2nd Amendment misunderstood intentionally

[MSGTTBAR]

Saw this today in lucianne.com

This guy is ABSOLUTELY after our guns

History lesson: Second Amendment requires regulation.
Published: September 23, 2006

THE WORDS

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Gunnutty]

We can't embrace that ethic today because of fools like him. The only gun legislation our forefathers had was to insist that every one of age knew how to use one!!!!

[WVCCW]

ne of the resaons for a "Registrar" of the guns was to ensure that
EVERYONE had at least one.
Some communities required each male to bring a long-gun and a pistol to church. Those that didn't have them were required to get them and if they didn't they were fined.

[ccw9mm]

... that every able-bodied man would ... respond ... against invasion.

Foreign or domestic. Foreign or domestic. This guy's forgetting that much of the U.S. Constitution's purpose is to assert strict control over the limits of the government's actions againsts its own citizens. There is absolutely nothing in there to imply that gun ownership and gun usage was intended to be dropped the moment the "invasion" was from the people's own government. On the contrary, it's against exactly this sort of invasion (of usurping of rights) that the 2A was framed. The wording is: A government by the people and for the people. No mention is made of a government against the people ... except in the implied language of the Constitution, in terms of specific limitations placed on the government and the specific arming of the citizens with inalienable rights that may not be infringed by its government.

The author has lost his academic mind.

[P95Carry]

The author has lost his academic mind.

I'll ditto that

[madmike]

Intellectual dishonesty is one of the primary tools of the gun-grabbing Left.

Also being morally bankrupt is just an unfortunate coincidence.

mm

[goawayfarm]

Please bear with me this is going to be loooonnngggg....(don't miss the Founder's quotes!)

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Everything before the comma, is to emphasize everything after the comma.

"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.

The implication which the author missed was, the Founders wanted EVERYBODY to be armed! They probably also knew who would be part of the militia.

"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.

Sounds like todays FFL holders.

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."

He neglects that very real chance of the the government overturning the Constitution. What would our recourse be if a coup occurred(granted that today it is slim chance, but who knows in another few years), like just happened in Thailand?

He forgets that the Constitution & Bill of Rights just ENUMERATES our rights, it doesn't GRANT them, our rights ALREADY existed BEFORE & even WITHOUT the Constitution.

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"...

'Opposition to registration': I oppose it since if the Government did decide to desolve the Constitution & armed rebellion was the only recourse, I don't want the government knowing where the guns are!

"the notion that individuals have a right to take up arms against their government -- are antithetical to the original understanding of the Second Amendment."

WRONG, the author must not have read the Declaration of Independence.......just look what the Founders wrote (before & after the Constitution):

This is the IMPORTANT PART......this is not part of this guy's article. If he had read these he probably wouldn't have written it.

(Governments derive) "Their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, (absolute power or influence of any kind) it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” - Declaration of Independence

Samuel Adams asserted in the Massachusetts convention that "the said Constitution be never construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

George Mason: ". . . to disarm the people; that . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Richard Henry Lee: ". . . to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

James Madison, drafter of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist No. 46 scorned European despotisms as "afraid to trust the people with arms," and assured his countrymen that they need not fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."

James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in his list of basic human rights.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” - Patrick Henry

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. — Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - Abraham Lincoln

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; otherwise, this force would be annihilated on first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." - Noah Webster

'promotion of concealed-carry and stand-your-ground laws': Both of these are instruments to help you DEFEND yourself, again they are 'Inalienable RIGHTS', that supercede the Constitution.

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.

Then I wonder why Congress passed the 'Lawful Commerce of Arms Act'. It was due to nimwits like this who have their own opinion of what the 2A means.

The SCOTUS hasn't been given a recent shot at it since both sides are afraid of what the outcome will be. The Anti's are afraid SCOTUS would uphold it & the PROs are afraid they'll strike it down (with a liberal court...it could happen).

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."

It served as a reminder to the people & GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, what could happen if the people were unhappy with governments actions. It was to also protect this country & it's people from 'ALL ENEMIES, FORIEGN & DOMESTIC'.

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

One of the reasons we (pro-gun)don't 'embrace that ethic' is we don't trust our government. The Antis want more government & they don't want the serfs to be armed.

sorry to be so long winded....(end of rant)

[madmike]

Long winded?

I'd call it damned well done!

mm

[Captain Crunch]

I can't add much to this discussion right now, since I just started reading Cornell's book. I've only finished chapter one so far.

I already have a problem with Cornell's iimplied definition of "well regulated". I believe the Framers meant the definition to be "well trained and equipped".

Stay tuned. I plan to post a review soon.

[sailormnop]

foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

I recently read this for the first time and I recommend that everyone who cares about the 2A read it ASAP. I was amazed at how clear-cut the intent of the 2A was to James Madison. He goes to some length to explain how futile it would be for the US Govt to attempt tyranny through the strength of a standing army, because the armed citizenry of the country would so drastically outnumber the enlisted military. Obviously, We the People are meant to have access to and ownership of any weapon that the military can have.

From the quotes above, I can only draw the conclusion that the evidence is so widespread and overwhelming that any statement to the contrary exposes deliberate intellectual dishonesty. (and also that I have a lot of reading to do...)

(The above website has lots of valuable content! Read! Read! Read! OK so I get excited about this stuff... )

[TStorm]

I already have a problem with Cornell's iimplied definition of "well regulated". I believe the Framers meant the definition to be "well trained and equipped".

Cap'n: I'd like to hear your opinion once you are farther along. I saw Cornell on C-SPAN. I thought the arguments were reasonably "centric" since he did not advocate either side of the modern argument in the interview. His interview highlighted his disagreements with both anti- and pro-firearms advocates. In his words, "both sides are wrong."

I did note that he disagreed with carry legislation. His interpretation of the supporting documentation was specific to long arms for the militia purpose. They did have interesting discussions on dueling, which was illegal in most states at the time, although few were prosecuted.

Long arms for hunting or recreational shooting (which, admittedly, was probably not a daily "sport" in the 1700s) were conspicuously absent from their discussion in that interview.

He likened the 2nd amendment with Tel Aviv, where everyone was expected to have a rifle in the home, was expected to know how to use it, and show up to muster to train or be fined. I found that very interesting.

I enjoy a spirited, honest debate, that can appreciate the merits of both sides in a calm discussion. In a perfect world, all this is fine. I enjoy learning. That being said, the practical side of this is the date is 2006, not 1799, when the Constitution was ratified.

Now, for better or worse, the Wack-Jobs have the unregulated guns.

I have a regulated firearm, purchased in a regulated store. To do so I had to submit to a background check and now I have given up my anonymity to multiple law enforcement agencies. I'm also in the process of a concealed-carry permit review, which has cause me to give up more in the name of responsiblity and a healthy respect and admiration for the law.

I might be a hypocrite, but I'm a legally armed one.

TStorm
Ruger P95

[AZ Dog]

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." - John Adams (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and the keystone under independence. The rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." - George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"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." - Thomas Jefferson, Author of The Declaration of Independence, and Third President of the United States

You'll notice that these "scholars" never seem to consider any of the founder's other writings outside of the COTUS and BOR. They just "analyze" these two documents and pervert them into what they think the founder's meant.

[QKShooter]

Saul

I think that folks back in 1776 had a much clearer picture of their original intentions than you do today.

One only needs to relate/compare the original Commonwealth of PA Constitution to your argument for Firearm Regulation to know that your 2nd amendment arguments are totally bogus modern interpretive fabrication and do not hold any water at all.


As to EXACTLY What The Founding Fathers Meant

The CONSTITUTION of the Commonwealth of PENNSYLVANIA, As established by the GENERAL CONVENTION elected for that purpose, and held at Philadelphia, July 15th, 1776, and continued by adjournments to September 28th, 1776.

XIII.
That the people have a to right bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


That the people (just everyday ordinary people) have a right (notice the word "right") to bear arms (arms AKA Firearms) for the defence of themselves (Huh???? For The Defense Of THEMSELVES - That's OUTRAGIOUS!!!!!) and the state; (Oh,,,,AND the State.)

Oh...I get it now....we have the Right to Bear Arms in Defense of Ourselves.....AND....The State. Hummmm....that's interesting.


CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA [1790]
Of the equality and rights of men.
Section I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness

Wow! NEAT! That's highly interesting. That ALL MEN have certain indefeasible rights...imagine that.

( What does the word indefeasible mean? Let's look it up together someday) Heck we can even actually ENJOY Liberty and DEFEND OUR LIVES AND...protect our property....even. They sure were generous back then...letting us do all that **** huh?



OK...real "Quick Like" you go "look up" the word "indefeasible" and then read some more.

Oh never mind...I did it for you...Here ya go.

Main Entry: in·de·fea·si·ble
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: -'fe-z&-b&l


: not capable of being annulled or voided or undone <an indefeasible right>


- in·de·fea·si·bil·i·ty/-"fe-z&-'bi-l&-te/ noun
- in·de·fea·si·bly/-'fe-z&-ble/ adverb




To bear arms.
Sect. XXI. That the right of the citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned



Just Curious.................What Does "IN DEFENSE OF THEMSELVES" & "SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED" mean to you? Just wondering?

.

CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA 1838
The CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AS AMENDED BY THE CONVENTION OF ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SEVEN-THIRTY-EIGHT.

Bear arms.
Section XXI. The right of the citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.



Current Pennsylvania Constitution
Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.


And then since you're such a brilliant teacher - I was wondering if you could provide me with a plain English interpretation of the following:

Reservation of Powers in People
Section 25.

To guard against the transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.

OK...I already know what the word "inviolate" means....kept PURE unaltered, & not violated.

I'm just best guessing with my limited education that it means - Government ~ Keep Your Grubby Hands Off The Granted Rights In This Document - You can never even question or change my absolute inviolate right to keep & bear arms in defense of myself.

Or am I missing something here?

Any feedback from you would be greatly appreciated.

Maybe you can straighten me out and tell me where I'm missing the boat....since you're the guy with all the brains and I'm just a plain ordinary dumb working jerk.

Best Regards,

QKShooter

[Lew]

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--
Thomas Jefferson-The Declaration Of Independence

[Captain Crunch]

Thanks for the note.



I suggest you take a close look at my new book which has much to say about what the Pennsylvania constitution.



Best regards


Like hell I'm going to buy your BOOK when you can't even type a complete sentence in an E-mail.

Don't worry, QK, you don't have to buy the book. I'm reading it now (checked it out from my county library). I intend to post a review when I'm done.

BTW, it's a "deep" read, with a lot of footnotes, so it'll be awhile. I ain't no speedreader!