white, protestant, male patriots who had managed not to be accused of heresy.

Take away the women, the native americans, the africans, the catholics, the 'heretics', the non citizens and the british loyalists, do you think you have a majority of the people in the thirteen trade based colonies?

After all, white people were so inept at working the actual land that they nearly all died of starvation without slave labor.  Virginians were reduced to digging up their own graves and devouring the dead in the first twelve years.

Here is a great link to understand how widespread slavery was.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncolorline.html

While your link is certainly interesting... it seems to concentrate on mainly the 1600's and years prior to the republic.  Contrary to your revisionist theory... arms including firearms were prevelent (ask the british)... even among the groups of people you listed as being forbidden to bear arms... including women. 

I see where you are trying very hard to go... but it simply isnt/wasnt so...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2818440/posts

To summarize the information from Chapter 3 of my forthcoming textbook Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights, and Policy (Aspen Publishers, available in late Jan. 2012) regarding American law pre-1800:

Women: No restrictions. Of course they did not serve in the militia. Laws requiring “householders” (whether or not they were in the militia) to have arms were common, and these usually included a woman who was the head of the house (e.g., a widow).

Free blacks: Some states had no restrictions, some states had bans on their owning guns. Free blacks served in some state militia, not in some other states, and in some states policies changed depending on military necessity. They were excluded from the federal militia by the Second Militia Act of 1792.

Slaves: Several states banned gun ownership, or allowed ownership only with the master’s permission.

Poor whites: To claim that they were excluded from gun ownership or from militia service is absurd. There were absolutely no property or wealth restrictions on gun ownership, nor on service in the militia. To the contrary, many states had programs to supply poor people with guns (“public arms”) for militia service, if they could not afford their own. Further, the laws requiring householders to be armed often required that the household provide arms to adult male servants. State laws also required that when an indentured servant finished his or her term of service, the master must provide the former servant with “freedom dues” so that the servant could begin independent life. The freedom dues were specified set of goods; in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, freedom dues for male servants included a firearm. In short, the state laws of the 17th and 18th centuries in America were generally prescriptive about gun ownership by poor people, and the prescriptions were to put guns into the hands of the poor.

The author of the NYU article asserts that “arms bearing was considered congruent to voting, holding public office, or serving on juries.” That’s incorrect for “bearing” in the sense of carrying a gun for personal use, since there were no wealth, sex, age, or citizenship restrictions on carrying. And the claim is even more incorrect if “bearing” is meant in the restrictive sense of “bearing for militia service.” Militia laws always mandated service by all males (except, sometimes Blacks or Indians) in a certain age range. Period. The only exemptions were for specified professions (e.g., clergy). Militia duty was generally required starting at age 16 or 18 (which was before voting eligibility). Indeed, during the end of the 18th century and the early 19th century, one of the standard,successful, arguments for broadening the franchise by eliminating the property requirement for voting was that anyone who served in the militia deserved to vote. E.g., “Let every man who fights or pays, exercise his just and equal right in their election.” Thomas Jefferson letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816.

Catholics: In Maryland, temporarily barred from gun ownership during the French & Indian War.

Dissenters: During the Revolution, there were plenty of instances of confiscating guns (sometimes with compensation) for militia use from people who would not take a loyalty oath to the new nation, or who would not serve in the militia (this included plenty of religious pacifists in Pennsylvania). During the early theocratic days in Massachusetts, 75 supporters of the religious dissident Anne Hutchinson were disarmed.

The author’s thesis is that illegal aliens and legal non-resident aliens should be allowed to own guns. Part of his argument is to construct and then criticize the supposedly historical “gendered,and class-stratified understanding of persons permitted to own guns.” The author could have made a stronger historical argument for his position if he had accurately described the gun laws of 17th and 18th century America.

http://www.rkba.org/research/cramer/GunScarcity.pdf

In my examination of the contemporary documents for mention of firearms,
indications of firearms rarity are non-existent (though particular types of
firearms might be rare). Indeed, of more than two dozen published travel
accounts and memoirs of the early Republic which I read during my research
into antebellum concealed weapon statutes, twenty-four mentioned firearms
and sport or subsistence hunting as unsurprising; in very few accounts was
there no mention of firearms and hunting. None of these sources claimed or
even implied that privately owned firearms, subsistence hunting, or sport
hunting were rare, unusual, or stigmatized. Marksmanship, according to
many of the accounts, was highly prized, and high competence with firearms
was widespread. Furthermore, these accounts make it appear that this was
true for all regions of the United States.

and...

Henry Rowe Schoolcraft’s 1818 journey through the Ozarks also provides
evidence that, contrary to Bellesîles’s claims, firearms ownership, sport
hunting, and subsistence hunting, were all common. His description of the
frontier settlement of Sugar-Loaf Prairie shows that guns and hunting were
the norm:
These people subsist partly by agriculture, and partly by hunting.… Hunting is the
principal, the most honourable, and the most profitable employment. To excel in the
chace [sic] procures fame, and a man’s reputation is measured by his skill as a
marksman, his agility and strength, his boldness and dexterity in killing game, and his
patient endurance and contempt of the hardships of the hunter’s life.… They… can
subsist any where in the woods, and would form the most efficient military corps in
frontier warfare which can possibly exist. Ready trained, they require no discipline,
inured to danger, and perfect in the use of the rifle.1

[BridgeTroll]

Pretty comprehensive research paper...

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1489&context=wmlr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dfirearm%2520ownership%2520in%2520the%2520early%2520republic%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D21%26ved%3D0CB8QFjAAOBQ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.wm.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1489%2526context%253Dwmlr%26ei%3DnHE2ULLeHZGC8AThpoGACQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNFStVQS_wSaowi7_y9io8_N5bJDBA#search=%22firearm%20ownership%20early%20republic%22

For example, in the itemized
personal property inventories of white males in the three databases
listed, gun ownership ranges from 54% to 73%.

As a matter of fact... more housholds listed guns as an household
item than they did tables.

Hawley found that guns were the most
commonly listed of the six items she counted. In the middling to
affluent groups (the 60% of estates ranked from the 30th to the 90th
percentiles), there were the following percentages of these common
items:
Guns (63-69%),
Tables (50-64%),
Seating furniture (40-68%),
Hoes (35-41%),
Axes (31-33%),
Sharp knives (18-20%). 19
Among the wealthiest 10% of estates, only 4% had sharp knives, but
74% had guns. None of the six items she counted were as common
as guns, which appear to have been present in 50% or more of
estates overall.20

[BridgeTroll]

Whoa Stephen.  You seem to be making a leap that I am not willing to take.  Lets clarify a few things before moving on to another subject.

You seem to be contending that firearms were a rather rare or at least uncommon item for the people to own.  Most scholars disagree and I have provided two studies that show gun ownership to be very high... as much as 70% with guns being more abundant in many households than knives.

You also seem to be contending that for those few who did own guns... it was for the purpose of a well regulated militia.  While that is certainly partially true... it was only one of many reasons to own firearms.  Firearms were used much more frequently for traditional uses than drilling for the militia.

[BridgeTroll]

Traps crossbows and the like we're far more common than guns for hunting.

This is just not true.

If you can only imagine hunting with the old muskets?

Yes... that is how they did it... in fact they were very good at it. (again...ask the british)

Very good reading...


http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1489&context=wmlr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dfirearm%2520ownership%2520in%2520the%2520early%2520republic%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D21%26ved%3D0CB8QFjAAOBQ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.wm.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1489%2526context%253Dwmlr%26ei%3DnHE2ULLeHZGC8AThpoGACQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNFStVQS_wSaowi7_y9io8_N5bJDBA#search=%22firearm%20ownership%20early%20republic%22

[NotNow]

Traps crossbows and the like we're far more common than guns for hunting.

This is just not true.

http://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/fur-trade3.htm

If I can be allowed to speak for myself...your reference does not seem to address BT's point.  Perhaps you can elaborate. 

I notice that BT is the only one referencing his points.  As usual. 

Derogatory references to the Federalist Papers and the authors of both the FP and the US Constitution do not change the facts.  "Arms", as used in the Constitution, has been defined by the authors of the document themselves. 

The "nuclear weapons" argument is another ridiculous red herring.  The same written history and explanations, along with several USSC opinions has resulted in an accepted definition of "arms".  Those normally borne by a foot soldier. 

This tangent that StephenDare! has successfully created is a waste of breath. 

Again, the point of the thread is that radicalization of the weak minded occurs without any difference in the political opinions of the weak minded.  Perhaps the real answer to these situations lies not with attempting to subvert the Constitutional rights of Americans but emphasizing the merits of differing points of view and amicable discussion in our form of government.

[NotNow]

Just keep making stuff up StephenDare!, there seem to be quite a few here who will not question your theories.

[Pinky]

Traps crossbows and the like we're far more common than guns for hunting.

This is just not true.

http://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/fur-trade3.htm

This is laughable.  Trappers use traps, because bullets damage the pelts they were after. 

Hunting in the colonial era was very different. 

"   The practice of hunting in England at the time the American Colonies were settled was legally restricted to the gentry. Virtually all of the land was owned in large parcels by the wealthy, who preserved them from generation to generation by bequeathing their entire estates intact to the oldest son through the law of primogeniture. To protect these fields and woodlands from poachers, gamekeepers were employed who patrolled the properties and provided selective hunting for the owners. By law, no one was allowed to own a gun unless he possessed substantial freehold property or was given special permission. Thus, legal shooting was not even a choice for the average citizen. By the 1740s this restrictive practice led to hunting being considered a symbol of wealth, and field shooting “on the wing” had become a popular sport for the well-to-do.
  In North America, however, land was readily available, and possession of guns was universal as hunting with firearms was a primary means of survival. Rural homes depended on arms to help feed their large families, as well as to provide physical protection and fulfill local militia demands. The heavily wooded terrain of the New World, in turn, provided a bounty of game ranging from turkeys, geese, ducks and game birds to the larger deer, bear, elk and moose. In order to take advantage of this, the provincials employed various combinations of ball, buckshot, or buck and ball in smoothbore flintlock fowlers which were the forerunners of today’s shotguns. (The rifles developed in Western settlements are not included here.)
   These arms generally had long barrels averaging 44” to 60” to permit the full powder charge to burn effectively and to provide an extended sight radius. Such lengths may seem unwieldy, but the dense overhead canopy of the virgin forests permitted far less undergrowth than that encountered in today’s second growth woodlands. The typical gunstocks were walnut, maple or cherry and included a high-raised comb, plus a fore-end that reached to the muzzleâ€"which frequently had the wood cut back 3” to 4” and a barrel stud added to mount a socket bayonet for military service. Second sights were rare; the front blade was usually supplemented by a groove filed into the breech tang as the rear-aiming guide. Sling swivels, too, were omitted as the arms were intended to be hand-carried for instant use.
   While many arms were supplied from abroad, those created or repaired by Americans often employed a mixture of parts reused from prior guns or imported as individual components. The patterns varied by geographical region and evolved toward lighter designs as the tree cover gave way to open land and smaller game. In the final analysis, however, it was the man himself who made the difference. Hunting has always been fundamental to our enduring frontier spirit, and this review of its Colonial beginnings reveals how America’s ancestors adapted to many of the same challenges facing modern hunters."

Source: http://www.jaegerkorps.org/NRA/Hunting%20Guns%20in%20Colonial%20America.htm

[Pinky]

There are many different colonial people. Some were the Indians or Native Americans. They used stick and rocks as spears and bows and arrows. The English settlers in he 1600s used guns that they traded for corn with the INdians. Though that helped them get food while they were on good terms the Indians soon used the guns against them while fighting.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_did_the_colonial_people_use_while_hunting#ixzz24QJseZrS

[Pinky]

"As the Second Amendments attests, gun ownership has been such a vital part of American culture since colonial days that the forefathers of the Constitution made certain gun ownership remained the right of every citizen. In North Carolina and the other colonies, colonials used guns to defend their homes against Indian attack, hunt game for dinner and even to make extra cash. They could kill animals and ship pelts to Europe for a hefty profit. Several types of guns were common during the colonial period and testament to the creative ingenuity of these early Americans."

Read more: What Weapons Were Used During Colonial Days of North Carolina? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8105679_weapons-colonial-days-north-carolina.html#ixzz24QMHpVaA

[Pinky]

Also, please note the wording of Woodrow Wilson's executive order in 1914 regarding the practice of "fire hunting"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=75354

Section 1. Every person who shall hunt at night, between the hours of sunset and sunrise, with the aid or use of a lantern, torch, bonfire, or other artificial light, or who shall hunt by the use of a gun or other firearm intended to be discharged by an animal or bird, by means of a spring or trap, or other similar mechanical device, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

The penalties imposed by this Order shall be in addition to the punishments authorized by the law against carrying arms without a permit.

Sec. 2. The Executive Order of September 8, 1909, amending Section 454 of the Penal Code of the Canal Zone, is hereby repealed.

SEC. 3. This order shall take effect thirty days from and, after its publication in the Canal Record.

WOODROW WILSON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 27, 1914.

Obviously the practice of fire hunting wasnt necessarily dependent upon guns---as gun advocates would like to claim, but also traps and springs and other mechanical devices.

And that was all the way up until the beginning decades of the 20th century.

This says guns were used, not the contrary, but that one could not use them in a manner in which an animals movement would cause them to fire.  Like a trip wire, for example. 

[Pinky]

"Colonial gunmakers, however, could and did control one niche in the North American market. That was rifle making. "The long rifle was the only gun made in numbers in America in the 1700s," Gusler said. "During its time, it was the highest expression of the gun maker's art in this country."

The long rifle apparently evolved from German hunting rifles; the gunsmiths who created this New World weapon initially shared a German heritage. The American long rifle grew from these roots to meet frontier needs and conditions. The conventional wisdom has been that these rifles were made exclusively in Kentucky and Pennsylvania. Gusler's research, conducted over his lifetime, shows, however, that long rifles were also made in Virginia, especially around Shepherdstown, Winchester, Augusta County, and the central Shenandoah Valley.

The long rifle was the weapon for the frontier. Its long range allowed hunters to take large game, such as deer and elk, at a distance. A marksman could hit targets at two hundred yards. Powder and shot were short on the frontier, and long rifles let hunters get food with one round, reducing the ammunition they needed to buy and to carry."

http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/autumn00/gunsmith.cfm

[Pinky]

"The longrifle developed on the American frontier in and about Lancaster, Pennsylvania in the 1740s.[citation needed] It continued to be developed technically and artistically until it passed out of fashion in the second quarter of the 19th century. Strong pockets of longrifle use and manufacture continued in the Appalachian Mountains of Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and North Carolina, however, well into the 20th century as a practical and efficient firearm for those rural segments of the nation. Longrifles could be made entirely by hand and hand-operated tooling, in a frontier setting.
Although experts argue the fine points of origin and lineage, it is accepted that the longrifle was the product of German gunsmiths who immigrated to new settlements in Pennsylvania and Virginia as early as the 1620s.[citation needed]
Initially the weapon of choice on the frontier was the smooth bore musket or trade gun, built by the thousands in factories in England and France and shipped to the colonies for purchase.[citation needed] Gradually, rifles became more popular due to their longer effective range. While the smooth bore musket had an effective range of less than 100 yards, a rifleman could hit a man-sized target at a range of three hundred yards or more. The price for this accuracy was longer reloading time. While the musket could be reloaded in approximately 20 seconds, the longrifle required up to a minute.[citation needed]
Among the earliest documented working rifle makers are Adam Haymaker, who had a thriving trade in the northern Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, and the Moravian gunshops at Christian's Spring in Pennsylvania and in the Salem area of North Carolina.[citation needed] All three areas were busy and productive centers of rifle making by the 1750s. The Great Wagon Road was a bustling frontier thoroughfare, and rifle shops traced this same route - from eastern Pennsylvania, down the Shenandoah Valley, and spilling into both the Cumberland Gap into Kentucky and the Yadkin River (Salem) area of North Carolina.[citation needed]
Martin Meylin's (Mylin) Gunshop was built in 1719, and it is here that the Mennonite gunsmith of Swiss-German heritage crafted some the earliest, and possibly the first, Pennsylvania Rifles.[2] The Martin Meylin Gunshop still stands today in Willow Street, Pennsylvania, on Long Rifle Road.[3][4] The Lancaster County Historical Society has an original Pennsylvania Long Rifle smithed by Meylin that was passed down within the family for seven generations before being donated to the society in the middle of the twentieth century. A document describing the history of Meylin, the Gunshop, and archeology of the shop is available online from Millersville University.[5]
There is documentation stating that the first high quality 'Kentucky rifles' were from a gunsmith named Jacob Deckard, possibly of German, Pennsylvanian, or Virginian background. The name 'Deckard Rifle' was considered the brand name and 'Kentucky rifle' was the more broadly accepted nickname of this rifle.[6]
The settlers of western Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina soon gained a reputation for hardy independence and rifle marksmanship as a way of life, further reinforced by the performance of riflemen in the American Revolution as well as the War of 1812.[citation needed] In that war, the long rifle gained its more famous nickname the Kentucky Rifle, after a popular song "The Hunters of Kentucky", about Andrew Jackson and his victory at the Battle of New Orleans.[citation needed]
The reason for the American rifle's characteristic long barrel is a matter of some conjecture. The German gunsmiths working in America would have been very familiar with German rifles, which seldom had barrels longer than 30 inches (760 mm). The longer barrel gave the black powder more time to burn, increasing the muzzle velocity and accuracy. A rule of thumb used by some gunsmiths was to make the rifle no longer than the height of a customer's chin because of the necessity of seeing the muzzle while loading. The longer barrel also allowed for finer sighting. Some speculation is that a longer gun was easier to load from horseback by resting the butt of the rifle on the ground. This was not a consideration, as the rifles were not exclusively used from horseback, and making rifles long enough to be loaded in this fashion would make them inconveniently long to be loaded while on foot. Regardless of the reason, by the 1750s it was common to see frontiersmen carrying the new and distinctive style of rifle."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_rifle

[Pinky]

http://www.saf.org/journal/16/colonialfirearmregulation.pdf