History lesson: Second Amendment requires regulation

[ReadyontheRight]

http://www.startribune.com/561/story/695627.html

Editorial: The Constitution's gun-control pledge
History lesson: Second Amendment requires regulation.

First, a calming caveat: Saul Cornell doesn't want to take away your guns. He's neither antigun nor progun. He really isn't a gun guy at all. His thing is history.
Cornell, a professor at Ohio State University, passed through town the other day with much to say about regulating guns. Yet his aim isn't to take sides in the modern gun-control debate -- a squabble he thinks has strayed rather off-topic. It's far more interesting, he thinks, to look back to learn what this country's founders actually thought about gun regulation.

They couldn't imagine life without it, says Cornell. That's the point of his new book, "A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America." In it, Cornell excavates the foundations of the Second Amendment and offers some startling conclusions.

"As long as we've had guns in America," says Cornell, "we've had gun regulation." In fact, the Second Amendment's chief purpose is to assure such regulation. Without it, the founders feared, anarchy might take hold.

The amendment was born of the founders' desire for "a well-regulated militia." Having opted against a standing army, the Constitution's cobblers determined that every able-bodied man would serve as a member of a local militia -- prepared to respond in unison against invasion.

"It would have been impossible to muster the militia without a scheme of regulation," says Cornell -- and the early Americans had one. "Muster rolls" kept track of militia members and their firearms. And every hamlet in the land had its own de facto gun registrar: the local gunsmith, who knew every gun and gun-owner in town.

There's one right the Second Amendment wasn't written to confer: an entitlement to take up arms against the government. "The founding fathers drew a distinction between a well-regulated militia, which operates under the authority of the state, and an armed mob," says Cornell. History couldn't be clearer about this point: "Once you have constitutional government," Cornell points out, "you have no right of revolution anymore."

Indeed, "All these things that the gun-rights community has championed in the name of the founding fathers -- opposition to registration, promotion of concealed-carry and stand-your-ground laws, the notion that individuals have a right to take up arms against their government -- are antithetical to the original understanding of the Second Amendment."

They also contradict today's legal understanding of the amendment. "The reason the high court hasn't heard a case regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment in so long," says Cornell, "is that it's considered one of the most settled issues in American law." In other words, laws meant to curb gun violence are usually ruled constitutional.

What Cornell wishes people would understand is that our tradition of gun ownership grew up alongside gun regulation. When this country was young, Cornell notes, the Second Amendment created a climate in which "gun ownership wasn't driven by antipathy toward the government or one's neighbors. It was part of an ethic that knit the community together and bound it to government."

Why, wonders the historian, can't Americans embrace that ethic today?

"...When this country was young, Cornell notes, the Second Amendment created a climate in which "gun ownership wasn't driven by antipathy toward the government or one's neighbors. It was part of an ethic that knit the community together and bound it to government...."

Maybe this "History Professor" somehow knows a lot more than me, but hadn't the writers of the Constitution just went to war with and overthrown their government?

And even if we disregard the Constitution, Federalist Papers, Letters, Speeches and other information we know about the Founding Fathers that flies in the face of this idiot's rhetoric...Why would any thinking person "bind" themselves to the government? Isn't the govenment merely a tool to bind the People together?

Sheesh.

 

[.38 Special]

Hard to believe that a student of history could write such tripe.

There's one right the Second Amendment wasn't written to confer: an entitlement to take up arms against the government.

Despite the fact that the founders had just finished up doing exactly that against their British government.

History couldn't be clearer about this point: "Once you have constitutional government," Cornell points out, "you have no right of revolution anymore."

The right to revolution is a cornerstone of classic liberalism as described by John Locke and upon which our Constitution is based.

Hell, you don't even have to be a historian for this stuff, you just have to be able to read. He might start with the Declaration of Independence...

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

 

[pax]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident:

• that all men are created equal,
• that they [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
• that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
• that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
• that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends ["these ends" = protecting and preserving the unalienable rights], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it [the government] ..."

Yep, he's right. The idea of throwing off an abusive government was totally foreign to the Founders. They never would have considered such a course of action!



Oh, no, waitaminute. Plainly, the idea of abolishing a government did in fact occur to the Founders. So, um, they may have written the 2nd Amendment, preserving the right of the people to own and carry lethal weapons, but it never occurred to them that these lethal weapons might in some future day be used to alter or abolish an abusive government.

Riiiiight.

pax

 

[Panthera Tigris]

I recommend the book "A People Armed and Free: The Truth About the Second Amendment" by Jack Reynolds, J.D.

Reynolds is a neutral lawyer who set out to review the legal precedents and formally judge whether the 2nd A is an individual right or not. The book conslusively proves the 2nd Amendment calls for individual rights, with NO regulation.

 

[DKSuddeth]

thats why it's a states right to maintain a militia, to prevent that newfound nation of freemen from ever starting a revolution again.

 

[pax]

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_7_17/ai_72328635

Walter Williams debunks this stupidly recurrent lie.

pax

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Reynolds is a neutral lawyer who set out to review the legal precedents and formally judge whether the 2nd A is an individual right or not.

Yeah, but "...Saul Cornell doesn't want to take away your guns. He's neither antigun nor progun. He really isn't a gun guy at all. His thing is history.... " Yeah. Right.

Once technology changes, and the market revolution engulfs America, then cheap handguns become readily available. Handguns were not a big problem in the founding era. They were relatively expensive and not very reliable.

Once you get this new change with handguns, and once you get this problem of interpersonal violence, then the question becomes: Can we get rid of this problem? What kind of laws can we pass? And basically most Americans and most courts conclude that the Second Amendment and the original provisions of the state constitutions about the right to bear arms really don’t address guns like handguns -- they’re really about the guns that the militia needs.

So the question then becomes can you regulate, and quite strenuously regulate, handguns? Can you even ban handguns? And of course, the conclusion I found, generally speaking, is yes. The state can do whatever it thinks appropriate with regard to handguns.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=21316

This guy doesn't want to take away your guns. Calming caveat indeed. Lies do not make me very calm.

 

[XD Fan]

Yeah, Cornell sounds really objective to me.:banghead: :banghead:

The Williams peice is excellent.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

Yeah, but "...Saul Cornell doesn't want to take away your guns. He's neither antigun nor progun. He really isn't a gun guy at all. His thing is history.... " Yeah. Right.

I take it you want to disregard Reynolds then, as you claim he's probably lying about being neutral? So, you don't want the 2nd Amendment to be proven to be a individual right? Look him up yourself.

 

[saddenedcitizen]

Have any of these so called 'historians'

EVER read the 'federalists papers' ????

One can call the second amendment vague, ambigious or any other names to fog-up the issue but the writings in the Federalist's Papers CLEARLY spell out the intent and resoning behind the Second Amendment.

Or maybe, they are just like many judges (former lawyers) or lawyers ( future judges ) and think that since the Federalist's Papers ( along with thousands of pages of other writings by the founding fathers ) are not technically part of 'THE LAW' then it is not 'to be considered' when explaining THE LAW to those of us of that make up the unwashed masses !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[.38 Special]

Even a cursory examination of the founder's writings makes it clear that they intended for the populace to armed.

An interesting argument can be had about whether the 2nd is still performing a useful function. Anyone who claims that 2nd isn't about individual rights, however, is either ignorant or intentionally lying.

 

[JaxNovice]

The founding fathers didnt view Britain as being "their" governent .That is quite well established. Thus it is logical to conclude that the colonists never took up arms against "their" government.

 

[Waitone]

Ahhh yes. The old "take a modern definition and apply it to an ancient word" play. Someone tell the good professor second amendment enthusiasts may be dumb but they ain't stoopid. Will these people ever sharpen their arguments?

 

[.38 Special]

The founding fathers didnt view Britain as being "their" governent .That is quite well established. Thus it is logical to conclude that the colonists never took up arms against "their" government.

As a former history major -- which as we've seen, doesn't necessarily mean anything -- I disagree. I have seen nothing to support this view.

Could always be wrong, though!

 

[slocum]

As a former history major -- which as we've seen, doesn't necessarily mean anything -- I disagree. I have seen nothing to support this view.

With all due respect, I think you might be having a can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees problem. There was this little thing called the Declaration of Independence which is the very epitome of a source document that indicates support for the notion that the colonists moved stridently between 1750 and 1776 towards rejecting the British crown as thier government. Oh, and it was that document that crystalized the names of its signatories as our "Founding Fathers."

The DOI though not a roadmap for a new governement in and of itself, is indeed an outright rejection of the British crown as the recognized governing body over the American Colonies. The representataives to the Continental Congress that signed it were all duly elected in their various colonies by a popular vote of the people - another thing that had been going on for quite some time in spite of supposedly supreme nature of British rule. Therefore the Congressional vote to cast off the crown can be truly seen as action driven by the views of the majority of the colonists.

Though there were loyalists they were neither a majority nor an effective lobby in the minority. At the end fo the Revolutionary War many of them returned to England because their wartime allegiances had made continued residence among the victors in the war untennable.

s

 

[.38 Special]

Perhaps we have an issue with semantics. England was the colonist's government. That some of them -- and they were believed to be a minority, BTW -- didn't like said government and did what they could to get rid of it does not mean that said government was not their government nor that they did not believe it was their government.

The colonists overthrew their government. I'm mildly surpirised that such a thing is a subject for debate. <shrug>

 

[slocum]

It's open for debate because the original assertion was that the colonists did not view the Crown as their government and you claimed that you have seen nothing to support such a belief. The DOI is proof positive of such a belief. It's not semanitcs. As of July 4, 1776, the colonists officially viewed themselves as independent from and, and unbeholden to, King George (and Parliament).

I do not deny that making the choice to separate from England was painful, schismatic, arduous and contrary to the sensibilities of many who were ultimately tasked with doing just that on behalf of their constituents but they did do it. And once they did they were fixed and resolute in their belief in what they were doing. They were clear in their own minds about what they were doing and the knew well the consequences of even uttering musings about betraying the crown. The crown, was not, for them, their government. In that they believed most fervently.

s

 

[MTMilitiaman]

The founding fathers didnt view Britain as being "their" governent .That is quite well established. Thus it is logical to conclude that the colonists never took up arms against "their" government.

Actually, we tried to keep friendly relations with our parent country for a long time, and maintained hope of renewing out bonds even after Lexington and Concord clear up until the Declaration was signed. We had "the shot heard round the world" in April of 1775. King George declared the colonies in rebellion in Aug 1775. But we didn't sign the Declaration for almost a year afterwards. This is because we did view ourselves as Britains right up until the Declaration of Independence was signed. That is the significance of the document to the American people.

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed.

Every generation needs a new revolution.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

~Thomas Jefferson

Now where did we get that foolish notion that we have the right to rebel against our government? Hmmm.

For a guy who claims to be a historian, Mr. Cornell sure ignores a lot of it.

 

[geekWithA.45]

This thread arguably a dup with this one:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=219908&highlight=saul+cornell

Leaving it open, perhaps it'll go in a different direction.

 

[longeyes]

His thing is history?

Ah, no.

And we are not gulled.

 

[JJY]

Here is a link the US Attorney Generals recent opinion regarding the individual v. collective right issue -

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

 

[slocum]

But we didn't sign the Declaration for almost a year afterwards. This is because we did view ourselves as Britains right up until the Declaration of Independence was signed.

No, not exactly. "Americans" considered themselves to be largely anonymous. They simply wanted to be left alone to do as they pleased. They believed in such as their birthright, as second or even third generation "Americans." Throughout a good deal of the war only those colonists who were directly affected by the actions of the British or by those of the Continental Army considered themselves to be anything other than on their own and only vaguely afilliated with ANY political leaning whatsoever. They fought when the war came to them. That is a far cry from saying that they did not go to war.

In general, it is fairly accurate to say that it was only when they were shown that they did indeed have a stake in what was going on around them in the region, that colonists not already committed to the cause took up arms and fought. We have our bretheren in the Southern colonies to thank for the good work they did in keeping the Brits aware that they CONSTANTLY tread on the land of others. Through their efforts it was the British army that was forced to spread itself out so thin as to render this an inappropriate descriptor of their condition. The entire latter portion of the war was all about costing the Brits more than they were willing to pay to keep their colonies in the Americas. The campaign was successful.

s

 

[MTMilitiaman]

We certainly wanted to be left alone to a degree, because that is what individual liberty largely is--the state of being left alone and unmolested--but mostly it was being treated like second rate citizens. For example, being taxed without representation. If we viewed ourselves as already seperate from the crown, there would have been no need for a Declaration of Independence in the first place. The king had already declared the colonies in rebellion. But we did view ourselves as part of the crown until July 4, 1776. We made numerous attempts to fix our relationship with Great Britain, and only admitted defeat in this when the list of greivences became too long, and King George refused to negotiate.

The significance of the Declaration of Independence wasn't a self-declared anonymous nation declaring independence, but rather a nation that formerly viewed itself as part of the largest and most powerful empire the world had seen to date admitting that restitution and peaceful co-existance was no longer possible, and that we were indeed a free nation. It is not necessary to "dissolve the political bands" one country doesn't feel it has to another country. The Declaration, in formerly acknowledging the dissolving of political ties between the United States and Great Britain, also acknowledges that there were ties there, and alludes to the fact that we tried very hard to keep them. "When in the course of human events" sounds to me as if Jefferson held remorse and regret for what things had come to. It was unfortunate to him and most of the Framers, as well as I think a good deal of the populous, that we had not been able to repair our relationship with Great Britain, but at the same time it was a time to rejoice because many people knew or suspected that it would come to this, and now finally the waiting was over. But Americans, for a long time, viewed themselves as British citizens and tried really hard to stay that way.

 

[slocum]

If we viewed ourselves as already seperate from the crown, there would have been no need for a Declaration of Independence in the first place.

The DOI was a diplomatic and political statement. It proclaimed that those who created it had had enough and that things needed to change. It is incorrect to believe that it was created in a vacuum.

The colonists waded through years of a growing tide of resentment about their treatment at the hands of the crown. During those years a larger and larger number of people began to think of themselves as "Americans" rather than British subjects. That's how it came to pass that elected representatives did their bidding in the Continental Congress and made their sentiments a political reality that would serve as the basis for the lngest declared war in United States History.

But we did view ourselves as part of the crown until July 4, 1776.

Again, this was only politically. It is not accurate to say that July 4, 1776 was a fulcrum around which the will of the people revolved. That will built steadily in the 20 years or so prior so that by the time the magic day rolled around, what the Continental Congress did on that day was a true reflection of the majority of their constituencies. They were not a renegade bunch running roughshod over the people. They were doing what the people sent them to Philadelphia to do.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

That I can agree with.