Observation about 'Five Myths about Gun Control' in WP

I would like to make a few observations on a recent article in thw Washington Post: http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-gun-control/2012/12/21/6ffe0ae8-49fd-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html

"Gun regulations are incompatible with America’s gun heritage...In 1619, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a law making the transfer of guns to Native Americans punishable by death. Other laws across the colonies criminalized selling or giving firearms to slaves, indentured servants, Catholics..."

The sad fact that gun control has historically been part of broader efforts to deprive various groups of their civil does not give legitamacy to modern efforts. The fact is gun control made Jim Crow possible. That should give us pause. The fact that in a small number of instances, armed black communties in the South were able to fight off attempted outrages should also give us pause.

"...And in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the state and federal governments conducted several arms censuses. (Imagine what the NRA would say if government officials went door to door today asking people how many guns they owned and whether they were functional.)..."

Entirely different context. Rest assured if the government today is asking how many guns you have, the purpose is to take them away. Two hundred years ago the purpose was entirely different. It was a way to assess how many people would have been available to defend the country. When they were counting noses, the only noses that counted were those that came with guns.

"5. The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government...This canard is repeated with disturbing frequency. The Constitution, in Article I, allows armed citizens in militias to “suppress Insurrections,” not cause them. The Constitution defines treason as “levying War” against the government in Article III, and the states can ask the federal government for assistance “against domestic Violence” under Article IV."

Two things. One is the author ignores not only the many statements of the founding fathers about revolution but how the revolution got started. The idea was if the government does not get out of line it should not be an issue. But if the government were to get out of line, then the people need to have effective means of taking action. Secondly, this statement ignores oppression in general. Oppression does not always come from the government. Think KKK. How many lynchings would have been prevented had blacks in the South been armed?

History and current events are filled with examples of groups suffering great outrages, up to and including genocide, which would have been at the least very much more problematic for the perpetrators if the oppressed group had only had effective means of defending itself.

http://reason.com/archives/2005/02/15/the-klans-favorite-law