Guns Part 1: The Sudden Celebrity of Sir John Knight | Revisionist History | Malcolm Gladwell

In the battles over gun rights, a shadowy English nobleman from the 17th century has unexpectedly taken center stage. Who was he? What did he do that has - 300 years later - endeared him to a generation of legal scholars? Revisionist History explores the cult of personality around the mysterious Sir John Knight.
Binge the 6-part series from Revisionist History about everything Americans get wrong about guns with a Pushkin+ membership now: www.pushkin.fm/join-pushkin
Season 8 (2023)
#podcast #revisionisthistory #malcolmgladwell
ABOUT REVISIONIST HISTORY
Revisionist History is Malcolm Gladwell’s journey through the overlooked and the misunderstood. Every podcast episode re-examines something from the past - an event, a person, an idea, even a song - and asks whether we got it right the first time. Because sometimes the past deserves a second chance.
ABOUT MALCOLM GLADWELL
Malcolm Gladwell is president and co-founder of Pushkin Industries. He is a journalist, a speaker, and the author of six New York Times bestsellers including The Tipping Point, Blink, Outliers, David and Goliath, and Talking to Strangers. He has been a staff writer for the New Yorker since 1996. He is a trustee of the Surgo Foundation and currently serves on the board of the RAND Corporation.
ABOUT PUSHKIN INDUSTRIES
Pushkin Industries is an audio production company dedicated to creating premium content in a collaborative environment. Co-founded by Malcolm Gladwell and Jacob Weisberg in 2018, Pushkin has launched seven new shows into the top 10 on Apple Podcasts (Against the Rules, The Happiness Lab, Solvable, Cautionary Tales, Deep Cover, The Last Archive, and Lost Hills), in addition to producing the hugely successful Revisionist History. Pushkin’s growing audiobook catalogue includes includes the bestselling biography “Fauci,” by Michael Specter, “Hasta La Vista, America,” Kurt Andersen’s parody Trump farewell speech performed by Alec Baldwin, "Takeover" by Noah Feldman, and “Talking to Strangers,” from Pushkin co-founder Malcolm Gladwell. Pushkin is dedicated to producing audio in any format that challenges listeners and inspires curiosity and joy.
STAY CONNECTED
Web: www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revis...
Twitter: / gladwell
Facebook: / malcolmgladwellbooks
Instagram: / malcolmgladwell
Newsletter: www.pushkin.fm/newsletter

[@evelynramos445]

Contradictory ect. Nicely done Malcom!

[@shannonestarks]

This was AWESOME!

[@lindagarland5223]

Falling out of my chair laughing.

[@Scoots1994]

Isn't Northampton antiquated by the very fact that the founding fathers who knew the law well specifically rebelled against the monarchy to form the country and had that in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment?

[@jaepayne5844]

This is what I was thinking. It makes sense to me why John Knight is celebrated in America while forgotten in England: The sentiment seems to be that the rebellious anti government colonies valued an armed people, allowing them a power that very few peoples around the world have against their governments. England seemed to favor something more akin to most countries.

[@Scoots1994]

@@jaepayne5844 Agreed. Why go back to the UK to see what they think when the US specifically broke from them because of their oppression and the 2nd amendment was specifically about empowering the people against oppression.

[@billycaspersghost7528]

@@Scoots1994 Because the foundation of the law in the newly independent colonies was English Common Law.

[@Scoots1994]

@@billycaspersghost7528 Yes, but even that was shaped by the founding fathers who had a distrusting view of government. You don't need to go further back for a historical perspective on the 2nd amendment than that.

[@billycaspersghost7528]

@@Scoots1994 Well ,apparently you do and they did. Both sides cited ancient statute and judgement that pre date the Constitution this being after instruction by the judge. This is not to say that I did not find it jaw dropping when I heard this in England. Since the Constitution of the United States itself is based on pre existing rights and laws of England I do not see why they did not just quote from the "English Bill of Rights" that gives the individual "The Right to Bear Arms..." ( well .only if he is Protestant... lets not go crazy)

[@lajameswilson4945]

I was seriously about to leave a comment decrying the irrelevant nature of this episode as it pertains to the current crisis in America. I almost complained that, for the 1st time in "Revisionist History", I felt my time had been wasted. Then your summary basically admitted all of those things. It was almost your Eminem in 8 Mile moment. Looking forward to the next 5 episodes.

[@TheRhino154]

Hopefully he can go over something more substantial like the public defenders brief against the state. It's hard to laugh at the absurdity of John Knight when New York chose to die on this hill. The hundred year old law was designed to be anti Italian and in modern times enforced in a discriminatory way against minorities and the working class.

[@Murray-wk3hz]

The news fits the wave.

[@spjkq]

Now I’m motivated to read the Bruen opinions. Gladwell makes it clear he’s suspicious of the 2nd amendment.

[@evelynramos445]

The case taken to court

[@truwth]

This is unbelievable. How is American law this broken ?

[@DanK520]

The idiots that write and enforce them

[@TheVafa95]

You should see number of good-for-nothing books on a lawyer's bookshelves 😂

[@mry5892]

Too many idiots voting for equally stupid, corrupt politicians.

[@patrickmaline4258]

started as a slavery based nation. wasn’t likely to go any other way.

[@mry5892]

@@patrickmaline4258 sad, isn't it?

[@freeyoga]

Theatre?

[@Shackleford_Rusty]

Interesting take, the only issue I have with this episode is that it presupposes the bill of rights is not a bill of negative rights. The attempts to erode one of the pillars of this nation, its freedom and balance in the shadow of an ever growing hostile government. It’s shameful the lack of understanding we have as to what the bill of rights means and who it is targeted to.

[@ComeCleanAmerica]

Who is the government hostile to? Seems like the people mostly complaining are those who are expecting to be excluded from observing the laws and to be extended privileges not to be shared with common people.

[@aicram62]

I just never understand why the past has SO much influence. Important yes, review it yes, learn from it, sure. But I have always believed in the right to SELF-GOVERN. So if laws are changed because the current people wish to do so, the PAST is not a sufficient reason to stop them.

[@Veodin]

In the UK we have a system called Parliamentary Sovereignty which means that our government has the power to make, end, or change any law. There is no protected constitution for everybody to argue over and no court can invalidate a law passed by the government. Any new law which contradicts an earlier one repeals the earlier one. This is why none of us in the UK would know or care about the facts of John Knight's case. The ruling of that case will have zero relevance to modern UK law.

[@Edo9River]

I base my hopes for enough of the US pop to be convinced by the logic of this episode, on what my best friend, who is a member of the same religious community as I am, who would listen to my summary of this episode. He would shake his head and beard as a dog would shake its furry head, to shake off drops of rain . No, nothing changes in his mind, arguements against the 2nd ammendment are as real as the mythical rain falling from a cloudless sky.

[@TheRhino154]

Do you think New York's racist carry law should have been upheld?

[@Edo9River]

@@TheRhino154 my answer is the same as above. Hopeless situation so I took an opportunity to get out of Dodge and move to Japan, so I can entertain my students with LA horror stories lol.

[@HolgerDanske907]

A pretty biased portrayal of the case. The entirety of the Bruen decision did not hinge on John Knight, and the efficacy of the Statute of Northampton (which should have been the focus of this podcast) is further discussed in Bruen, which, sadly, Gladwell chose not to delve into.

[@NoName-ml5yk]

Yes, I'm done with this channel. I'm liberal but I'm not going to listen to blatant twisting of facts. It is counterproductive on many levels.

[@richardl.metafora4477]

I agree with your disappointment. I love Gladwell, except in this case a lot of the fuss is about what a rat knight is Knight was apparently an anti-catholic religious zealot appointed you think the Catholic heavy Scotus would appreciate. Nevertheless, the salient point is that knight traveled around generally heavily armed. So did others. The more specific question is whether the laws specified church and market places as appropriate areas to bear arms. But the piece goes on about knight and sort of an ad hominem approach

[@liamwinter4512]

More revisionist history from the ivory Tower.

[@keep-ukraine-free528]

Ohhh how I wish you'd held Joyce Malcolm's feet to the fire, longer, hotter, until she realized she was ignoring facts. She evades your central point @40:05 -- that "Sir" John Knight himself said he willfully complied with Bristol law requiring him to surrender his weapons. He did not object to those gun control laws, instead he tried to comply fully -- she ignores these facts. Instead, her vapid reply: "Professor [Tim] Harris is wrong" -- she's ignorant to say a world-expert professor in the topic (whose PhD is from Cambridge University) is "wrong."

[@stephensmith5982]

The English constitution is unwritten. They have only had a form of constitutional review until relatively recent times. Our constitution is of course written and ratified by our various states. It is the ultimate law of the land. The interpretation of the second amendment can only be evaluated by the way it was written. Regardless of the militia statement the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. English legal precedent shouldn't undermine the language of the second amendment.

[@TyroneNorwood]

It's clear that you don't understand the 2nd amendment

[@tuckerbugeater]

So who's supposed to regulate the militia?

[@ComeCleanAmerica]

The 2nd Amendment does not authorize private militias.

[@hilariousname6826]

The way it's written, it's anyone's guess what the 2nd A. authorizes or does not authorize. @@ComeCleanAmerica

[@stevenpolkinghorn4747]

@@tuckerbugeaterwell regulated means well trained and well equipped. If you read military accounts of troops in the revolutionary war, they often mention that the troops are unregulated. Does that mean they are uncontrolled? No, it means they have poor training and poor equipment.

[@TheJoshiscool123]

GUNS FOREVER

[@Redmenace96]

Always interested in learning more on this topic, but MG is doing his own "cherry picking". Gun Control and Gun Violence are two different problems and need different political solutions.

[@sopolphan]

It blows my mind, why the Supreme Court is determining their decision on a British court decision from the 1600. If the court is going to base current Supreme Court decisions on US and British laws in the 1600s, Justice Clarice Thomas and Joyce Malcolm would not be practicing law. That may sound like a silver lining but people with common sense know it is horrible for everyone.

[@Edo9River]

but Malcolm, one paragraph is more than sufficient for an American lawyer suitably motivated to mince each word of the paragraph. for weeks, over wine and cheese at least

[@crusader_2028]

And they get paid for the sophistry!

[@sopolphan]

Gun Owner: Your honor, the man I shot dead with my semi-automatic challenged me to a duel. Justice Clarence Thomas: Is there a precedent? Joyce Malcolm: Let me quote from a 1600 court decision Dumbass Versus Moron...

[@kevingoff]

Nice story ... What difference does it make? Did the American founders know your story? The key is what the founders thought. If you don't like the fundamental principle of the 2nd amendment as the founders formed it, change the constitution. Not this jiberish.

[@wendylafolle]

As I understand it, the 2nd amendment is about militias, not individuals. Our forefathers and leaders of the revolt against Britain knew most colonial Americans not only did not own guns prior to the war, most had never even fired one. They spent the few years leading up to hostilities struggling to smuggle guns from Europe. So, when the time came, they were able to provide their militias with something other than pikes and axes and a few well laid oaths against the bloody redcoats. I doubt they were thinking of an individuals right to bear arms.

[@MissyGail4eva]

The founders, for one, were largely slave owners, who did indeed believe that our fellow men and women of color (as they were not white, male, and land owning) were little more cogs on a wheel of industrious prosperity.. if that cog could also be raped, bred, and beaten. Secondly, regardless of what the more 'conservative' of judges today may espouse, the founding fathers were *not* themselves believers in the idea of what is now labeled 'originalist' thinking. They specifically designed the framework of the Constitution, (and later) the Bill of Rights, to be enacted with an organic fluidity in which it could be adjusted, molded, and refitted to serve the varying stresses and environmental factors of the day, much as a building with dampers, or an upgrade of solar panels, in which the foundational structure of the framework remains robust and stable, but it's outer mechanics evolve with the people and times of which it serves.

[@kevingoff]

do some research and you'll understand it better. it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. the militia part is aimed at maintaining the security of a free state ... protecting us from the tyranny of the state. If you want to take peoples guns legally (not by tyranny), you have to amend the constitution@@wendylafolle

[@tuckerbugeater]

Are you saying that the Second Amendment is giving the government the authority to regulate militias?

[@NoName-ml5yk]

I don't even like guns but his historical errors and twisting of facts made this really difficult to listen to. I've noticed for some time he spins things to his world outlook but this is just over the top. Of course someone that hasn't read much on this subject will be all in. Which is the key to propaganda from the beginning of time.

[@treycaldwell4118]

Very poorly edited it has no flow it jumps around and reintroduces topics and then goes to a different topic

[@freeyoga]

Why would stupid laws made so long ago have any sway now? This crazy law stuff? Wonder why we are here? Laws from history? Who wrote what and what it means now? Bat crazy

[@user-dj7mp2xi6l]

Middlebrow Nonsense is this guy's speciality

[@keep-ukraine-free528]

An excellent episode. Looking forward to the series. Hope it's transformational, for our gun addicted society. @40:00 you use the term "peaceful carry," to engage with gun advocate Joyce. The phrase aims to suggest guns are somehow peaceful. Its oxymoronic absurdity is revealed if we don't mince words: "let's peacefully carry machetes" & "she peacefully carries a machine gun".

[@brucegemmell730]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@jimjackson4256]

So what happened to Canadian gun culture and there. was one.Remember when it wasn’t any harder to buy a gun than a hockey stick in Canada?Why did the liberals destroy that Canada? Maybe you could do a piece on that.

[@jackfitzpatrick8173]

You're Canadian and/or British.Your opinions on our 2nd Amendment are as irrelevant as are my opinions on poutine and bangers and mash!

[@wendylafolle]

👋👋👋👋👋