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

[@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)

[@shannonestarks]

This was AWESOME!

[@evelynramos445]

Contradictory ect. Nicely done Malcom!

[@lindagarland5223]

Falling out of my chair laughing.

[@spjkq]

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

[@PanhandleFrank]

But then, he's another "nice Canadian."

[@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.

[@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.

[@alexdegaston422]

In order to solve Gun Control questions in the USA we must address the issue that over 90% of the weapons deaths (knives, swords, guns, grenades, bombs, etc) since the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791 have been done by national governments. This epidemic of national governments killing people needs to have sufficiengt check/balance. What has been the average per capita rate of people in other countries + the USA been since 1791 where the deaths by weapons were done under the direction of a national government? Did it make a difference in America? What if the Jews in Germany had gun ownership rates in Germany like those in America had in the 1930s/1940s? There are numerous other examples about this question throughout world history both before and after 1791. I'm all for Gun Control towards the reduction of weapons' violence. But it seems like the #1 reason for Gun Deaths is being ignored altogether and it was this reason that was paramount for why the 2nd Amendment was adopted. And it makes the folks who support the 2nd Amendment as anti-Gun-Deaths and those who oppose it as pro-Gun-Deaths when the pro-Gun-Control folks ignore this reason of national governments leading the way so much on weapons deaths & if they fail to offer credible solutions to this risk. Context on 1791 - the founders were most concerned about the national government headquartered in London; and it would be helpful to study the tendencies of power games & lack of checks/balances that had been exercised in previous centuries by leaders there + leaders in all countries in previous centuries & to the present on the same types of power games that were of concern to the USA founders in the adoption of the 2nd Amendment.

[@evelynramos445]

The case taken to court

[@freeyoga]

Theatre?

[@liamwinter4512]

More revisionist history from the ivory Tower.

[@DiscoLobster-j3z]

Middlebrow Nonsense is this guy's speciality

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@bloodaonadeline8346]

@@ComeCleanAmericawho isn’t our government hostile too? They do nothing for common people and only prop up proxy nations and the rich.

[@PanhandleFrank]

@@ComeCleanAmerica "Who is the government hostile to?" People who refused to wear the Chinese face diaper, or submit to an untested """vaccine"""? (To name but one example ... )

[@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?

[@L33PL4Y]

Great episode except for the childishly mocking singing. Those moments felt like I was listening to a show for little kids.

[@keep-ukraine-free]

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."

[@PanhandleFrank]

Trust me, the vast majority of Americans who exercise their right to own and carry arms have never even heard of John Knight. More of us are familiar with the Battle of Athens, TN (1946). What's that?! You've never heard of the Battle of Athens?!

[@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.

[@TheMvps-1]

GUNS FOREVER

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@treycaldwell4118]

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

[@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!

[@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?

[@PanhandleFrank]

@@wendylafolle "As I understand it, the 2nd amendment is about militias, not individuals." Re-read the amendment, then answer this Q: _To whom_ does the 2A say the right to own and carry arms belongs - to the militia, or to the People? (Take your time; I assure you, it's not a trick Q.)

[@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!

[@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.

[@keep-ukraine-free]

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".

[@PanhandleFrank]

"The phrase aims to suggest guns are somehow peaceful." They certainly can be, depending on the intent of the carrier. I've carried daily since Sandy Hook, and I'm one of the most peaceful guys you're likely to meet. But let's consider Eli Dicken, the young man who stopped a mass shooter cold in his tracks in that Indiana mall a couple of years ago. Would you rather he remained """peaceful""" and allow the criminal to have his way with the people in that food court? Or are you prepared to admit that his justified use of violence actually restored a briefly-shattered peace?

[@brucegemmell730]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@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

[@PanhandleFrank]

"Why would stupid laws made so long ago have any sway now?" I assume you mean the 2nd Amendment? What is "stupid" about enshrining the right of the People to own and carry the means of self-defense?