What do you think?
Rate this book
A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America
Americans are deeply divided over the Second Amendment. Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns. Others, that it does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias. Now, in the first and only comprehensive history of this bitter controversy, Saul Cornell proves conclusively that both sides are wrong.
Cornell, a leading constitutional historian, shows that the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia. He shows how the modern "collective right" view of the Second Amendment, the one federal courts have accepted for over a hundred years, owes more to the Anti-Federalists than the Founders. Likewise, the modern "individual right" view emerged only in the nineteenth century. The modern debate, Cornell reveals, has its roots in the nineteenth century, during America's first and now largely forgotten gun violence crisis, when the earliest gun control laws were passed and the first cases on the right to bear arms came before the courts. Equally important, he describes how the gun control battle took on a new urgency during Reconstruction, when Republicans and Democrats clashed over the meaning of
the right to bear arms and its connection to the Fourteenth Amendment. When the Democrats defeated the Republicans, it elevated the "collective rights" theory to preeminence and set the terms for constitutional debate over this issue for the next century.
A Well Regulated Militia not only restores the lost meaning of the original Second Amendment, but it provides a clear historical road map that charts how we have arrived at our current impasse over guns. For anyone interested in understanding the great American gun debate, this is a must read.
Cornell, a leading constitutional historian, shows that the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia. He shows how the modern "collective right" view of the Second Amendment, the one federal courts have accepted for over a hundred years, owes more to the Anti-Federalists than the Founders. Likewise, the modern "individual right" view emerged only in the nineteenth century. The modern debate, Cornell reveals, has its roots in the nineteenth century, during America's first and now largely forgotten gun violence crisis, when the earliest gun control laws were passed and the first cases on the right to bear arms came before the courts. Equally important, he describes how the gun control battle took on a new urgency during Reconstruction, when Republicans and Democrats clashed over the meaning of
the right to bear arms and its connection to the Fourteenth Amendment. When the Democrats defeated the Republicans, it elevated the "collective rights" theory to preeminence and set the terms for constitutional debate over this issue for the next century.
A Well Regulated Militia not only restores the lost meaning of the original Second Amendment, but it provides a clear historical road map that charts how we have arrived at our current impasse over guns. For anyone interested in understanding the great American gun debate, this is a must read.
270 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 2006
50 people are currently reading
305 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
January 19, 2013
Whatever you happen to believe about the original meaning of the Second Amendment is probably, if not altogether wrong, at least not altogether right. This, at least, is Saul Cornell's main contention in A Well Regulated Militia This is not because it is so hard to find out what people thought about the Second Amendment in 1790. It's just that so many people thought so many things that it is not really possible to reconstruct a coherent original understanding of the text. And even if we could, such an understanding would be based on a historical context that simply does not apply to America in the 21st century.
Let's begin with that context. In the 18th century, local militias were kind of a big deal. Not only did most states and communities have them; most adult white males belonged to them, and were required to belong to them, as a condition of exercising other rights of citizenship. At this time, there was no standing army and no real professional police force. If a community wanted protection--from Indians, Redcoats, bad guys or whatever--the local militia had to provide it.
And that's the way we liked it back then. Most people saw standing armies as instruments of tyranny. In Massachusetts and Virginia, the British governors had tried to disband militias, seize people's arms, and bring in professional soldiers (quartered in the homes of citizens) to provide protection. The colonists were not amused.
The Second Amendment grew out of the concern that this sort of thing could happen again (so, too, did the Third Amendment, which forbids the quartering of soldiers in peacetime). When state legislators were petitioning the First Congress about possible amendments for the Bill of Rights, nearly all of them submitted amendments that would guarantee the right to bear arms AND prohibit a standing army during peace time. Federalist, who were unimpressed with the performance of the state militias during the Revolution, managed to fight off the objections to a standing army. To do this, however, they had to guarantee the perpetuity of state militias (and assure that soldiers would not be quartered in homes).
What all of this gives us is a preamble to the Second Amendment that (translated into modern English) reads something like this: "Because a well-trained and well-provisioned militia is the only kind of security force consistent with the principles of a free Republic, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The key here is that serving in a militia was both a civic right and a civic responsibility, like voting or serving on juries. The two clauses in the Second Amendment emphasize both the civic duty ("a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") and the civil right ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.") The right and the duty are inseparable. To the eighteenth-century mind, they could not be otherwise.
Most of the things that we now associate with the Second Amendment were not part of the original understanding but results of various battles and court cases in the nineteenth century. Among the most important of these are:
The Individual Right to Self-Defense, which was recognized as a common-law right during the Founding era but not applied to the Second Amendment until the Jackson era. At that time, however, new State constitutions in Mississippi, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, and (a little bit later), Texas merged the Constitutional right to bear arms with the common-law right to self-defense in statements like: "the right to bear arms in defense of self and state." This gradually became the orthodox interpretation (and on many ways still is). However, during Reconstruction, many Southern States rejected the Individual Rights approach to the Second Amendment in favor of a Collective Rights approach that rejected any individual Constitutional right to bear arms. They did so primarily because freed slaves were demanding the right to exercise their right to bear arms. Nonetheless, the Reconstruction-Era Theory of Collective Rights became the dominate liberal approach to the Second Amendment in the 20th century
The Collective Right of Resistance, or the belief that the right to bear arms gave state or local militias the right to resist federal tyranny. Anti-federalists in the First Congress wanted something like this in the Bill of Rights, but Federalists did not go out of their way to give it to them. According to Cornell, this is first used as a legal argument in the aftermath of Dorr's Rebellion (against the State of Rhode Island) in 1842. The Court, under the direction of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story flatly rejected this argument that any part of the Constitution conveyed a right of rebellion.
The Individual Right of Revolution: The view that the Second Amendment was designed to give individuals (as opposed to state or community militias) the right to resist the tyranny of the state--completely unheard of in the Founding Era--has become something of an article of faith among gun-rights advocates in the 20th century. Cornell does an excellent job tracing this conception back to the 1850s and the abolitionist movement. This view finds expression in the abolitionist writings of Henry Ward Beecher and its fulfillment in the raid of John Brown. It has never been upheld in any court, and most Constitutional scholars believe that it completely reverses the original understanding of the Second Amendment by transforming it from an encouragement of civic virtue to an implement of civic destruction. Nonetheless, according to a recent poll, 65% of Americans believe that this is the purpose of the Second Amendment.
(IMPORTANT NOTE: The Founders clearly recognized the natural right of revolution, which they exercised themselves in the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War. But this emphatically is not the same thing as the Constitutional right to revolution, which many people see--with no support from the Founders--in the Second Amendment today).
So, where do we go from here. A lot of people think that we should base our interpretation of the Second Amendment on the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers. Could we do it? Sure. Here's how:
1. Dismantle all branches of the American military
2. Eliminate police forces
3. Require all male citizens to own military weapons (i.e. eliminate the right NOT to bear arms)
4. Allow government agents to record all weapons owned by citizens, to enter homes to inspect the weapons, and punish people for handling guns incorrectly.
5. Require people to give up their own time every month to engage in unpaid military exercises (this, really, is what "well regulated" means)
6. Require all citizens to bear arms in the defense of the common good, at the discretion of the executive and regardless of their personal beliefs, or face military discipline for insubordination
7. Require everybody to sign a loyalty oath or lose the rights of citizenship, including the right to bear arms
None of these things, of course, is likely to happen. No modern American--liberal or conservative--would tolerate them. What this means, then, is that we are going to have to do what people did throughout the 19th and 20th centuries and interpret the Second Amendment in a way that makes sense for the context that we happen to live in. In his very eloquent final chapter, Saul Cornell recommends that we think about somehow reconnecting the civil right to bear arms with the civic virtue that doing so once entailed. Such an approach would recognize that people have a right to own guns, but that they also have a responsibility to "bear arms" in a way that contributes to, or at least does not detract from, the public good.
I say let's do it.
May 7, 2023
Gun violence is the plague of our time, yet the public and politicians are so polarized on how to deal with the problem that we seem as a society unable to make any progress towards a solution. Mass shootings continue on a weekly basis. I decided to do a bit of a deeper dive into the 2nd Amendment and came across this book and a law review article that explore the history of gun regulation in the United States from the colonial period to the present day. This book challenges the popular narrative that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms and argues that the Founding Fathers actually supported gun control measures to ensure public safety and prevent insurrection.
The author examines the early colonial period and the role of firearms in the English legal tradition. He then turns to the American Revolution and the debate over the necessity of an armed citizenry to protect against tyranny. While some Founders like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams believed that an armed citizenry was essential to preserving liberty, others like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued that a standing army was a better defense against tyranny and that arming civilians would only lead to anarchy.
The book delves into the debates over the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was intended to protect state militias, not individual gun rights. The Founders supported regulations on firearms to ensure that these militias were well-regulated and effective. The book also examines the history of gun regulation in the 19th and 20th centuries, including the rise of the NRA and the passage of the Brady Bill.
The author convincingly challenges the notion that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an unlimited right to bear arms. The Founders recognized that gun ownership came with responsibilities, and that reasonable regulations were necessary to ensure public safety. Today's political debates over gun control are often based on a fundamental misunderstanding of history and constitutional law.
Overall, it is a thought-provoking and meticulously researched book that challenges readers to reconsider their assumptions about the history of gun regulation in America. Whether you are a gun rights advocate or a proponent of stricter gun control measures, this book will provide valuable insights into the historical roots of the debate over firearms in the United States.
Now a bit of my own editorializing relative to the current debate. The originalism approach to Constitutional interpretation is largely an excuse to do exactly what the originalists accuse those that rely on precedent or pragmatism. We now have a group of originalist judges on the Federal Bench who are all too willing to reject decades of precedent in favor of originalism. They are the modern-day Roger Taney judges who held that Dred Scott was not entitled to his freedom because people of African descent "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States."
Quotes:
"The American Revolution was not a struggle against gun control. Rather, the patriots were exercising their right to arms in defense of what they saw as existing liberties, not fighting to secure an individual right to possess any arms they wished."
"The Founding Fathers who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment would be stunned to learn that in the twenty-first century some Americans use the amendment as a legal basis for resisting gun regulation."
"The right to bear arms did not create a right to own any armament an individual might choose to possess, nor did it require the dismantling of regulatory regimes governing firearms."
"Americans have always regulated firearms, and the regulation of guns has always been consistent with the Second Amendment."
"The Founding Fathers recognized that the right to bear arms came with responsibilities, and they did not see gun ownership as an absolute right that could never
The author examines the early colonial period and the role of firearms in the English legal tradition. He then turns to the American Revolution and the debate over the necessity of an armed citizenry to protect against tyranny. While some Founders like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams believed that an armed citizenry was essential to preserving liberty, others like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued that a standing army was a better defense against tyranny and that arming civilians would only lead to anarchy.
The book delves into the debates over the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was intended to protect state militias, not individual gun rights. The Founders supported regulations on firearms to ensure that these militias were well-regulated and effective. The book also examines the history of gun regulation in the 19th and 20th centuries, including the rise of the NRA and the passage of the Brady Bill.
The author convincingly challenges the notion that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an unlimited right to bear arms. The Founders recognized that gun ownership came with responsibilities, and that reasonable regulations were necessary to ensure public safety. Today's political debates over gun control are often based on a fundamental misunderstanding of history and constitutional law.
Overall, it is a thought-provoking and meticulously researched book that challenges readers to reconsider their assumptions about the history of gun regulation in America. Whether you are a gun rights advocate or a proponent of stricter gun control measures, this book will provide valuable insights into the historical roots of the debate over firearms in the United States.
Now a bit of my own editorializing relative to the current debate. The originalism approach to Constitutional interpretation is largely an excuse to do exactly what the originalists accuse those that rely on precedent or pragmatism. We now have a group of originalist judges on the Federal Bench who are all too willing to reject decades of precedent in favor of originalism. They are the modern-day Roger Taney judges who held that Dred Scott was not entitled to his freedom because people of African descent "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States."
Quotes:
"The American Revolution was not a struggle against gun control. Rather, the patriots were exercising their right to arms in defense of what they saw as existing liberties, not fighting to secure an individual right to possess any arms they wished."
"The Founding Fathers who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment would be stunned to learn that in the twenty-first century some Americans use the amendment as a legal basis for resisting gun regulation."
"The right to bear arms did not create a right to own any armament an individual might choose to possess, nor did it require the dismantling of regulatory regimes governing firearms."
"Americans have always regulated firearms, and the regulation of guns has always been consistent with the Second Amendment."
"The Founding Fathers recognized that the right to bear arms came with responsibilities, and they did not see gun ownership as an absolute right that could never
August 20, 2019
So this was a "dryer" read, but so educational and informative - especially considering the MULTIPLE mass shootings over the recent weekend. I appreciated the academic nature of this book and it's critique and information about both side of the generally held views of this debate.
The most important take-away from the book was the idea of gun-ownership being a matter of civic duty, not in that it was your duty to own as many guns as possible, but that it was your duty to muster and be able to keep and use guns in a way that would ultimately protect the community and population at large. I found it interesting how long the debate of gun control has been going on and how recently the way the debate is framed is much more extreme than it had been in the past.
The epilogue was particularly valuable to me and it promoted some great ideas I'd love to see pursued... such as insurance on firearms. Great book.
The most important take-away from the book was the idea of gun-ownership being a matter of civic duty, not in that it was your duty to own as many guns as possible, but that it was your duty to muster and be able to keep and use guns in a way that would ultimately protect the community and population at large. I found it interesting how long the debate of gun control has been going on and how recently the way the debate is framed is much more extreme than it had been in the past.
The epilogue was particularly valuable to me and it promoted some great ideas I'd love to see pursued... such as insurance on firearms. Great book.
December 8, 2014
I'm for gun control. But before you stomp all over me, I don't want to take the right to own guns away from "responsible gun owners." I don't want to keep people from hunting or defending themselves in the remote rural area of the West. I don't want to keep my brother and others from collecting antique and replica antique guns for their pleasure. I agree that people who really want guns can and will get them. So I've had a great deal of trouble trying to find a way to express exactly what I feel. Until this book.
Until the early 19th century, the Second Amendment was interpreted to mean that people could keep guns for the common defense. A standing army, such as Britain used against the colonists, was dangerous and could only be controlled by strong state militias. The Massachusetts state constitution expressed it this way:
The People have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense.
And as in time of peace armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought
not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the
military power shall always be held in exact subordination to the civil
authority, and be governed by it.
By 1850 a few court cases had been decided in favor of possessing guns forself-defense, but the main opinion of the nation was that the right to own guns for self-defense was not protected by the Constitution. As late as 1840 the Tennessee supreme court "concluded that the purpose of the right [to bear arms] was to make it possible for the people to unite 'for their common defense to vindicate their rights.'" Therefore, they decided, the "only weapons entitled to constitutional protection were those connected to the militia. Bearing arms, the court concluded, referred to an activity that was exclusively military in nature."
In 1850, however, a court case in Kentucky determined that a person had a Constitutional right to own a gun for self-defense. And here comes my reason for believing in control. The people of Kentucky rose up in absolute horror at the decision. They felt that "the people's right to be free from the threat of violence took precedence over the individual's right to arm himself."
There it is: "the people's right to be free from the threat of violence [takes] precedence over the individual's right to arm himself."
Obviously many people disagree with me. And our courts are still trying to decide the meaning behind the Second Amendment. But this book, exceptionally well researched using sources such as minutes taken while state legislatures were discussing the issue for state constitutions and other rarely reviewed documents, and exceedingly easy to read, offers new ideas on the original meaning and how that has been modified over the years. As mentioned in the author's introduction "Partisans on both sides of this controversial issue are likely to find a number of surprises in these pages. Readers who come to this book with an open mind will be gratified to learn that the current impasse over guns in America was not inevitable."
Until the early 19th century, the Second Amendment was interpreted to mean that people could keep guns for the common defense. A standing army, such as Britain used against the colonists, was dangerous and could only be controlled by strong state militias. The Massachusetts state constitution expressed it this way:
The People have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense.
And as in time of peace armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought
not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the
military power shall always be held in exact subordination to the civil
authority, and be governed by it.
By 1850 a few court cases had been decided in favor of possessing guns forself-defense, but the main opinion of the nation was that the right to own guns for self-defense was not protected by the Constitution. As late as 1840 the Tennessee supreme court "concluded that the purpose of the right [to bear arms] was to make it possible for the people to unite 'for their common defense to vindicate their rights.'" Therefore, they decided, the "only weapons entitled to constitutional protection were those connected to the militia. Bearing arms, the court concluded, referred to an activity that was exclusively military in nature."
In 1850, however, a court case in Kentucky determined that a person had a Constitutional right to own a gun for self-defense. And here comes my reason for believing in control. The people of Kentucky rose up in absolute horror at the decision. They felt that "the people's right to be free from the threat of violence took precedence over the individual's right to arm himself."
There it is: "the people's right to be free from the threat of violence [takes] precedence over the individual's right to arm himself."
Obviously many people disagree with me. And our courts are still trying to decide the meaning behind the Second Amendment. But this book, exceptionally well researched using sources such as minutes taken while state legislatures were discussing the issue for state constitutions and other rarely reviewed documents, and exceedingly easy to read, offers new ideas on the original meaning and how that has been modified over the years. As mentioned in the author's introduction "Partisans on both sides of this controversial issue are likely to find a number of surprises in these pages. Readers who come to this book with an open mind will be gratified to learn that the current impasse over guns in America was not inevitable."
February 27, 2018
I didn’t know what I didn’t know about the Second Amendment.
In “A Well Regulated Militia,” Saul Cornell traces the fascinating and unexpectedly topsy-turvy history of interpreting this important sentence, “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.”
I never could have predicted many of the twists in this story of American history. I was constantly surprised at which people argued for what interpretation in each time period (Revolutionary era, constitutional conventions, federalism vs. anti-federalism, Jacksonian era, Antebellum, and post-Fourteenth Amendment era). In fact, as well written as the book is, I don’t think I still could explain the roller-coaster to someone else. I’ll be re-reading certain sections, especially the helpful summaries at the end of each chapter.
My biggest takeaway from this book is that it’s no wonder that our country hasn’t solved our differences over gun rights and regulations yet–we have never really had much consensus to build upon, even over what our Constitution means. I recommend this book, not for solutions, but for historical context from which to start searching for them.
In “A Well Regulated Militia,” Saul Cornell traces the fascinating and unexpectedly topsy-turvy history of interpreting this important sentence, “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.”
I never could have predicted many of the twists in this story of American history. I was constantly surprised at which people argued for what interpretation in each time period (Revolutionary era, constitutional conventions, federalism vs. anti-federalism, Jacksonian era, Antebellum, and post-Fourteenth Amendment era). In fact, as well written as the book is, I don’t think I still could explain the roller-coaster to someone else. I’ll be re-reading certain sections, especially the helpful summaries at the end of each chapter.
My biggest takeaway from this book is that it’s no wonder that our country hasn’t solved our differences over gun rights and regulations yet–we have never really had much consensus to build upon, even over what our Constitution means. I recommend this book, not for solutions, but for historical context from which to start searching for them.
September 18, 2022
Well, this was a depressing book to read.
We're so far in jurisprudence from any attempt at having a "well-regulated militia" that the 2nd Amendment has basically turned into a Rorschach test, one in which everybody actually ignores what came before and makes it say whatever they want it to.
What was really depressing were the last 20 pages or so, where Cornell blows through most of the 20th century. (This is a flaw of the book. Equal time spent analyzing 2nd amendment jurisprudence in the 20th century as he did the 18th and 19th centuries would have aided this book immensely.) He ends with a brief discussion of a 5th circuit case that said, absent basically any previous jurisprudence backing this up, that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, not a collective one. He concludes, because this 5th circuit case has literally no precedent, that it will not become mainstream jurisprudence in the United States.
The book was published in 2006.
DC v. Heller was decided in 2008.
It just infuriates me that Heller was so obviously wrongly decided, and by Antonin Scalia, the Crown Prince of Originalism and Textualism himself! This is just another nail in my internal coffin that "originalism" and "textualism" are just farces conservatives use to get the outcomes they desire. I wouldn't mind so much except that I have been told by Very Serious People (tm) that they are legitimate judicial philosophies. If they were just honest about it, I would take them more seriously, but they are not.
Book was fine. Could have used more on the 20th century, a lot more, actually, and the Conclusion was a little preachy, but at the same time Cornell made the case so convincingly that we're so far beyond the state-run citizen-filled militias of the late 1700s that the 2nd amendment is basically the equivalent of reading something in Sumerian so we need to change our paradigms of it completely.
I say we just abolish it. At least then we could actually decide, as a society, what kind of relationship we want to have with guns, but just arguing over this text that is so obviously completely out of date, with our professional police forces, national guard, and worlds-only-superpower-professional-all-volunteer-military-with-nuclear-weapons-and-aircraft-carriers, is just absurd.
We're so far in jurisprudence from any attempt at having a "well-regulated militia" that the 2nd Amendment has basically turned into a Rorschach test, one in which everybody actually ignores what came before and makes it say whatever they want it to.
What was really depressing were the last 20 pages or so, where Cornell blows through most of the 20th century. (This is a flaw of the book. Equal time spent analyzing 2nd amendment jurisprudence in the 20th century as he did the 18th and 19th centuries would have aided this book immensely.) He ends with a brief discussion of a 5th circuit case that said, absent basically any previous jurisprudence backing this up, that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, not a collective one. He concludes, because this 5th circuit case has literally no precedent, that it will not become mainstream jurisprudence in the United States.
The book was published in 2006.
DC v. Heller was decided in 2008.
It just infuriates me that Heller was so obviously wrongly decided, and by Antonin Scalia, the Crown Prince of Originalism and Textualism himself! This is just another nail in my internal coffin that "originalism" and "textualism" are just farces conservatives use to get the outcomes they desire. I wouldn't mind so much except that I have been told by Very Serious People (tm) that they are legitimate judicial philosophies. If they were just honest about it, I would take them more seriously, but they are not.
Book was fine. Could have used more on the 20th century, a lot more, actually, and the Conclusion was a little preachy, but at the same time Cornell made the case so convincingly that we're so far beyond the state-run citizen-filled militias of the late 1700s that the 2nd amendment is basically the equivalent of reading something in Sumerian so we need to change our paradigms of it completely.
I say we just abolish it. At least then we could actually decide, as a society, what kind of relationship we want to have with guns, but just arguing over this text that is so obviously completely out of date, with our professional police forces, national guard, and worlds-only-superpower-professional-all-volunteer-military-with-nuclear-weapons-and-aircraft-carriers, is just absurd.
June 21, 2023
This was a fascinating listen. I respect the fact that Cornell goes back to the primary sources, writings, and accounts of this struggle that began very early in our nation's history and yet looked quite different. Having not closely studied this portion of Constitutional history myself as I mainly focused on the philosophical side of it, I knew that the Founders armed the militia as a protection against overreach by the federal government (and a measure meant to be enacted by the States and less by private individuals individually), but I didn't know all the details. Really, I just knew it came about as a result of the struggle between Federalists and Anti-Federalists over ways to keep the federal government in check, concerns that it might overstep and become as bad as a monarch (a fear that is increasingly founded nowadays in differing degrees and ways depending on who's in charge), and arguments over how powerful that central government should be. The Anti-Federalists won out with this amendment. However, Cornell's book shed a great deal of light on precisely where the amendment started and how the current debate--which is radically different from the one at the beginning of the amendment's history--got started in the first place, and he tells the stories of the cases that led to where we are today in lively and engaging fashion. I think both sides of the gun debate have something they could learn (and plenty to upset them if they're not willing to check their preconceptions at the door to hear Cornell out) from reading this book. I'd recommend it to those seeking a better grasp of the history of this much contended amendment.
September 6, 2019
I like Saul Cornell's analysis of the origins of the second amendment, the role of gun control, and the understanding of militias in American history. It's thorough, fairly even-handed, and almost always fair-minded. His argument about the ways that both the collective rights theory of the 2nd amendment (i.e. that it only limits the role of the federal government in interfering with state militias) and the individual rights theory of the 2nd amendment (i.e. that it grants an individual absolute rights to own and carry a gun in almost any situation) are incomplete falls a little bit short of what I thought the introduction promised, but his conclusion, wherein he argues for a resurgence of the civic understanding of the role of the volunteer militia is a compelling (if quite optimistic) one. I do wonder how his analysis would differ after the Heller decision of 2008, which dramatically rewrote 2nd amendment jurisprudence. This is a book that I think could be a interesting starting point for discussions about the role of guns, gun control and the 2nd amendment in the 21st century, but I wonder how effective it might be.
August 2, 2018
This was an excellent book if you are interested in the history of the background for or against gun control. What surprised me was that this has not been an age old problem but rather a current controversy stemming from a reactionary post-WWII ideology. Collective, Civic or Individualism- three interpretations of the Second Amendment which will most likely forever divide the Nation.
March 21, 2019
The flawed 2nd Amendment along with its historical angle and prominent characters shaping the debate has been expertly narrated. Militia theory or the collective theory bs individual theory is the 20th century invention. Political intervention started with US vs Miler and judicial activism propagates with a Chief Justice Antonio Scalia.
Read
January 6, 2024An interesting overview of some of the history of firearms-related legislation in the US. Given that I'm not any kind of constitutional lawyer or scholar, I don't feel equipped to evaluate how comprehensive or fair this is, but it is interesting!
August 14, 2019
Very interesting read on 2nd Amendment
I found the history of the 2nd Amendment the most interesting part of the book. The various arguments probably will never be settled.
I found the history of the 2nd Amendment the most interesting part of the book. The various arguments probably will never be settled.
April 23, 2021
Good, interesting, a little dry
May 11, 2023
Probably 4.5. Well thought out, conveyed and challenging. I don’t agree with his later reaction to this book. But worth the read.
February 26, 2024
Had to read for a class, so i’ve already wrote a whole report about it. But in all omg dude we don’t care how much you know about gun history just make your point and move on.
April 21, 2013
A soundly written, well-researched book. Recommended for any readers with a serious interest in the Constitutional argument over gun control. The thesis of the book is based in the legal history of gun policy since the founding of the nation.
Professor Cornell is past Director of the Second Amendment Research Center at John Glenn School and currently is the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University. In A Well-Regulated Militia, he examines the handling of legal cases involving weapons; how and where the second amendment made its appearance legally; and at the outcomes of the cases. A Well-Regulated Militia won the Langum Prize in American Legal History/Legal Biography in 2006.
This book is not light reading; it is not "popular history" nor an attempt to "dumb down" the subject matter for a wider audience. It is a real research monograph. Fully footnoted and many of the original documents on which the text is based can be reached online. You must bring all the grey cells to bear. The reward for the effort is a clear and defensible understanding of the development of the concept of gun control, its implementation, and its relationship with the Constitution in the years since the founding.
Professor Cornell is past Director of the Second Amendment Research Center at John Glenn School and currently is the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University. In A Well-Regulated Militia, he examines the handling of legal cases involving weapons; how and where the second amendment made its appearance legally; and at the outcomes of the cases. A Well-Regulated Militia won the Langum Prize in American Legal History/Legal Biography in 2006.
This book is not light reading; it is not "popular history" nor an attempt to "dumb down" the subject matter for a wider audience. It is a real research monograph. Fully footnoted and many of the original documents on which the text is based can be reached online. You must bring all the grey cells to bear. The reward for the effort is a clear and defensible understanding of the development of the concept of gun control, its implementation, and its relationship with the Constitution in the years since the founding.
May 20, 2012
This well researched book gave me a lot to think about when it comes to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution regarding the right to bear arms. The ideologies promoted by the NRA and others in the past 50-100 years as the real meaning of this amendment is distorted compared to what the Founders had to say on the matter, that the right to bear arms is closely linked with one's service in the local militia and had more to do with one's responsibility and civic duty in a collective sense than their alleged individual right. In placing the current gun culture in context with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment, the book brings to light some of the background as to why the subject matter of gun control and regulation can be so divisive.
May 6, 2013
Incredibly informative book. I learned a lot from this and it definitely altered my perception of the modern gun control debate. I will admit that I didn't have much knowledge of the history of the Second Amendment before I read this, so there was plenty to gain from this read. The author states, and I agree with, that the Second Amendment's current debate is between an individualist interpretation and a collectivist interpretation and that both are wrong in the context of the original meaning. The initial concept as dictated by the founding fathers and upheld by approximately 200 years of judicial rulings is that the Second Amendment is a civic right that must be upheld through service to America and not something that is bestowed on an individual or collectively to the state.
August 9, 2015
From the author's introduction: "One need not deny gun rights advocates and gun control proponents their history. ... While these opposing theories have deep roots in American history, there is little evidence that either theory was part of the original civic understanding that guided the framers of America's first constitutions. ... The one theory absent from current debate over the Second Amendment is the original civic interpretation."
Got that, America? Constitutionally, gun ownership is about your civic duty to serve in the militia. If there's one thing all Americans agree on, it is that militia service as a civic duty is right up there with the civic duty to vote and serve on juries. [cue laughter]
Got that, America? Constitutionally, gun ownership is about your civic duty to serve in the militia. If there's one thing all Americans agree on, it is that militia service as a civic duty is right up there with the civic duty to vote and serve on juries. [cue laughter]
July 5, 2010
This is a great history on the debate on gun control from the founding through reconstruction. Unfortunately, the author tries to cover reconstruction through the present in just the last fifteen pages or so. It would have been better to not cover that period at all and just subtitle the book ": a history of the second amendment from the founding to reconstruction."
Want to read
November 21, 2007Legal analyst Andrew Cohen says it is essential to read this book in preparation for the DC gun ban being heard by the Supreme Court in the spring (I will be prepared in case the justices ask me for advice).
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/1...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/1...
February 12, 2009
Great book on the legal debate over the 2nd Amendment. I'm still convinced interpretation is clouded by the clever use of commas.
Read
April 12, 2016, ,.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews