One nation under guns How gun culture distorts our history and threatens our democracy

Review by Booklist Review

How did the Second Amendment come to be read as a full-throated endorsement of unregulated, unlimited gun ownership? Religious historian Erdozain attempts to answer that question by tracing the history of gun rhetoric, law, and legislation from the Founders to the present day. The book stumbles when it attempts to explain why America is so uniquely wedded to its guns--Erdozain argues that slavery is the original sin of gun culture but seems to dismiss the genocide of Native nations as belonging to a separate, more "controlled" category of violence with a far lesser impact on present-day attitudes toward guns. The chapters dedicated to the rise of the NRA, with its implacable lobbying power, are far more strongly argued, as Erdozain methodically unpicks the misleading and downright false claims made by supporters of gun rights, from NRA officials to the justices who sit on the highest court of the land. In a country where mass shootings have become commonplace, One Nation under Guns is a damning reminder that it didn't have to be this way.

From Booklist, Copyright (c) American Library Association. Used with permission.

---

Review by Library Journal Review

Historian Erdozain (Emory Univ.; The Soul of Doubt) makes a bracingly simple argument: the narrative that gun rights are an American birthright is a fabrication. He takes readers on a tour through the history and public discourse surrounding gun control, from the 18th-century Enlightenment and the American Revolution to the present day. He marshals powerful arguments that the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" belonged to "the people" purely in their collective capacity as a "well-regulated militia." But over time, racial paranoia, "honor" culture, nationalism, and the U.S. frontier mythos transformed firearms into symbols of manly virtue and individual liberty. Even so, 19th- and 20th-century public discourse and case law mostly backed gun control. Then, in 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court resorted to what Erdozain calls "a false and invented history" to overturn centuries of legal precedent and popular support for gun control. VERDICT A fast-paced, reader-friendly polemic that demolishes gun-culture myths. Will attract many readers.--Michael Rodriguez

(c) Copyright Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

---

Review by Kirkus Book Review

A corrective consideration of the right to bear arms. Erdozain delivers a formidable and timely argument: Contrary to the claims of contemporary gun rights advocates, the founders of the U.S. feared the prospect of armed individuals, and the Second Amendment was crafted to guarantee the existence of a supervised collective force rather than the rights of individual gun owners. The author delivers an illuminating survey of American gun culture, locating its origins in the institution of slavery and its gradual adoption of a dangerously fervent and often overtly racist nationalism. Along the way, Erdozain systematically exposes popular claims about gun rights as "an American birthright" as "a false and fabricated history." The author demonstrates that a careful, honest, historically informed reading of the Constitution and Bill of Rights reveals an unambiguous intention to protect the nation from predictable excesses of personal liberty. Freedom would depend on restricting weaponry to government control. Among the many strengths of this book is the author's incisive commentary on the catastrophic failure of legislative safeguards, especially in the last two decades. The inadequacy of the nation's response to massive and routine gun violence has only become more pronounced during this time, the author argues persuasively, as attitudes of self-righteousness among gun owners are fueled by misunderstandings of both history and the lethal consequences of gun ownership. The most striking chapter comes, however, in a closely argued, withering analysis of the 2008 Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller, which seemed to willfully misread historical context in its ratification of personal gun rights. As dismal as Erdozain's conclusions about the fate of gun regulation are, he nevertheless affirms, with some plausibility, his hope that the nation might "reclaim the concept of freedom from the weapons and the values that violate it." A profound demolition of misguided gun-rights arguments and a compelling call to action. Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.

Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.

---

Chapter 1 The Myth of the Law-­Abiding Citizen I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused. --­Graham Greene, The Quiet American Richard Venola was a pillar of the gun culture--­a retired U.S. Marine who wrote a fiery column for Guns & Ammo magazine, having previously served as editor. Venola was a vivid and engaging writer, expert at drawing the reader into the zip and terror of a shoot. He loved to dispel stereotypes about the "bitter, clinging types" of the gun community, tirelessly asserting the claims of the gun owner as "a person of substance and responsibility." Venola was not merely a defender of gun rights: he was an evangelist--­a restless advocate of firearms-­as-­citizenship, and the importance of supporting organizations such as the NRA. In an absorbing piece on "Empowering the Euros," Venola described the pleasure of teaching European travelers how to shoot, and the confidence that the experience generated in the tourists. Coaching a Dutchman into the "John Wayne position," Venola described the transformation "evident in the eyes" of the visitor as he began to master a semiautomatic rifle. "It was almost as if an aroma of personal independence was drifting over him instead of oil smoke coming off the barrel," he wrote. "So much power," marveled the Dutchman. "And anyone can own one of these?" "Yes," Venola responded, "and they should if they have not committed a felony and are not crazy. This," he added, "is what keeps our politicians from getting rid of the Bill of Rights." Such was the theory. On a warm night in 2012, Venola shot and killed a neighbor after an evening of high spirits. James O'Neill was unarmed and facing away from Venola's house when Venola shot him in the shoulder, killing him as the bullet passed through the heart. The men were friends and had spent the evening drinking before the amity dissolved in a haze of liquor. Venola claimed that O'Neill had turned to grab a weapon from his house, and that his life was in danger. He had killed in self-­defense. State prosecutor Rod Albright disagreed. "An extremely drunk man shot a friend in the heart," said Albright. "That's murder." "He had so many possible options," Albright advised the jury when the case came to trial. "Did he need to use deadly force?" Perhaps not. But the law was on Venola's side. The state of Arizona allows a resident to use deadly force if they believe their life is being threatened--­"believe" being the operative word. Venola's state of intoxication did not impair his credentials under that heading. The prosecution needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had not acted in self-­defense, which was impossible when the only eyewitness was dead. When successive juries failed to reach a verdict, Venola walked. Exhausted and relieved, he said the process had restored his faith in American justice. How would the saga feed into the national debate on firearms? wondered a reporter. "That's a little over my head," demurred Venola. "People on both sides are going to infer what they want. All I know is that I'm alive." The killing of James O'Neill was the classic American homicide: starting with an argument and ending with a bullet. O'Neill was just one of the hundred lives lost to firearms every day in America. The cost is more than the numbers. It is the fear, the anxiety, the dread of public spaces that an armed society has created under the tortured rubric of freedom. It does not have to be this way. The norms of today are not the norms of American history or the values of the founders. They are the product of a gun culture that has, for now, won its battle with the Constitution and imposed its vision on a sleeping nation. How did this new freedom, this godlike entitlement to deadly force, talk its way into American law? How did citizens become kings? The first answer, and the foundation of all others, is a myth of innocence--­what I call the myth of the law-­abiding citizen. It is the belief that mass shootings and domestic violence are exceptions to the rule of responsible gun ownership, and that any attempt to go after "the criminal element" must be studiously mindful of this silent and saintly majority. It is a theory that attaches guilt and risk to one portion of the community, and perfect innocence to another, so that any attempt to curb the flow of weapons meets the same protest: We are not the problem! You cannot make "peaceable and innocent gun owners" suffer for the crimes of "the guilty," as NRA chief Wayne LaPierre protested in the pages of American Rifleman. The law-­abiding citizen is not only safe and responsible in the use of firearms: he is brave and courageous against the bad guy. This is the belief that has stood in the way of gun control from the days of Franklin D. Roo­se­velt to the present, the difference being the degree to which liberals now accept a version of the glib dichotomy. Screen for troublemakers, and all will be well! Not only is the theory flawed on the practical level, but this doctrine of innocence is one of the engines of violence in America: an inducement to kill based on an illusion of purity. The good guy, it seems, is not the solution: he's the problem. The first truth of the gun culture is a raging myth. Excerpted from One Nation under Guns: How Gun Culture Distorts Our History and Threatens Our Democracy by Dominic Erdozain All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.

---