| Can I Come Look At These Items? | | This online store is in association with Amazon.com, so these great, high-qualiy products will come from their warehouse or from other partners. Thanks for shopping! |
|
|
|
A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America | 
 enlarge | Author: Saul Cornell
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA
Category: Book
List Price: $14.95
Buy New: $12.10
You Save: $2.85 (19%)
New (10) Used (4) from $8.35
Avg. Customer Rating:  10 reviews
Sales Rank: 1108720
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 288
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.9
Dimensions (in): 9.2 x 6 x 0.7
ISBN: 0195341031
Dewey Decimal Number: 355
EAN: 9780195341034
ASIN: 0195341031
Publication Date: August 4, 2008 (New: Last 30 Days)
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Brand new item. Over 3.5 million customers served. Order now. Selling online since 1995. Few left in stock - order soon. Code: O20080807192431D
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
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.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 5 more reviews...
 Incomplete and Misleading August 2, 2007
4 out of 11 found this review helpful
While I will not dispute the historical facts that Cornell discusses in his book, he clearly decides to ignore many other historical facts that go against his predetermined position. For example, he cites to statements from Tench Coxe (one of our Founding Fathers), but omits his most telling quote: "The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Towards the end of his book, he completely misinterprets several court cases, attributing rulings to them that are not made, and ignores many other cases that tend to support an indiviudal right to keep and bear arms. While the book is easy to understand, it was clearly written with an agenda, not as a balanced piece to try to logically determine the truth. Those who do not know all of the facts will be grossly misled by this book, as it sounds plausable and complete on its face. However, the absence of much relevant information does not serve those who are looking for the actual truth on this issue.
basic individual rights are not that complicated May 8, 2007
12 out of 23 found this review helpful
Interestingly, in a recent decision, the court of appeals for the district of columbia reviewed and analyzed in large part the same history and background that Cornell uses, and came up with the conclusion that the Second Amendment unequivocally protects the individual's right to keep and bear arms. The court's opinion was based largely on and consistent with a number of liberal jurists that have come to agree with the 'individual rights' principle. In addition, use of basic legal constructs can come only to the same conclusion-- the 'militia' clause is prefatory, not operative. The 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' is operative, and therefore controlling. The operative clause speaks of a "right", a right being bestowed by the Creator, of the "people", who are individuals (as they are in the first amendment where the "people" is used), and the right is to KEEP, not just BEAR, arms. "Regulated" in colonial times meant "functional", not controlled by the goverment in a heavy handed way. Additionally, the prefatory "militia" clause is not directed at the security of "the State", but the security of " A FREE state"-- the state of freedom, the condition of freedom-- this is consistent with the Framer's view that a people have the right to overthrow a government that exercises tyranny over its citizens, and that an armed population was an important check against over-expansive governmental power. The court further pointed out that if the Framers, who were intelligent men who knew how the draft, merely intended to protect the States' power to have a militia, they would have written 'The States shall have the right to maintain militias", period.
Unlike Cornell, liberal jurists Laurence Tribe, Akhil Reed Amar and Sanford Levinson are independent researchers who came to their conclusions through unbiased research and legal analysis. As a grantee of the Joyce Foundation, Cornell framed his analysis according to his grantor's agenda. He knows where his bread is buttered.
Do yourself a favor and get a hold of "The Second Amendment Primer". The principle of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is really not as complicated as Cornell would like to make it seem.The Second Amendment Primer: A Citizen's Guidebook to the History, Sources, and Authorities for the Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.The Slaves Shall Serve: Meditations on Liberty
another anti-scholarly sham from the anti gun left April 19, 2007
5 out of 18 found this review helpful
the problem with this book and with Cornell's alleged scholarship is that he ignored the individual aspect of the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment. The founding fathers intended the right to be civic and an individual right. Cornell misses "who" exactly the militia is? Cornell already knew what his conclusion was prior to authoring the book. He also downplays his support from the Joyce Foundation which has given him many grants at OSU and funded his research. Saul Cornell is a cleverer Michael Bellesiles.
 The History of the Second Amendment April 11, 2007
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
In "A Well Regulated Militia" Saul Cornell gives an excellent history of the second amendment from the days of the founding fathers, early days of the United States, the Civil War and after, and the gradual development of the gun control and gun rights factions. Gun control folks focus on the first part of the Second Amendment; gun rights folks on the second part. Cornell explains how the courts have applied the Second and Fourteenth Amendments using a principle of ruling as narrowly as possible. The weak part of the book is the final chapter "Conclusion". One would like to think that the conclusion follows from the preceding chapters, but Cornell just sort of throws in his thoughts for a solution. But the answer rests not merely from history, but from an understanding of the current sociology of the country, from an analysis of crime in American, and from a comparison with other nations that have chosen a different path in gun control. The conclusion aside, it is a book well worth reading.
 A Wonderful Book December 4, 2006
12 out of 27 found this review helpful
One of Cornell's most important points is that service in a state militia at the time of the Founding Fathers WAS a highly regulated enterprise. It was a duty as much as a right - you were required to muster, train, drill; the units were led by an organized officer core; state officials knew who was a member and therefore who owned private firearms; and there were penalties for noncompliance for the select group of individuals who participated (usually white, property-owning males between the ages of 18 and 45).
This type of regulation and oversight would be anathema to the NRA today. They still want to hoodwink us into believing that the Second Amendment gives private citizens the right to run around with their guns and take action when they believe a "tyranny" has risen in Washington. Scary...it's the same mentality taken that was to its logical conclusion by our own most infamous homegrown terrorist, Timothy McVeigh.
Cornell's book makes a farce of such claims, and shows that the NRA would never seek a return to the true concept of the Second Amendment as laid out by the Founders.
|
|
|
| |
News 
