Perhaps the only thing Americans love more than guns themselves is debating the rights surrounding gun ownership. For advocates on either side of the issue, the starting point for this debate is the Second Amendment to the Constitution and its meaning in historical context.

ARMING AMERICA: The Origins of a National Gun Culture by Michael Bellesiles attacks one of the fundamental arguments of those who vigorously support the rights of gun ownership. His effort is a major contribution to an important public policy debate.

It has long been the contention of those fearful of gun regulation that ownership of weapons is a long established tradition central to American citizenry. Professor Bellesiles, a Colonial historian at Emory University, has, through his research, found this argument to be substantially lacking. While examining probate records from colonial era New England, the professor's research indicated that only 14 percent of men owned guns and that the majority of those weapons were unusable. From this starting point Professor Bellesiles looked to other sources in an attempt to locate the guns that allegedly inundated the American frontier. He determined that, prior to the Civil War, the termination date of his research, most Americans simply refused to acquire or maintain a gun or learn how to use one. To a large degree, this was not due to philosophic choice, but instead upon the real difficulties that confronted potential gun owners: There were no gun manufacturers in North American in the colonial period --- all American weapons, with very limited exceptions, were manufactured in Europe --- and the vast majority of weapons produced during this era were not for personal use but for military purposes.

As a provider of weapons, the state was barely more effective than individuals. Before the Revolutionary War, states were able to provide weapons for far less than one-half of their militia members. The government attempted to buy weapons from individuals and offered rewards to those volunteers who brought their own, but very few militia members were able to take advantage of this offer. Bellesiles inform us that, "In one company of 85 men, only seven showed up with their own guns. The record indicates that this figure of eight percent was fairly typical throughout the colonies." Ironically, this shortage of weapons led to conduct that would be decried by contemporary gun ownership advocates. Firearms were confiscated and regulated. Owners were required to maintain their weapons. Colonies took a gun census. Weapons were seized by the militia if the owners did not use them. Guns might be privately owned, but they were regulated by the state.

In the Colonial era, the weapon of choice was the musket, which cost a skilled worker the equivalent of two month's pay. It required constant attention to maintain and was not efficient for either self-defense or hunting. It was difficult to reload and was not accurate beyond a few hundred feet. Most American farmers chose to raise and consume domestic animals, such as chickens and pigs, rather than hunt with a weapon that was of little value. The few homicides that occurred during the Colonial era were committed with knives; guns were simply not a weapon of value to most Americans at the time of the Nation's birth.

It was not until the 1840s, when Samuel Colt perfected the design of the pistol, that gun output and distribution increased in America. The Civil War, of course, brought mass production of guns to America. Not only did manufacturers make more guns, they made better guns. It no longer took twenty steps to prepare a gun for firing. The military utility of guns was greatly improved as weapons could be fired with more accuracy, reliability, and speed. Perhaps most importantly, by the end of the Civil War most Americans believed that the ability to use a gun made one a better man. At the end of the War, the army allowed Union Soldiers to take their firearms home, and General Grant allowed Confederates to keep their weapons as well. The arming of America that would ultimately result in five million new guns being purchased each year had begun.

The major thrust of ARMING AMERICA has created some controversy in political discussion. The National Rifle Association has attacked the book as another liberal attempt to undermine the Second Amendment. Others have raised questions about the methodology by which some of the conclusions concerning gun ownership were reached. In many respects the debate misses the main point of Professor Bellesiles's conclusions. The simple point of this impressive work is that gun ownership does not find its roots in Constitutional theory. In that context, the Second Amendment, when originally written, meant something far different than what it means today. There may be many arguments in favor of allowing citizens to own and carry weapons, but the original intent of the framers of the Constitution is a shaky argument at best.