Very nice interview about gun control

[El_Gringo_Grande]

The Dian Rehm Show had Author Saul Cornell. He has a new book "A Well-Regulated Militia"

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/


The blurb.

"A constitutional historian discusses the Founding Fathers' original intent for the Second Amendment, and talks about why neither side of the contemporary gun control debate seems to understand what the amendment is all about."


He basically says that both sides of the current debate are wrong. 2nd amendment is to establish a Well-Regulated Militia. That militia consists of citizens so it was imperative that citizens had the right to have arms. But it was also intended to allow the government to regulate those citizens as a militia. Seems obvious but I doubt many will agree.

[Trooper]

I dont think many people will disagree with that debate stance. In 1776, that was the intended idea of the 2nd ammendment. But today that wont fly. I was home for the 4th of july, a friend of mine is dateing a french girl. We all had our guns out and she was really surprised that we all had that many guns with no permits. Only hunters in France can have rifles, handguns are banned. Most people do want gun control, but its more educational gun control, not all out banning.

just my thoughts i know more will have things to say

[sordavie]

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

... but I doubt many will agree.

That's probably because many are uneducated in all aspects of American history.

[Trooper]

Originally Posted by sordavie

That's probably because many are uneducated in all aspects of American history.

And the sad part is most foreigners are more educated in American history then most Americans.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

What I find very interesting about the authors point that I never hear from either side the well regulated militia is, in fact, a militia. (That punctuation always threw me.)

This means that the state can and should tell you what type of gun to buy and how to keep/maintain the firearm. And if you have a firearm you are to take it up when the state demands it. Thus no more need of drafts or letting only the poor fight. Every able body fights. I find this so appealing for some reason.

Ok, I agree with Trooper that this would not fly today. Still I think you can abstract out meaning that is relevant today. Basically that the right of gun ownership comes with allot of responsibility. And this isn’t just moral responsibility as in “keep the guns away from the kids”. It is responsibility defined and enforced by the state.

I think this includes the types of guns you can buy should be determined by the state. If the state feels that handguns are not needed, then they are not available. Maybe only shotguns are needed in an urban environment?

It also puts the ordinances that require gun ownership in a very different light. I used to find them kind of odd. But from the constitutional perspective? Not odd at all! In fact they are rather redundant because the constitution requires firearm ownership of its citizens.

Pure fancy, but interesting thought nonetheless.

[sordavie]

The constitution requires firearm ownership? That's new to me.

I don't know of any part of the constitution that requires citizens own firearms or organize militias. It may protect their right to do so, but that's quite different than a requirement to do so.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by sordavie

The constitution requires firearm ownership? That's new to me.

I don't know of any part of the constitution that requires citizens own firearms or organize militias. It may protect their right to do so, but that's quite different than a requirement to do so.

This is the authors point of view. Listen to the interview, he explains his point.

But, yes, requires. It was looked on as a form of taxation. There was even a fight during the writing of the constitution about whether or not there should be exceptions. He also mentions something about a later exception adopted for Quakers.

Very interesting, eh?

This is a book I am going to buy.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

This is the authors point of view. Listen to the interview, he explains his point.

I haven't listened to the interview yet, and I probably won't have time until this weekend (so keep this thread alive until then so I don't forget!), but, so far, I think the author is a dummy.

The Second Amendment is quite clear:

Originally Posted by US Bill of Rights

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.

It says that a well regulated militia is important to our nation's security, so the right of the people to be armed is guaranteed. It says nothing about arming militias, or requiring people to be in a militia, or regulating the arms that the people may carry...

The second amendment was intended to ensure that there would ALWAYS be a source to form a militia. Unfortunately, even with the Civilian Marksmanship Program, there are very few Americans that know how to shoot a rifle. And I directly blame those that attack the second amendment for this...

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Bump of sorts.

Let us start off simple.

"A well regulated Militia"

What is a Militia?

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Bump of sorts.

Let us start off simple.

"A well regulated Militia"

What is a Militia?

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/militia

Originally Posted by Mr. Webster

militia
One entry found for militia.
Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: m&-'li-sh&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

That was simple. SCOTUS has repeatedly stated that definition 1a does not apply to the second amendment. They've also repeatedly stated that the second amendment does not apply only to organized militias, so that leaves definition 2 as the obvious answer to your question.

It's also interesting to note that "regulated" was a synonym for "disciplined" when the Constitution was written.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

So I think we agree on Militia. It isn't the standing Army or isn't the National Guard.

It is, basically, every citizen that can fight. Well, at lest all the men that can fight.

I think regulated means just that. If the writers wanted to use disciplined I think they would have. From what I understand these things where debated ferociously and nothing was done haphazardly. They chose the words very carefully.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

I think regulated means just that. If the writers wanted to use disciplined I think they would have. From what I understand these things where debated ferociously and nothing was done haphazardly. They chose the words very carefully.

That's not what most constitutional scholars believe. They did choose their words carefully, but their words were used differently than we use them today. Today, when we say regulate, we usually think of rules or laws controlling what we do. Back then, when someone said regulate, they thought of organizing and/or managing something. So, if a militia is "well regulated", it means that they're organized, trained and disciplined, whereas most people today think that "well regulated" means that they were thoroughly constrained by laws and other regulations. If we're going to define things, this is important. I've heard too many ignorant comments that have completely ruined discussions because of this...

Regardless, it has little impact on the second part of the amendment, except to provide a bit of context: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[wildcat2000]

Originally Posted by Trooper[SNPR]

And the sad part is most foreigners are more educated in American history then most Americans.

You can blame that on standardized testing in our education system. Social studies is becoming more less of a requirement than Math, English and Science.

[CingularDuality]

BTW, the link to the audio clip should be here: http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/08/02.php#10675

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

That's not what most constitutional scholars believe. They did choose their words carefully, but their words were used differently than we use them today. Today, when we say regulate, we usually think of rules or laws controlling what we do. Back then, when someone said regulate, they thought of organizing and/or managing something. So, if a militia is "well regulated", it means that they're organized, trained and disciplined, whereas most people today think that "well regulated" means that they were thoroughly constrained by laws and other regulations. If we're going to define things, this is important. I've heard too many ignorant comments that have completely ruined discussions because of this...

Regardless, it has little impact on the second part of the amendment, except to provide a bit of context: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is what I meant by regulated. Controlled, organized, trained, managed, disciplined. But to do those things you must have rules that can be enforced. You could not regulate a group of people without the ability to create and enforce rules of conduct.

A soldier cannot be disciplined without a set of standards to which they are held, no?