Book Review - "A Well Regulated Militia"

[anygunanywhere]

A Well Regulated Militia – The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America by Saul Cornell

The book is an easy read providing you are not coming off of six graveyard shifts in a row. It reads like the documentary it was meant to be with lots of citations for reference and lots of good quotes for signature lines if you have federalist or collective right leanings.

As I read I could not help but sense that the author did not side with the anti-federalist side nor subscribe much to the individual right argument. He contends that both the pro and anti gun crowd have the 2A wrong and that it essentially does deal with the organized civilian militia.

He traces the history of the RKBA from early pre-revolution days all the way to 2001. He even includes a little history on British common law and natural law with respect to RKBA as well. I did not know that under British law no one was allowed to travel armed and that this is founded in natural law!Shazzam!

One of his major points throughout the book is his contention that even during the federalist and anti-federalist period prior to the constitution ratification the typical American viewed his RKBA as more of a civic common defense duty than a self defense right which struck me as simple garbage. There was British army, French army, and Indians to fight.

I never saw where the author attempted to define “regulate�. He used the term consistently as in “legislate� and applied the term to firearm regulation as in control. We individual rights folks hold the term as in “trained�. The author does point out the lack of a well regulated militia in current time and details the deterioration of the militia over time.

An interesting point I discovered was that one of the first theorists to propose the profound thought that when firearms are outlawed only outlaws will have firearms was an Italian gentleman named Cesare Beccaria. Mr. Beccaria was a profound influence on Jefferson’s belief in the RKBA.

All I can say is I am an anti-federalist with severe Jeffersonian leanings.

"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing" Thomas Jefferson

Anyway, the book is at the League City library as soon as I turn it in.

[stevie_d_64]

As I read I could not help but sense that the author did not side with the anti-federalist side nor subscribe much to the individual right argument. He contends that both the pro and anti gun crowd have the 2A wrong and that it essentially does deal with the organized civilian militia.

Well then I would say he is wrong...Plain and simple...But I will take your word for it to spend some time and read this...

Wonder if the book is available for purchase somewhere???

I don't want to be shackled with the chance to earn late fees...

[Hyunchback]

It sounds like the author is overlooking the common law right to self defense that used to be inherent in law and should be restored to its rightful place.

The concept that each adult male should own a weapon that was, in its day, a state of the art "assault weapon" was solid, but it went without saying that no one was prohibited from owning every other kind of firearm he wanted. It would never cross their mind that their choices would be limited by anything but their own power to purchase, barter, inherit or be gifted.

If your goal is to field an army to fight as the founding fathers understood war then having weapons of a common pattern, common caliber and common accessories would be ideal. It eliminates logistical nightmares that often rose up during the Civil War with units that provided their own weapons.

Our standard issue weapons are different today. There is no reason why the interpretation should be different except to keep from frightening the politically correct.

Were we to hold our modern militia to the standards in hardware then it would be required that most of them would own at least one A4-type select-fire weapon with several 30 round magazines, an M9 or other Beretta that uses the same magazines. Some members would be encouraged to own a squad based machine gun and others would be expected to have shotguns with short barrels. Grenade launchers would be a good accessory, either dedicated like the old M 79 or something like the M203 fitted to the basic rifle. Specialized persons with long range weapons such as a .50 BMG or other long range rifle would also be part of the militia. Access to anti-tank weapons would need to be common.

Anything LESS than that standard is, in my opinion, a violation of the 2nd Amendment and any tax levied against being so equipped is, again in my opinion, unconstitutional. The government should never be engaged in taxing its citizens who are exercising their public obligation. You don't tax people punitively for performing jury duty. Why tax them for performing their public duty as members of the militia?

[LarryH]

You don't tax people punitively for performing jury duty. Why tax them for performing their public duty as members of the militia?

It may not be "punitive taxation", but every time I've spent the day at the courthouse for jury duty, the parking fee was more than the pay I received from the county. IMHO, jury members should get free parking, at the very least.

[Hyunchback]

It may not be "punitive taxation", but every time I've spent the day at the courthouse for jury duty, the parking fee was more than the pay I received from the county. IMHO, jury members should get free parking, at the very least.

I second that, and in a secure parking lot since you aren't allowed to carry. The trip to and from your car at the courthouse should be the safest you could be.

Anytime a citizen is stripped of his right to self defense by an authority then the authority should be under bond to protect the citizen. Utterly. Until they were forced to strip off their defenses they held their own protection in their own responsibility.

When that is taken away then it falls to the presiding authority that strips them to guard them.

[anygunanywhere]

While reading the book there were lots of things that struck me as strange.

Massachusetts was the first state to use the term keep and bear arms in their constitution. Several Massachusetts communities including Boston (this is a shocker) were also the first to legislate broad gun control measures “for public safety�. Gunpowder was outlawed inside the city and loaded firearms were not allowed. Violation of the law resulted in outright confiscation of firearms.

Seems like reasonable restrictions have been around for a long time too. I bet ever since Og stood upright, grasped his club with his fist equipped with an opposable thumb, some anti has been trying to disarm him “for public safety�.

Anygunanywhere

[quidni]

It may not be "punitive taxation", but every time I've spent the day at the courthouse for jury duty, the parking fee was more than the pay I received from the county. IMHO, jury members should get free parking, at the very least.

I second that, and in a secure parking lot since you aren't allowed to carry. The trip to and from your car at the courthouse should be the safest you could be.

In El Paso County, jurors do park for free in the County Courthouse Parking Garage (just present your juror badge on your way out). It's not a completely secure garage, but it is patrolled regularly & I had no problems leaving my "little friend" locked up in my vehicle last time I served. Or, if you have to park in a paid, private lot, you just present the receipt to the bailiff & they'll reimburse you along with the juror's pay.