Home

"The Second Amendment Doesn't Prohibit Gun Regulation - It In Fact Compels It," According to Professor Saul Cornell

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Mon, 09/04/2006 - 4:57pm.

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

I think gun rights people need to recognize that gun control is also as American as venison pie, if you will. Gun regulation is just as American as gun ownership. -- Saul Cornell

Professor Saul Cornell has written a masterful and compelling story of American history in his new book, A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. Cornell's thoroughly researched book examines the Founding Fathers' concerns about the role of guns in the militia and follows the twists and turns of the competing ideologies about guns through the 19th century and beyond. Cornell's critically acclaimed book is a must-read for anyone interested in the history of guns in America and the so-called "gun rights" movement. 

Saul Cornell, professor of history at Ohio State University, is the author of The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828, and Whose Right to Bear Arms Did the Second Amendment Protect? He has delivered invited lectures at Oxford University, Columbia University, Duke, NYU Law School, UCLA Law School, Stanford Law School, and Vanderbilt University Law School.

* * *

BuzzFlash: Your new book, A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America, states rather directly that the Second Amendment does not prohibit gun regulation, but in fact, it compels it. Your research and conclusion is quite striking to a lot of people.

Saul Cornell: The thing one has to appreciate in trying to understand the history of the Second Amendment is that we’ve had gun regulation as long as there have been guns in America. The Founding Fathers were not opposed to the idea of regulation. In fact, their view of liberty was something that they would have described as “well-regulated liberty.” The idea of regulation, the idea of reasonable government regulation, was absolutely essential to the way they understood liberty. In fact, in their view, if you didn’t have regulation, you had anarchy. Next to tyranny, anarchy was the thing they feared most. So it’s really almost impossible to understand the Founding Fathers and their world view, including their views of guns, without understanding that they were strongly committed to the idea of regulation. What’s interesting is that somehow this notion has completely dropped out of our modern debate.

BuzzFlash: You're saying that the contemporary understanding of the Second Amendment is radically different than how the Second Amendment was understood by the Founding Fathers?

Saul Cornell: Yes, that’s absolutely correct. The thing that’s easy to forget, unless you immerse yourself in the time period in which the Founding Fathers lived, is the great threat that they saw as a standing army. And against that idea, they developed this notion of the militia as a citizen’s army in which all white men essentially would be forced to contribute their labor, their time, and indeed, to provide their own gun and their own ammunition so that they could take up the goal of public defense.

And of course, nobody in contemporary America, even the most ardent gun-rights advocates, literally believe that they should drop whatever they’re doing at a minute’s notice and rush off to muster the way the Minutemen did. I mean, that’s how far we’ve gotten from the Founding Fathers’ world.

BuzzFlash: The problem the Founding Fathers had to solve was this issue of a standing army. That was absolutely the one thing they did not want. And yet they believed that the country had to have the ability to defend itself -- hence, the solution being the militia.

But later on, after they solved the national security problem, there was another and quite different threat. By allowing the prevalence of weapons and guns in the new country, they created somewhat of a monster, which was a gun violence epidemic in the cities -- in Boston, in New York, in Philly, etc.

The Second Amendment was designed to solve the first problem, meaning how do we defend ourselves without a standing army? But in doing so, there came this other problem in the form of a gun violence epidemic.

Saul Cornell: I think you’ve hit on an important change, an important historical development, that hasn’t really been appreciated until the publication of my book, because nobody really delved into this.

You’re quite correct to say that the problem for the Founding Fathers was how to create a well-regulated militia so that they would not have to have a powerful standing army. Of course, what they eventually realized is, in fact, they did need a standing army and you saw a push to reform the militia and to create a more effective professional army.

The second thing is, I would not call it a problem created by the Second Amendment. It’s an “unanticipated problem” that the Second Amendment really doesn’t help you solve. 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. The one thing they can’t do is pass laws which would, in effect, make it impossible for the militia to be armed.

BuzzFlash: The Founders did not want everyone to have full inclusion in the Bill of Rights. Some people had firearms, others were not allowed to have them. Some Americans were able to vote, others were prohibited, as we all know. One of the fears was a poor and armed populace. In terms of Shay’s Rebellion, would you say that that event, more than anything else, transformed the Founders and their understanding of how to deal with the militia?

Saul Cornell: Shay’s Rebellion is very important. For those readers who aren’t familiar with it, this is an uprising in Western Massachusetts that occurs shortly before the Constitution is written, and really does rattle the Founding Fathers. George Washington, in particular, is really quite upset about it. Of course, what it demonstrates is that any time a bunch of farmers or citizens decides to get together with their guns and call themselves a militia, they’re not going to enjoy Constitutional protection, because the Founders really were quite keen to distinguish between the well-regulated militias, which were under government authority, and an armed mob, which is how they viewed Shay’s Rebellion.

So Shay’s Rebellion is absolutely essential to understanding the Founders’ view of guns and the dangers posed by guns, and the dangers posed by armed groups acting without government authority.

The modern myth about the Minutemen is that they were just private citizens who went out on their own accord. But the Minutemen were the well-regulated militia. They were mustered. Their names were listed on muster rolls. They trained. They were acting under government authority. They were not acting under the authority of King George, but they were certainly acting under the authority of Massachusetts. So the key thing for us to keep in mind is that the Founding Fathers differentiated between an armed mob and the well-regulated militia.

BuzzFlash: The movement of a universal gun-rights ideology is rather twisted. In essence, modern gun-rights ideology was born out of pro-slavery judges in the South and radical abolitionists like John Brown in the North, each of whom embraced a violent ideology of self-defense. You write for example that John Brown is the bastard child of the gun-rights movement.

Saul Cornell: This was really one of the more surprising conclusions based on my research. There are two places in American law -- well after when the Second Amendment was written -- when you see something that starts to resemble modern gun-rights ideology later in the 19th Century.

And the two places you see it are among the most radical wing of the abolitionists -- people like John Brown, who basically were on a mission from God to end slavery, by armed violence. Whether it’s trying to free slaves by seizing Harper’s Ferry, or massacring slave owners in Kansas, John Brown really sees the right to bear arms as this God-given right, and as something that each individual can exercise according to his own conscience. That’s anarchy. That would have been anarchy for the Founding Fathers.

Now on the other extreme, interestingly -- on the other side from the abolitionists before the Civil War -- the only examples of an individual right to bear arms comes from pro-slavery judges in Southern states.

And in just one anomalous case, they actually held that the right to bear arms, under state constitutional law, meant you couldn’t regulate it in a reasonable fashion. This was rejected by all the other courts, but it’s these interesting judges in the slave South who obviously think that it’s important that everyone have a gun, because they’re in constant fear over the dangers of a slave insurrection. So it’s interesting that the two extremes of American Constitutional thought in this period on the opposite sides of the slavery issue find the clearest exposition of a modern gun-rights-style ideology.

BuzzFlash: Based on your research, people like Thomas Jefferson and others who had a very expansive or unregulated view of bearing arms were the losers in the original gun debate. Pro-gun supporters today quote people like Jefferson who were on the losing side of that debate as evidence that there was this God-granted individual right to bear arms. They, in fact, were on the losing side of the debate, and they work quite hard at rewriting history.

Saul Cornell: That again was really fascinating and is what drew me to this topic in the first place. I was interested in how the “losers” from our first great Constitutional debate -- the anti-Federalists and Thomas Jefferson -- how their ideas are being resurrected by gun-rights ideologues in the modern debate. That’s really what drew me to this topic.

Jefferson is a great case in point because there’s no question that Thomas Jefferson is a brilliant mind. There’s no question he’s a great lawyer. There’s no question that he’s endlessly fascinating. There’s also no question that he’s absolutely out of touch and unrepresentative of what his countrymen are thinking in many respects. All you have to do is walk through Monticello to get a sense of how exceptional a man he really was. And he does propose this much more expansive conception of a right to have a gun, but it clearly is not the conception that carried the day when Virginia drafted its Declaration of Rights. Again, Jefferson and the anti-Federalists lost that debate.

BuzzFlash: You write that in the 19th Century, gun control became more restrictive, not less. Why was that?

Saul Cornell: Well, this was one of the most important consequences of my research. What happens within almost a generation, you start seeing a different kind of regulation emerge. You start seeing something that could really genuinely be called gun control. The laws are not just about safe storage. It’s not about just the misuse of firearms. It really is trying to restrict the ability to use certain types of firearms which are perceived to be a particular threat to public safety.

The first kinds of laws are bans on the right to carry concealed weapons. Of course, permitting “carry-concealed” has recently been the goal of gun rights advocates, driven by the dubious work of people like John Lott whose work has been now widely discredited. Historically, this has always been viewed as a bad idea. After these initial laws against concealed carry, states began to pass even more robust regulation, and in effect, banning certain kinds of guns.

So what happens is you get this new social problem. Legislators grapple with it. They pass laws. Some people challenge the laws. Then the courts get into the game and say, well, this has nothing to do with the right to bear arms.

And most of the courts come to the conclusion that when you carry a pistol for self-defense, you’re not bearing arms. You only bear arms when you carry a musket to muster, or in some other militia-related activity.

BuzzFlash: Well, this is an important point because it’s difficult to imagine being a congressman back in the 19th Century, or even a mayor, and watching your community be devastated by gun violence, and sitting back and saying, “Well, I’d like to do something about this gun violence problem, but, hell, I can’t.” I mean, it just doesn’t make sense that lawmakers would be prohibited from solving essentially any problem, much less a gun problem.

Saul Cornell: I think you’re right. I think there’s almost no right in our legal tradition which is absolute. Every right is subject to reasonable regulation, and guns are no exception.

There’s been an effort among gun rights people to equate guns with words. I think that’s a serious mistake. I think that guns clearly are very different than words, and have always been treated very differently than words in American law. And it’s for an obvious reason -- you know, sticks and stones may break your bones, but guns can really kill you.

BuzzFlash: You say that we essentially have two histories in parallel order: one, a history of gun ownership in our country, and on the other side, a history of gun regulation -- and they’re not at odds with each other.

Saul Cornell: Right. What I hope emerges from this book is that each side in this debate, if they’re intellectually honest and genuinely concerned about the common good, will recognize that the right to own guns, although not guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is deeply rooted in American history. For that reason, I don’t think anyone has to worry about all guns being confiscated or all firearms being prohibited. There are just too many guns in America and too long a history of gun ownership in America for that to be a reasonable fear. I think gun control people really need to understand that gun ownership is deeply rooted in American history, although not linked to the Second Amendment.

At the same time, I think gun rights people need to recognize that gun control is also as American as venison pie, if you will. Gun regulation is just as American as gun ownership. Once each side recognizes that, maybe we can begin to move forward and find that middle ground which will allow us to enact reasonable gun policies that will produce the goals we want, which is to reduce gun violence.

BuzzFlash: What are the implications of your book?

Saul Cornell: I would say there are three implications. First and foremost, this is the first comprehensive scholarly history of the struggle over the right to bear arms, and the struggle between gun rights and gun control. So whichever side of the debate you’re on, this is the book you need to read to understand how we got to our current impasse, and to realize that our current impasse is not somehow inevitable, but it’s a product of a very interesting, sometimes ironic, sometimes tragic history. So that’s first and foremost.

Second, I think there’s no question that the history of gun regulation illustrates the point made by the great poet Shakespeare, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” Again, we have two traditions in America: a history of gun ownership and a robust history of gun regulation -- and they are not opposing ideas.

The third point is that the great tragedy of the contemporary debate over guns is that the Second Amendment once functioned as this great unifier of Americans -- culturally, politically, and legally. Now it’s a very divisive issue. Some people claim to be pro-Second Amendment actually view the Second Amendment as authorizing them to either take up arms against their government, or to fire on their fellow citizens. Rather than unite us, the Second Amendment now divides us. This is really most unfortunate.

I think all Americans, whether you own guns, don’t own guns, whether you’re pro-gun, anti-gun, have a vested interest in the Second Amendment. And originally the Second Amendment was a great source of Constitutional pride and really helped knit the nation together behind a common Constitutional culture. And it’s just quite sad that we live in an age when it’s so corrosive to our common Constitutional culture.

BuzzFlash: Professor Cornell, thank you so much for your time.

Saul Cornell: Thank you.

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

Interview Conducted by BuzzFlash Senior Editor Scott Vogel.

* * *

Resources:

Order your copy of Saul Cornell's A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America.

Saul Cornell's bio: http://history.osu.edu/people/person.cfm?ID=4

Bookmark/Search this post with:
buzzflash buzzflash | delicious delicious | digg digg | technorati technorati
Technorati Tags:

» login or register to post comments | printer friendly version

1939's SCOTUS ruling was simply brilliant.

Submitted by goofticket on Fri, 09/07/2007 - 11:44am.

In 1939, the US Supreme Court heard the last case for individual gun ownership rights. Today, the District of Columbia is fighting another claim. Initially the case was from 6 people who wanted to take guns outside. DC bans all guns outside the home, and required permits for any gun. The case went through the lower DC courts and the city ban was overturned. The city is asking SCOTUS to hear that case. Things have changed, since the original case was filed. Both the federal and city lawyers, have dropped 5 of the 6 people from the case...leaving one lone security guard as the sole plaintiff. He is not asking for a gun related to his work, as a security guard.
Here's the Catch 22 in this case. It all falls back on the 1939 case.
SCOTUS was brilliant in it's last ruling.
It upheld the 2nd, as a right of only the states to garner a militia...not an individual right. But, and this is the rub....it also demanded the states provide the privilege of it's citizens to own a gun, to secure that state milita. So, your state cannot deny you owning a gun, but can regulate criminals, and others from owning one...as part of a states right. The whole argument in this DC case...is whether or not, the District has the same rights and responsibilities, of protecting Constitutional rights, granting equivalent state privileges as that of a state.
The SCOTUS ruling was brilliant in balancing a Constitutional amendment, equally, across federal and state authority. The question is; should DC be given that same equal protection to provide those rights.
This case has nothing to do with guns, but the district's unique position as a non-state entity.

» login or register to post comments

Second Amendment

Submitted by Davidq762 on Wed, 02/07/2007 - 3:40am.

Our First President would sure contend differently -

http://gunshowonthenet.com/SecondAmend/GeorgeWashingtonArms.html

» login or register to post comments

Common Sense

Submitted by Rednaxela on Wed, 09/27/2006 - 2:47pm.

I am amazed that so many pro-gun people are Buzzflash readers. Not one comment above was anything like a "hear, hear!" In fact they all sound like "cold dead fingers" types. Although, I will admit, some of you have some valid points.
Anyway, what I really wanted to say was that if we stop arguing about what the intent of the founding fathers was for a minute and use a bit of common sense, we could probably find a solution to this issue that would make most, if not all, happy. The founding fathers were certainly visionaries, bot not seers or prophets. They were intelligent and elightened, but could in no way have foreseen the world we have today. By a strict interpretation if my right to bear arms should not be infringed, how come I can't carry one on an airplane? Is it perhaps becuause the law says the ammendment does not apply in that case? Such as a case of public safety? So for sake of arguement, let us say that the second ammendment is moot, and use the same principle to come to a universal conclusion, that principle being common sense.
Regulation is not infringemnet. I like to use the analogy of car ownership/usership for gun control. We as citizens are allowed to own and drive cars, so long as we prove ourselves responsible to a regulating government agency. Cars are dangerous things, and we can't just let anyone drive them. So what we do is require a certain age level, and require the applicant to pass several tests of compentency, proficiency and knowlege of safety, such as eyesight, written or oral exam, and practical exam or require that a state approved course be passed. Additionally we require that the auto be licensed, registered and insured in addition to the driver being so. Makes a lot of good sense doesn't it? Sure we still have a fair amount of accidents and issues with the system, but imagine what it would be like without it.
It stands to reason that all of the above, and maybe a bit more, could be applied to gun ownership and use. Passing tests, and proving to a regulating authority that you are neither a maniac, lunatic, criminal or vigilante. The weapon itself should also be regulated, right from the time of its manufacture. And speaking of vigilantes, I wouldn't feel any safer walking the streets knowing there were a bunch of people armed for "self defense" anymore than if it were armed criminals. Sure you might feel safe if you carry a weapon, but if you are taken by surprise there is a good chance that your own weapon will be used against you.
Common Sense, it works wonders.

» login or register to post comments

"Well Regulated"

Submitted by David Codrea on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 7:02pm.
Sorry, Prof. Cornell--Being "well regulated" was not a precondition for keeping and bearing arms--Hamilton admitted as much in Federalist 29. But I'm sure you knew that. See: http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2006/09/well-regulated.html
» login or register to post comments

Yup . . just another paid anti-self defense hack

Submitted by ultraphil on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 6:27pm.
Here's a good start on understanding this guy's motives - and Buzzflash: http://www.ohioccw.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3699&Itemid=83 "Imagine if you can a "Second Amendment" policy think tank created at Ohio State University funded by the Joyce Foundation. Do you think it would have any potential anti-gun bias? You would if you knew that the Joyce Foundation funds anti-gun efforts, such as Toby Hoover's Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence." . . . "If you go to BuzzFlash's webstore and try to buy the book they warn you that you're about to fund anti-gun groups, too: "(In the spirit of full disclosure, the creators of BuzzFlash have a relationship with Freedom States Alliance (FSA), an organization of state gun control groups working to reduce violence, and $5.00 of each copy of "A Well Regulated Militia" sold will be donated to FSA.)" One has to wonder, if you put a bunch of anti-gun people in a room at a public university, and you fund them with anti-gun foundation grants, isn't it a foregone conclusion that they'll eventually come up with arguments for prohibiting, restricting, or otherwise infringing upon civilian ownership of firearms?"
» login or register to post comments

Just Another Michael Bellesiles

Submitted by ultraphil on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 6:04pm.
Just another anti-gun nutcase who wants to rewrite history to fit his political agenda . . . To wit: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier (would that include handguns . . . hummmm?), are the birthright of an American." ~~Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
» login or register to post comments

"The Second Amendment Doesn't Prohibit Gun Regulation..."

Submitted by Davidq762 on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 3:18am.
Mr. Cornell's contention is incorrect. The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms has NOTHING to do with the militia. Witness: Preamble to the Bill of Rights: "The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will BEST INSURE THE BENEFICENT ENDS of its institution; "Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely: "Amendment II Declaratory clause; "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, Restrictive clause; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Our Constitution was based upon the "laws of nature and of natures God". Witness: "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty....The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803). Mr. Tucker should know that of which he wrote, as he was there when the issue wass debated and enacted. So was Mr. Wilson: "The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice." - James Wilson, 'Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', 1790-1792 (Signed the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and Supreme Court Justice). Further, irrefutable, proofs can be found here: http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LawsofNature.html http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/CitizensRight.html http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins.html http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins&Precedent.html http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Contents.html http://gunshowonthenet.com/SecondAmend/TheRight.html http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AmericaAlwaysArmed.html Furthermore, I would suggest reading a couple of works by Mr. Alexander Hamilton: "You, Sir, triumph in the supposed illegality of this body; but, granting your supposition were true, it would be a matter of no real importance. When the first principles of civil society are violated, and the rights of a whole people are invaded, the common forms of municipal law are not to be regarded. Men may then betake themselves to the law of nature; and, if they but conform their actions, to that standard, all cavils against them, betray either ignorance or dishonesty. There are some events in society, to which human laws cannot extend; but when applied to them lose all their force and efficacy. In short, when human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void." - The Farmer Refuted, 23 Feb. 1775, Papers 1:86--89, 121--22, 135—36 "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, (Notice the use of the word CITIZENS - NOT MILITIA!), without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28, Dec. 26, 1787. "the right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall NOT be Infringed" means EXACTLY what was written.
» login or register to post comments

No way I'm giving the govt. an inch of the 2nd amendment.

Submitted by AnthonyMason2k6 on Tue, 09/05/2006 - 5:37pm.
I just watched (again) Hotel Rwanda with my wife, and as I was looking at all those people being killed by the rebel militia, I kept wondering what I'd do if put in that position. What would I do? The obvious...defend myself. But how can I defend myself if the goverment can control/regulate the methods I can use to defend myself? One more thing. Let me remind you that if I'm walking down the street and I get mugged by a thief, the police will likely show up 20 minutes after the crook is gone. I can defend myself better than anyone can; including the goverment/police. Now, this is a progressive website. How is it that we dont want goverment in our bedrooms, telling us if we can or cant abort our babies, but we can have goverment all up in our noses when it comes to our guns?
» login or register to post comments

A mind is a terrible thing

Submitted by Siddha on Tue, 09/05/2006 - 1:56pm.
I’m a longtime Buzzflash reader. Love your work. However, this misguided historian shows his lack of understanding in some areas that are devastating to his point of view. A reasonable man in the past and some still around in uninhabited areas today carry guns as means for food and self-defense. So what? To reduce the southern gun owners desire to own guns solely as a means of stopping a slave uprising is ridiculous.

I submit most gun owners are fine with reasonable regulation; after all they have lived with regulation all their lives. It’s the reactionary gun haters or political fear mongering opportunists that are creating hysteria.

He does get the point right - that it is not the fault of the stars – but of us. This point serves to weaken his argument that gun regulation will reduce gun violence. Regulations only work on those who allow themselves to be regulated. Lawbreakers do not allow themselves to be regulated and therefore all the regulations in the world do little until the lawbreakers are caught. Then the law only serves to punish and usually there is collateral damage in that punishment. Yes, reasonable regulation is good. And most gun owners believe in reasonable regulation. But to think it will solve crime is stupid.

Why do we push regulation on one hand and deregulation on the other?

As long as we are deregulating businesses to commit mass murder on an unprecedented scale why are we squaring off against the poor desperate individuals committing crimes (guns, knives or clubs)? It’s because individuals are easier to convict… unless they have O.J’s money. Businesses today are destroying the world for future generations – not just for us. Through deregulation, they are poisoning the air, water and soil at an increasing rate. The EPA has been politicized and gutted. Thousands of chemicals are created every year that heretofore did not exist on earth and where is the call for regulation by the gun-haters? OSHA is weaker, and does not apply in foreign workshops that make most of the goods we now buy. Poorly designed and manufactured goods that kill people are protected through “tort reform” , and shall I mention the drug industry? And on and on… Can you say Enron?

Yes, lets have reasonable regulation. Guns are an easy target (no pun intended) and the favorite whipping boy of some policy makers, just like abortion is an easy target for others. Both are a very low priority in my book. Just enforce the current regulations!

If we are soo – lets look at the founding fathers… and they had such a fear of a standing army and wanted to regulate it…. Why do we spend untold billions on the military-industrial complex? That should be the primary focus of gun haters. Talk about some serious guns and a lack of regulation! Guns big enough to destroy the planet and probably take the moon with it. No wonder these forward (progressive) thinkers feared a standing army. I don’t think they feared individuals with guns at all.

A gun is a tool. Much like a wrench in the hands of a mechanic gives him the power to fix your car, a gun gives power to the people. That’s a concept that people with no self-control have a great deal of difficulty with. And the last thing power brokers want is their subjects having too much power (i.e. freedom). Can you say ‘free speech zones’?

I say: whether my neighbor owns a “well-regulated” gun is one of the least of my worries. Next

» login or register to post comments

Second Amendment did not mandate a militia

Submitted by Maezeppa on Tue, 09/05/2006 - 4:20pm.
In re BUZZFLASH: "The problem the Founding Fathers had to solve was this issue of a standing army. That was absolutely the one thing they did not want. And yet they believed that the country had to have the ability to defend itself -- hence, the solution being the militia." ========================= I think the founders hedged a matter they could not resolve at the Continental Congress. The plain language of the Second Amendment clearly does not mandate the formation of a militia. Instead, the Amendment merely makes a general and somewhat ambiguous comment about the value of militias, connecting the right to bear arms to a militia and silent on the matter of arms-bearing unconnected with a militia. I believe the issue was punted so the Congress could go on to other business because the question of militia v. standing army was too contentious to be timely resolved. George Washington wanted a professional army, and if anybody knew how unreliable the militias were during the Revolution, it was he. In fact, the citizen militias were frequently marched between columns of professional soldiers who had orders to shoot any who tried to run away. It's pretty obvious from the subsequent amendments in the Bill of Rights that soldiers had wreaked havoc on the lives of citizens, hence, the Constitution prohibited a military from billeting in citizen homes, or seizing and converting private property for military use. The citizen's demanded and required protection from these very destructive and financially ruinous practices. I believe that there was a compromise arrived at - a purposfully vague declaration that a militia (not just any militia, but a well-regulated one) could be a good thing -- but its creation is not explicitly ordered, leaving room for the raising of a professional army. A professional army, on the other hand, is neither mandated or prohibited although amendments protecting citizens from abuses by any military, professional or militial, are put into place.
» login or register to post comments