I understood what you wrote and thought I responded appropriately.

Your thesis is fundamentally unsound. Far from leveling the field, you appear to be advocating an advantage being given to the poor because it previously gave the advantage to the rich.

I contend that this is not, and never has been, the case. What you described were abuses of economic and political power, not the fundamental right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment.

The poor had the same right to keep and bear arms. The asymmetry in the ability to wield force came from the fact the wealthy oppressors of labor unrest had the resources to employ people that were better armed and more accustomed to using them. The wealthy also had better access to politicians, something that is generally true regardless of party affiliations.

You made a statement about the Mulford Act that was factually incorrect because in reality it was a bipartisan bill triggered by the Black Panther demonstration.

Indeed, a case could be made that the Democrats don’t wish the poor to have guns. Otherwise, they wouldn’t promote measures that make legal gun purchases and ownership more costly. Yes, those measures would apply to everyone, but the more affluent would be able to more easily afford them.

The NRA has actually gone on record opposing new gun restrictions in part because they impose the greatest burden on the poor and disadvantaged. Of course, the restrictions would apply to all economic classes but the poor would have greater difficulty affording them.

I frankly have no idea what would happen if armed coal miners descended on Charleston. If the demonstration was orderly peaceful, probably nothing. If the demonstration because disorderly or violent, police would respond, not because of some animus to the poor being armed, but because their job is to maintain order.

West Virginia is a constitutional carry state, meaning that anyone not prohibited from possessing a handgun can legally carry it openly or concealed without a permit. Long guns (rifles, shotguns) also don’t require a permit but must be carried openly.

The civil right to keep and bear arms to keep and bear arms is based on the fundamental human right to self-defense. In English common law, the right to possess arms for self-defense and the obligation to bear arms for military service goes back to the reign of Alfred the Great in the Ninth Century.

Don’t forget it Republicans were the driving force behind the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, some Republicans were disappointed that the amendment didn’t go farther.

While history is invariably written by winners, an understanding of the factors involved are crucial. This understanding becomes more vital when contesting interpretations that are at odds with the facts that are available.

Professional writer. Passionately interested in facts. Founder of onewordtexas.org

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store