,
7 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
No matter how one interprets the 2nd Amendment, there is a long history -- going back to the British -- of treating the production & sale of firearms as different from other arms.
Wonderfully captured in historian Priya Satia's 2018 book "Empire of Guns"
books.google.com/books?id=EPdQD…
Wonderfully captured in historian Priya Satia's 2018 book "Empire of Guns"
books.google.com/books?id=EPdQD…
If you don't have time to read the book, check out the terrific interview in @Slate with Satia
slate.com/news-and-polit…
slate.com/news-and-polit…
@Slate The interview is great, but the key quote for me is:
"[Prevalence of guns today is connected] to the way the British expanded in the 18th century, and their involvement in various different types of colonial conflict all over the world. Guns are a big part of all of that...
"[Prevalence of guns today is connected] to the way the British expanded in the 18th century, and their involvement in various different types of colonial conflict all over the world. Guns are a big part of all of that...
...Guns are a part of their trade relations with so many parts of the world. Because of the multiple ways they’re used—as items of trade, as weapons of war, as items with symbolic value, even as a currency in a way, too—it becomes really difficult to regulate them...
...as simply weapons of war. Look at today and the way we have regulations for pretty much every kind of weapon you can think of except firearms."
She goes on to say that, following the American Revolution, the British began to become more careful about arming potential rebels. Hence, regulations went in place in other parts of the Empire.
But too late to regulate America.
But too late to regulate America.
