Whose Right to Bear Arms Did the Second Amendment Protect?

by Saul T. Cornell

Whose right to bear arms did the Second Amendment protect? Today the Second Amendment has become one of the most controversial provisions of the American Bill of Rights, but what did the founding generation mean by it? Did they understand it to imply protection of an individual or a collective right to bear arms — and what were and are the ramifications of that difference? What ideological or social function did the militia serve in early America? These are just a few of the intriguing questions generated by the rich and controversial body of Second Amendment scholarship over the years. Exploring how late-eighteenth-century Americans understood the right to bear arms, the selections expose students to ongoing scholarly debates over this topic, providing insight into a number of the most important issues in early American historiography: the controversy over republicanism and liberalism, the tension between states' rights and individual rights, and the place of rights and revolution in the American constitutional experience.

Genres: Nonfiction, History

188 pages, Paperback

First published April 7, 2000

Reviews

[Alejandro · Rating 3 out of 5]

The concept of a well regulated militia is derived from Machiavelli's idealization of the citizen-warrior as the essential foundation of a republic.

States retained the right to maintain militias composed of these individually armed citizens -professional armies should exist only in wartime and always be subordinate to civilian control. Armed citizenry offers, "... a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers."

Armed citizenry is necessary for the defense of themselves and a free state.

Brief mention also is made of the "...purpose of killing game;"

Also discussed, are the exceptions regarding the disarming of people for, ..." crimes committed or real danger of public injury from individuals."