The not so Wild West!

cancel2 2022

Canceled
Much is made about the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms, yet the so called Wild West turns out to be considerably less violent than present day US society. Frontier towns back then had a policy of no guns to be worn in the city limits and they had to be handed in before entering. Indeed most of the violence was caused by the US army acting as a proxy for the railway companies. This they did with aplomb and alacrity, killing many Plains Indians that got in the way of those companies. This was clear genocide sanctioned by Congress and I feel that Americans ought to be more contrite when discussing other parts of the world.

The change from militia to a standing army took place in the American West immediately upon the conclusion of the War Between the States. The result, say Anderson and McChesney, was that white settlers and railroad corporations were able to socialize the costs of stealing Indian lands by using violence supplied by the U.S. Army. On their own, they were much more likely to negotiate peacefully. Thus, “raid” replaced “trade” in white–Indian relations. Congress even voted in 1871 not to ratify any more Indian treaties, effectively announcing that it no longer sought peaceful relations with the Plains Indians.

Anderson and McChesney do not consider why a standing army replaced militias in 1865, but the reason is not difficult to discern. One has only to read the official pronouncements of the soldiers and political figures who launched a campaign of extermination against the Plains Indians.

On June 27, 1865, General William Tecumseh Sherman was given command of the Military District of the Missouri, which was one of the five military divisions into which the U.S. government had divided the country. Sherman received this command for the purpose of commencing the twenty-five-year war against the Plains Indians, primarily as a form of veiled subsidy to the government-subsidized railroad corporations and other politically connected corporations involved in building the transcontinental railroads. These corporations were the financial backbone of the Republican Party. Indeed, in June 1861, Abraham Lincoln, former legal counsel of the Illinois Central Railroad, called a special emergency session of Congress not to deal with the two-month-old Civil War, but to commence work on the Pacific Railway Act. Subsidizing the transcontinental railroads was a primary (if not the primary) objective of the new Republican Party. As Dee Brown writes in Hear That Lonesome Whistle Blow, a history of the building of the transcontinental railroads, Lincoln’s 1862 Pacific Railway Act “assured the fortunes of a dynasty of American families . . . the Brewsters, Bushnells, Olcotts, Harkers, Harrisons, Trowbridges, Lanworthys, Reids, Ogdens, Bradfords, Noyeses, Brooks, Cornells, and dozens of others” (2001, 49), all of whom were tied to the Republican Party.

The federal railroad subsidies enriched many Republican members of Congress. Congressman Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania “received a block of [Union Pacific] stock in exchange for his vote” on the Pacific Railroad bill, writes Brown (2001, 58). The Pennsylvania iron manufacturer and congressman also demanded a legal requirement that all iron used in constructing the railroad be made in the United States.

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803
 
Last edited:


What is even more remarkable is that Tombstone had far more restrictive gun laws than the modern day city. Indeed the gunfight at the OK corral only occurred because Wyatt Earp was enforcing the no guns law.

After a decision by the Supreme Court affirming the right of individuals to own guns, then-Chicago Mayor Richard Daley sarcastically said, "Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets?" This is a common refrain heard in the gun debate. Gun control advocates fear -- and gun rights proponents sometimes hope -- the Second Amendment will transform our cities into modern-day versions of Dodge. Yet this is all based on a widely shared misunderstanding of the Wild West. Frontier towns -- places like Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge -- actually had the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. In fact, many of those same cities have far less burdensome gun control today then they did back in the 1800s.

Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, "Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check."

A check? That's right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you'd check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.

In my new book, Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America, there's a photograph taken in Dodge City in 1879. Everything looks exactly as you'd imagine: wide, dusty road; clapboard and brick buildings; horse ties in front of the saloon. Yet right in the middle of the street is something you'd never expect. There's a huge wooden billboard announcing, "The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Prohibited."

While people were allowed to have guns at home for self-protection, frontier towns usually barred anyone but law enforcement from carrying guns in public.
When Dodge City residents organized their municipal government, do you know what the very first law they passed was? A gun control law. They declared that "any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law." Many frontier towns, including Tombstone, Arizona--the site of the infamous "Shootout at the OK Corral"--also barred the carrying of guns openly. Today in Tombstone, you don't even need a permit to carry around a firearm. Gun rights advocates are pushing lawmakers in state after state to do away with nearly all limits on the ability of people to have guns in public.

Like any law regulating things that are small and easy to conceal, the gun control of the Wild West wasn't always perfectly enforced. But statistics show that, next to drunk and disorderly conduct, the most common cause of arrest was illegally carrying a firearm. Sheriffs and marshals took gun control seriously.

Although some in the gun community insist that more guns equals less crime, in the Wild West they discovered that gun control can work. Gun violence in these towns was far more rare than we commonly imagine. Historians who've studied the numbers have determined that frontier towns averaged less than two murders a year. Granted, the population of these towns was small. Nevertheless, these were not places where duels at high noon were commonplace. In fact, they almost never occurred.

Why is our image of the Wild West so wrong? Largely for the same reason these towns adopted gun control laws in the first place: economic development. Residents wanted limits on guns in public because they wanted to attract businesspeople and civilized folk. What prospective storeowner was going to move to Deadwood if he was likely to be robbed when he brought his daily earnings to the bank?

Once the frontier was closed, those same towns glorified a supposedly violent past in order to attract tourists and the businesses to serve them. Gunfights were extremely rare in frontier towns, but these days you can see a re-enactment of the one at the OK Corral several times a day. Don't forget to buy a souvenir!

The story of guns in America is far more complex and surprising than we've often been led to believe. We've always had a right to bear arms, but we've also always had gun control. Even in the Wild West, Americans balanced these two and enacted laws restricting guns in order to promote public safety. Why should it be so hard to do the same today?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html
 
Last edited:
lol i dont know why I found that comment funny but I did. I laughed. Good job tom.

They also had some interesting nom d'amour such as Cuttin' Lil Slasher, Hambone Jane, Tit Bit, Black Pearl, Wicked Alice, Smooth Bore, Molly b'Damn, Little Gold Dollar, Fatty McDuff, Lady Jane Gray, Cotton Tail, the Roaring Gimlet, the Little Lost Chicken, Irish Molly, Big Nose Kate, Rose of the Cimarron and in Alaska the infamous Diamond Tooth Lil.
 
yes because you cant take it when a women fucks your evil racist shit up


your go to move


to cover your ears and scream LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA
 
Gang violence in urban areas account for the vast majority of gun violence stats, apart from suicides. Remove gang violence (who don't typically have guns legally obtained, and don't follow laws) and US gun violence stats drop dramatically.
 
No, it is because you are a total loony tune and a complete waste of space.

because I prove wih USA court records right up to this current scotus that your fucks have to cheat voters to win elections



because I prove your fucks crashed the housing market in purpose with undeniable FACTS
 
because I prove wih USA court records right up to this current scotus that your fucks have to cheat voters to win elections



because I prove your fucks crashed the housing market in purpose with undeniable FACTS

No because for one thing I am not an American, you dozy twat and two, you have been harping on about the same effing thing for nigh on a decade or so. Everybody knows about it ffs but it is obvious to all that you are a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
 
knowing about it and stopping It are not the same huh



mind your own fucking business you fucking asshole


if you dont care that my countries elections are being tampered with then you don't love democracy .


I will talk about it until its fixed you stupid fucking evil bloody sod
 
knowing about it and stopping It are not the same huh



mind your own fucking business you fucking asshole


if you dont care that my countries elections are being tampered with then you don't love democracy .


I will talk about it until its fixed you stupid fucking evil bloody sod

Not on my threads you won't and I doubt many others from now on. I pity your poor husband, he must be a saint to put up with your craziness.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top