Watch Live: Second House Hearing on IRS Scandal

Check Out Today’s Hot Posts on TheBlaze Blog!

Government

Should the 2nd Amendment Be Taken Literally?

Mar. 5, 2013 9:27am

This article is part of a series on Guns in America that explores the use of firearms in our country and the debate over gun control. This is an editorially independent series sponsored by Tactical Firearms Training Secrets.

 

Is the Second Amendment Really About the Militia More Than the Right to Bear Arms?

At the center of today’s contentious debate on gun control is the U.S. Second Amendment and its role, interpretation and place in modern-day society. Indeed, times have changed since 1791 when it was deemed that 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.”

But what does this statement mean, exactly, and how does it inform our present-day circumstances, especially in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut shooting?

Does the term “well regulated” imply that gun reforms and regulations are perfectly within the purview of the constitution? Or does the term “well regulated” have a militaristic, rather than legal interpretation? In other words, does it simply mean a “well-organized” militia.

When polled, most gun owners hold moderate views on gun ownership and look favorably on imposing background checks and strict vetting processes for those seeking to purchase guns. It is typically only when lawmakers propose outright bans that public discord and resistance mounts.

Would making the culture around guns more like the culture around smoking and drinking and driving, like some people believe, change the landscape around firearms thereby making America a safer place?

These questions and a myriad others abound as TheBlaze continues its series on this complex and at times, misunderstood subject matter.
First, we will begin with the most basic question: What does a “well-regulated militia” really mean?

Constitutional historian Saul Cornell explores the basis of the Second Amendment in his book, “A Well Regulated Militia,” arguing that the founders actually considered the right to bear arms a civic, rather than individual or collective right. This means that each citizen would be obligated to arm himself so that he could participate in a well regulated militia.

Adding another layer to Cornell’s sentiments is historian Warren Throckmorton, who also spoke to TheBlaze about his take on the Second Amendment and what is driving the current debate.

“There is a robust debate about the nature of the rights covered by the Second Amendment,” the historian said.

“Some consider the right to belong to individual citizens and other consider the right to relate to service in a militia. There are shades of grey in between.”

The modern-day debate, according to Cornell, began in earnest in the nineteenth century, when America first experienced its first true wave of gun violence and subsequently enacted the earliest gun control measures. He also posits that the debate reached a fever-pitch during Reconstruction, when the Second Amendment and its connection to the Fourteenth Amendment were hotly contested among Democrats and Republicans. He maintains that upon victory, Democrats elevated the idea of “collective rights” to new heights, thereby setting the stage for all modern-day debates on gun control.

“I don’t think that many people on either side of the modern gun debate – gun control or gun rights – really would be happy if we went back to the original meaning of the Second Amendment, because for gun control people it would involve a much greater militarization of society,” Cornell said in a previous interview.

“We would be living in a country much more like Israel or Switzerland. And on the other side, it would involve much greater regulation because you could not muster the militia without regular inspections of firearms, without much more training. So you have to be careful what you wish for, because sometimes you may get it.”

To better understand these statements and glean greater understanding of gun control and the potential motivations of the founders, TheBlaze spoke with Cornell at length.  

The Fordham University professor, who lives just near Newtown — site of the horrific school shooting that claimed the lives of 20 children and six adults –

Does the Second Amendment read as a state, federal or individual right? 

In terms of the modern-day gun debate, the issue at play, according to Cornell, is the Second Amendment was, in its essence, an obligation rather than a right as is considered in the modern-sense.

“If you go back and read the Second Amendment, they talk about the militia more than the right to bear arms. In the modern world we ignore the first part of the amendment.”

The professor went on to explain that the first part of the Second Amendment specifically discuss the prerequisite of a “well-regulated militia,” and that in colonial times, the earliest American settlers had neither police nor military protection to ward off threats from the French, British and Indians. Thus, the militia was crucial to the colonists’ very survival. States like Pennsylvania, however, due to its Quaker-pacifist roots (and whose state constitution even listed a right “not to bear arms), was required to have a militia in which male citizens enlisted.

When it comes to points concerning the definition of the militia, Throckmorton explained that “good people differ about the application of the right and its interpretation,” but that in any event, most agree that the source of the Second Amendment is derived from the 1689 English Bill of Rights, particularly the following:

6. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of parliament, is against law.

7. That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.

“Protestants had been disarmed by the King and this statement sought to restore this right without regard to religious affiliation,” Throckmorton said.

“Even so, what seems clear from the English Bill of Rights is that some undefined restrictions on the right to ‘have arms for their defense’ were considered reasonable.  The arms were to be ‘suitable to their conditions’ and subject to allowance by law. Thus, it seems reasonable to think that the framers would not have understood the Second Amendment as the statement of a right for any citizen to possess any available weapon at any time.”

Throckmorton noted that the framers of the constitution “distrusted standing armies which had been used by monarchs to suppress the rights of citizens.” Thus, he maintains that the reference to a well-regulated militia directly reflects the founders’ suspicion of a standing army.

“In a well-regulated militia, citizens used their own weapons and as such had a right to keep them and then bear them if called upon to defend their state or nation,” the historian said.

While the founders’ intentions may have been clear, they offered little language, notes Throckmorton, on how to “parse the right in public policy.”

Cornell noted that most hardline activists have a “spurious understanding of the Second Amendment,” often misquoting the founders. For instance, a powerful quote gun advocates often cite to support their argument hails from Patrick Henry, who said, ”the great object is, that every man be armed….Every one who is able may have a gun.”

Is the Second Amendment Really About the Militia More Than the Right to Bear Arms?

Patrick Henry. Photo source: Beaufortcountynow.com

The issue, as Cornell points out, is that Henry’s full quote was taken out of context.

During the Virginia Convention in which the famed statement was made, Henry made due note of Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 to stress how detrimental it could be if both state and congress were to preside over the militia. In context and speaking about the “absurdity” that would be brought to bear by concurrent powers governing the militia, Henry stated:

To admit this mutual concurrence of powers will carry you into endless absurdity–that Congress has nothing exclusive on the one hand, nor the states on the other. The rational explanation is, that Congress shall have exclusive power of arming them, &c., and that the state governments shall have exclusive power of appointing the officers, &c. Let me put it in another light.

May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case.

Cornell noted that when taken in its entirety, and with a view towards favoring state over federal rights, Henry’s remarks “take on a whole different meaning.”

So is the Second Amendment an obligation more than a right to bear firearms? 

Is the Second Amendment Really About the Militia More Than the Right to Bear Arms?

Photo source: Americans for Prosperity

During colonial times, it was an obligation to bear arms and according to Cornell, the first draft of the constitutional amendment even instructed citizens on which types of guns to carry. Thus, the irony according to Cornell, is that while staunch gun-rights advocates insist that the right to bear arms is about protecting oneself from the government, the entire Second Amendment is, at its core, “all about government telling us what to do.”

So what changed over two-plus centuries and how did the Second Amendment come to be synonymous with everyday Americans’ right to bear arms?

Cornell explained that until somewhat recently, the twentieth century “orthodox view” according to legal scholars, maintained that the Second Amendment was a collective right — meaning the right of state governments to form their own militias — but that with a “concerted effort by gun activists and contrarian law professors,” it morphed into an “individual right” of which everyday Americans could avail themselves.

This narrative was solidified in modern society following the Supreme Court’s precedent-setting ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which deemed the Second Amendment as an individual right — in other words, right of an individual citizen (not state militia) — to possess a firearm for measures of self-defense, including within the home and federal enclaves.

Reinforcing this precedent, Cornell noted that poling data over the last 25 years reveals that average Americans indeed believe the Second Amendment is an individual right.

When it comes to the argument that the Second Amendment is an “inalienable right,” Cornell pointed out an interesting fact. “Inalienable rights” simply mean that one is not permitted to divest him or herself from that right or property, but it does not mean that the right or property is not subject to regulation.

A handgun, rifle or other firearm is still considered property, and property is always subject to reasonable regulation, even government seizure in certain instances. The crux, for Cornell, is that Americans cannot cherry pick which property can be regulated and which should not. Law dictates that within reason, all property is subject to such regulation.

 

Today’s interpretations and laws 

During his interview with TheBlaze, Cornell explained what he sees as a problem with modern-day interpretations of the Second Amendment, which he believes is brought about by those who quote the Second Amendment and Founding Fathers only in part, or out of context.

“What amazes me as a historian, is how far we have come from the world that gave us this constitutional tradition,” he told TheBlaze.

Regardless of past and present-day interpretations of the Second Amendment, Throckmorton said that a robust debate on this controversial topic is not bound to abate anytime soon. The historian also believes, however, that neither past nor present-day interpretations of the Second Amendment allows for “an unfettered right to possess any firearm at any time.”

“I think that is where the culture right now seems to be — ‘all or nothing,’” he observed.

“I don’t think you can sustain it [unfettered gun ownership] historically or legally…so it’s more about what kind of restrictions [we will enact.]”

It is doubtful, in other words, that the Supreme Court would ever sustain a position where gun restrictions or reforms were completely off the table

Tucson attorney David T. Hardy, a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, had another point of view to share, and believes current laws concerning gun rights bear significant incongruities.

Hardy, who served with the U.S. Department of the Interior for ten years and has authored numerous books and legal publications on the Second Amendment, pointed out that several portions of existing law that are at least questionable here.”

“For example, the ban on firearm possession by all persons convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year’s imprisonment, as applied to non-violent and often minor offenses,” he told TheBlaze in an email.
“It’s hard to understand why Martha Stewart is too dangerous to have a gun. In Maryland, it even covers common law misdemeanors, which have no fixed punishment.” He then explained that “many other federal categories of prohibited possessor may be vulnerable because, back in 1968, they were added for little or no reason.”
“Congress banned possession by those who have renounced their citizenship, or have received a dishonorable military discharge, because it wanted to be able to say that Lee Harvey Oswald would now be barred (in fact it’s not clear that either would have applied to him). Later, it barred possession by foreign tourists (on a non-immigrant visa) unless they had a hunting license because some of the 9/11 hijackers were rumored to have that visa.”

Does the type of firearm or how it is stored matter?

If it were not for Columbia v Heller, Cornell said that the best way to realize the true spirit of the Second Amendment would be to not trade home security for state security. In other words, a focus on certain gun reforms ensuring the public’s safety would be prudent.

For the professor, that answer lies in safe storage and limitations on where certain firearms, like the

Is the Second Amendment Really About the Militia More Than the Right to Bear Arms?

AR15 Rifle. Photo source: Wannado.com

AR-15 assault rifle, can be kept and used. He does not believe that an AR-15 assault rifle is necessary for home security, but that if gun enthusiasts prefer such assault rifles,  they should at least be stored in a secure armory.

Cornell does not advocate confiscating AR-15s, but said such weapons should be stored in a secure location while handguns and shotguns can remain in a home environment.

In light of the Newtown massacre, Cornell said that had the Connecticut statute on safe-storage was applicable not just in the case of minors living at a residence, but extended to those households with a mentally disturbed person in residence, Adam Lanza, who actually did try to procure a gun himself but was discouraged by the background check, could have potentially been thwarted.

Gun safes and safe storage measures very well could be key in preventing senseless deaths moving forward. Military men and women and responsible gun owners are diligent about locking their guns away and separating ammunition. Clearly, Cornell noted, Adam Lanza’s mother was not a safe gun owner. But while the government cannot control whether gun owners will act responsibly, the professor observed that by assessing strong penalties on those who don’t comply could be a deterrent for irresponsible gun handling in and of itself.

The Second Amendment is and will likely continue to be mired in controversy and debate over how it should be properly interpreted and applied. Experts, who base their analysis on historical data and Supreme Court precedent, believe that an American in which unfettered gun access exists is not a likely scenario legally. Thus, gun rights advocates may need to consider types of reforms that will ensure law-abiding citizens are able to safely procure and use firearms while at the same time ensuring public safety overall.

Here are the other pieces in our ongoing Guns in America series (running every Tuesday) sponsored by Tactical Firearms Training Secrets:

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Comments (176)

1 2 3 … 5
  • Female
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:15am

    Academia?? really??? Professors living in “Ivory Towers” in bedroom communities and cities, just don’t know what goes on out in real America, whether it be rural, border farms, or violent inner-city neighborhoods. We are having to read input from professors from the most liberal areas, Conneticut and in Arizona–Tucson. I live in AZ and Tucson is the most liberal area of the state.

    You want to talk about the need and right to bear arms: bring me the guy, who fought to the supreme court to have a gun to protect his home from robbers or the families living in border communities where the traffickers of drugs and humans are just walking through their property; and then there is the family up in ND where the local sherriff wanted to play with drones, so, she created a problem over a neighbor’ s 6 cows wondering onto the property, and tazing the homeowner because he wanted to be paid by cow-owner for feed consumed.

    We already know what these lofty educrate, elitest think.

    The militia was quite simple. Everybody have their own gun in their own home. Everybody is part of the militia. If trouble arose, from anywhere to take life or property (no eminent domain), foreign or domestic including; tyranical governments of federal, state, and local: to infringe on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (not perversion) there was a stated right to self-defense of personal and community (local as in town and area militia–neighborhoods).

    Report this comment

    Female  
    • term limits for congress
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:25am

      Since the liberals control the language and history, I will wait for their interpretation and final ruling on the topic. That’s how it works now.

      Report this comment

      term limits for congress  
    • naughtycal
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:44am

      Someone tell this professor that germany had a police force and a military force ….that were both well regulated. And million die horrible deaths because they had no 2CD AMENDMENT

      Report this comment

      naughtycal  
    • Fat Hubie
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:17pm

      Thus,”necessary to the security of a free state”.

      Report this comment

      Fat Hubie  
    • Conservative2
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:14pm

      All this discussions on Militia and the individuals rights are two separated issues. Do we not think the framers that wrote the Us Constitution, did so with extreme careful wording, punctuations and intentions?
      Common Sense says Yes, it was painstakingly crafted, and reviewed several times by many. There were no mistakes as to their intent!

      That being said lets examine the 2nd amendment then;
      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.

      When you examine this statement notice it’s a complete Sentence!
      This sentence is separated into four different statements with in one sentence!

      The first part describes the need for a supervised militia “Well regulated Militia”

      The second part justifies the need for this Militia “being necessary to the security of a free State”

      The third part adds further justification to the second part “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”

      The fourth part commands “shall not be infringed.”

      If the framers intended on regulating the people, then why did this statement appear after the mention of Regulating? The only intention here is to regulate the militia, not the people! How ever using this, the intent was for the people NOT to be infringed.

      I maintain that when you analyze the 2nd amendment, the punctuation, the careful placement of each statement as written, was for a reason, so that it could only be taken i

      Report this comment

      Conservative2  
    • WarMunger_Al
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:32pm

      Regulated= equipped and trained, it has nothing to do with the modern usage of the term. All citizens should be trained in the use of arms at all public and private schools.

      Report this comment

      WarMunger_Al  
    • Wolf
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 4:00pm

      My tendency is to agree with Conservative insofar as the Second and militia is concerned, since the stated purpose is for having an armed militia capable to defending the country against invaders foreign and domestic. This is above and beyond a ‘formal’ military, which the Founders seemed to be against: i.e. ‘standing army’.

      But when it comes to self defense, we don’t need the Second- or any- Amendment, since, as the Framers said in the preamble, ‘…nature’s law and nature’s God…’, are all the reason one needs to be an advocate of defending self, family, property, and others as well as one’s country. This law is global, not just for Americans, though we seem to be the only people who try to recognize this fact. We don’t need a Constitution to legalize defending ourselves.

      The problem with guns is those who are afraid of defending themselves, unwilling to take on a responsibility to maintain their lives, yet don’t understand that police have no reason nor compunction to defend anyone against attack. The Supreme Court has verified this, leaving it up to individuals and the police can just clean up after any altercation. Those people afraid of their own shadows are trying to lay their fears upon everyone, while the government is trying to wrest control from all of us- make slaves of everyone, including those who want gun control.

      It just boils down to who is going to have control of our lives: By all appearances, government is getting its way and we are

      Report this comment

      Wolf  
    • NachtundNebel
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 4:10pm

      “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78

      Report this comment

      NachtundNebel  
    • petersenonmain
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 4:31pm

      If the NRA had not stood up against what is being tried now in prior years Obama, Feinstein and the others of that ilk now would be using the blast furnaces that are not in use now to melt down every gun in the USA.

      Report this comment

      petersenonmain  
    • bartjoebob
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 4:44pm

      “Clearly, Cornell noted, Adam Lanza’s mother was not a safe gun owner.” Really? I was not aware the police report and details of the investigation of the home were released! And here is academia blowing hot air into the wind about mandating armories and state controlled storage for certain guns based on cosmetics. If Nancy Lanza was really a prepper it is doubtful she had an arsenal leaning up against the wall behind the closet door. Second, would a mom really leave firearms unsecured while out of town for the weekend with her mentally ill, upset son left home alone? HIGHLY DOUBTFUL. For all we know, Adam spent days hacking, prying, and cutting into whatever storage she had to access these weapons. FOR ALL WE KNOW….. So this rush, this urge, this thrill running up every liberal’s leg in america to pounce on this to advance a decades long pet project before the facts are out IS PURE EXPLOITATION OF THESE KIDS. To them and these academic blowhard elitists, the ends simply justify the means

      Report this comment

      bartjoebob  
    • katzkiner
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 7:29pm

      SWAT TEAM instructor, Larry Correia: Average number of victims per mass shooting.
      Shooter confronted by police=.—— 14
      Shooter confronted by armed civilian= 2.5
      Math so simple. Meteor can do it.
      You won’t see this information on the Communist News Network

      Report this comment

      katzkiner  
    • CLEttinger
      Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:47am

      Liberals need a history lesson. In the 1700′s there wasn’t a standing police force. Often the Captain of the Local Militia served as a law officer. [Part of the 2nd amendment was for the following] If someone committed a crime the citizens would form up the “militia” and capture the criminal to bring them to trial by their peers. The “well regulated” part was so the militia would not mete out justice themselves. [The other part was to defend the nation itself from enemies both foreign AND domestic]

      Report this comment

      CLEttinger  
    • CLEttinger
      Posted on March 6, 2013 at 12:00pm

      I left out the MOST important part. The militia shall be “well regulated”, that’s the police. The PEOPLE’s rights shall not be infringed.

      Report this comment

      CLEttinger  
    • dalek
      Posted on March 6, 2013 at 12:31pm

      @Conservative2,

      You explain it the same way I see it. People tend to ignore the commas and their placement.

      What gets me, it is so simple to just read the sentence and not make it into something complicated. It is in plain English. It is really simple to understand. People try to over think it.

      Report this comment

      dalek  
  • woodyee
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:11am

    Stupid argument for stupid people.

    The ‘militia’ ARE The People, and need no sanction from the government. If we did, the 2nd Amendment would mean nothing.

    The military is government sanctioned, and recently, State Nat’l Guards, which have been federalized; now it seems that they’re working on turning police forces into paramilitary organizations. My Rights – YOU’RE Rights, are non-negotiable.

    Report this comment

    woodyee  
    • termyt
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:45am

      Indeed, and missing from the discussion is that neither the Second Amendment or any other grants a right. The rights are already ours.

      The Bill of Rights is an exposition on how to recognize and resist a tyranny encoded into our highest laws. Because the Constitution does not revoke the right to bear arms, it cannot be revoked from the people, 2nd Amendment or no. Instead, the 2nd Amendment is saying that it is the people’s responsibility to be able to respond to threats foreign and domestic so the government must not interfere.

      Report this comment

      termyt  
    • Noonien_Soong
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:11am

      @TERMYT you hit on an important part. That is, The Bill of Rights is an exposition on how to recognize and resist a tyranny encoded into our highest laws, the word “Encoded” is really important. One can not reinterpret or mis-interpretate.

      Report this comment

      Noonien_Soong  
    • 2Amend
      Posted on March 6, 2013 at 2:36pm

      Yes! The very name “The Bill of Rights”, clearly shows these are the Individual “RIGHTS” of its citizens! That these amendments are proscribing the power of the Government, guides us to the meaning of “Militia”..which is key to understanding “well regulated”. The Constitution made provision for an army that protected the colonies, referring to this creation as “the standing army”, in which Congress was given the power to “raise and support.” However, the Framers recognized that Britain’s Tyranny existed because THEIR laws forbade its subjects from being armed, something they would NOT allow, and recognized the need for Constitutional amendments. This is why anti-Federalist opponents of the non-amended Constitution, such as ‘The Federalist Farmer’ and George Mason, speaking for the State of Virginia and who refused to sign the Constitution, stated, “Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people”.
      This brings us to the meaning of “A well regulated” Militia, and not “THE well regulated..” showing two things. First its difference to the “standing army” within the Constitution that is regulated by Congress and the President.. and second, the possibility of establishing more than ‘one’ Militia’. Since the Militia served to keep the “standing army” in check, then “well regulated” refers to its armed citizens having the right to possess munitions, as well as receiving proper training. This being confirmed by Hamilton in Federalist 29.

      Report this comment

      2Amend  
  • Cavallo
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:10am

    There is no such thing as collective rights, there are only individual rights. Collective rights are a misdirection to impersonalize the individual and make his oppression more palatable to the flimsy rotted consciences of self styled aristocratic rulers and their sycophantic fascist supporters. Even as a group it is still a group of individuals who do not give up their rights simply because they have gathered for a common purpose or in a common location. Assorted Marxists and other bloody centralized boot lickers will never cease attempting to deprive you of your rights and liberties. At their core they want power over you, and the authority to end you at their whims. The Statists and leftists are evil, vile, and twisted. To compromise with them is to sign your own death warrant.

    Report this comment

    Cavallo  
    • Female
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:52am

      “flimsy rotted consciences of self styled aristocratic rulers and their sycophantic fascist supporters”

      Nice one! No pulling punches on that comment. Surely, the poor professors have a bloody nose and some brain damage, now!

      I would bet, if in the high crime neighborhoods; government and law enforcement trained and armed all the non-criminals (militia): crime would go down. Crime went down in Florida for citizens because of more freedom to carry. (Criminals target the tourists)

      The problem is Americans handed over the responsiblity of self-defense to sheriffs, police, state guards, federal military; wanting to live “the American Dream” of white picket fences and “The Beaver”. We changed from having an “Uncle Sam” to a “Big Daddy Pimp” and we are all prostitutes having to give the “BOSS” our money to continue his living in luxury. The big city pros because of population: make the laws for the rest of the country, without regard or understanding of the impact because they are sooo far from the realities and believe they are entitled to the property of others (socialists). Anybody, who believes in guns, gardens, and GOD are to be mocked, marginalized, and sooner rather than later; legislated to extinction.

      The beauty of the Constitution was simplicity:
      “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.”

      Report this comment

      Female  
    • woodyee
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:22am

      I would not have bothered commenting, had I read your post beforehand. You are a good Man.

      Report this comment

      woodyee  
    • AxelPhantom
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:50am

      Like!

      Report this comment

      AxelPhantom  
  • civilwarcometh
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:10am

    When will people stop conversing with COMMIES over our rights??? This is not up for discussion case closed. F’ing Marxist/Communist in this country need to leave or DIE!!!!!

    Report this comment

    civilwarcometh  
  • Joshnbama
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:10am

    “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

    Oh, and here is the a Patrick Henry quote the good professor decided to not use:
    “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
    Patrick Henry
    American Patriot

    Any new gun laws that are passed by congress and that restrict ownership in any way, I WILL NOT COMPLY!

    Report this comment

    Joshnbama  
  • 2GodBeTheGlory
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:09am

    I do not agree his assertions, as he does not take into account that the framers formed that amendment like every other amendment, i.e. multiple “civil” rights within each. For instance, within the first amendment, there are no less than 6 “civil” rights to which the federal government may not infringe upon. The second amendment is no different. Cornell failed to mention how the war was started nor failed to mention that most settlers had weapons and that it was common practice to have such. Cornell also failed to mention the famous quot by Thomas Jefferson about the tree of liberty, which of course cannot be done if the government has greater arms than it’s citizen.

    Report this comment

    2GodBeTheGlory  
  • JohnJoseph
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:09am

    The “left” confuses the word “militia” with the word “military”. That is why their argument is that only the “military should have firearms”. The Bill of Rights are “individual rights”. Therefore, when the Second Amendment says “militia” it is referring to an “established entity”, it is referring to “individuals” gathering together to form a “group” (militia) to fight for whatever cause that arose.

    Report this comment

    JohnJoseph  
    • Mr_D
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:57pm

      The left is stupid. Amendment V clearly shows that the “land or naval forces”, (i.e. MILITARY) and “the militia” are unique.

      “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia…”

      Report this comment

      Mr_D  
  • media-bias-steals-elections
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:07am

    Unless the people have the right to bear arms, there are no militias. Pretty darn simple, you can read it from left to right, or right to left, it means the same thing.

    Report this comment

    media-bias-steals-elections  
  • Maggie in Indiana
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:04am

    This Newtown shooting is one in our history. Time to move forward with the discussion about the 2nd amendment. “The kids” being dangled in every discussioin is not going to get us anywhere. The title of this post and the long drawn out body of it has been said so many times. Read the amendment and interrpet it as it’s written. Put down the magnifying glass.

    Report this comment

    Maggie in Indiana  
    • objectivetruth
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:12am

      Yeah I agree.The use of kids though is very old.It was also used by none other than Hitler himself.Remeber this quote the next time someone attempts to use kids in the equation please.
      “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

      — Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

      Report this comment

      objectivetruth  
  • 00100111
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:02am

    We are all part of the militia. The militia was never disbanded. All citizens are part of the militia. “Well Regulated” means to “keep regular, well maintained, well equipped.” If I’m to muster for militia duty once a month, I’m a-ok with that. (Who says I don’t already? Oooh, I bet that makes you lefties foam at the mouth) The only people inspecting my arms to insure they’re in good working order will be my militia COs and NCOs, NOT govt personnel.

    Report this comment

    00100111  
    • 00100111
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:06am

      And no, I will not store them in an armory.

      Report this comment

      00100111  
    • schlepnier
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:24am

      Wow this guy is so smart he is dumb. its better then that, look at the basic english sentence structure-

      If you replace militia and arms with librabries and books it becomes clear-

      “A well operated library being neccisary for the literacy of a state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed”

      The state keeping or not keeping a library system operational in no way prevents or causes the right of the people to keep and read books.

      Additionally there was alot more commentary from the founders in speaches,articles and the federalist/anti-federalist papers, the contributor also spuriously surmises that a person hell bent on commiting such a crime would be detered by a lock or a safe. if they are willing to kill to get the weapons, gettting a key or code is hardly beyond their ability.

      Report this comment

      schlepnier  
  • The Big Mick
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:01am

    Every day, starting today, from now on, I am going to ask Glenn and The Blaze “Glenn’s Tough Question of the Day”, and I will keep asking it till I get a Cogent Answer.

    Today’s “Glenn’s Tough Question of the Day” is: “What is Glenn’s point in talking about Militias, and the Right to Bear Arms, and all the Stories of “Guns save lives and prevent rape”, when Glenn is simultaneously saying to us that our PROPER RESPONSE to TYRANNY should be Jesus/Gandhi Pacifism? Why the deafening Cognitive Dissonance between Violence in Defense of Our Own or Another’s PERSON and Non-violence in Defense of Our Sacred LIBERTY?

    Report this comment

    The Big Mick  
    • objectivetruth
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:09am

      Maybe I can help anwer it for you.To have the patience of ghandi when dealing with those who would disarm you through peaceful means is acceptable.To those who would forcibly disarm you shall be met with Forcible resistance.

      Report this comment

      objectivetruth  
    • civilwarcometh
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:58pm

      I see they took my response down.

      Report this comment

      civilwarcometh  
    • The Big Mick
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 2:29pm

      CivilWar.
      Weren’t me, brother, I never flag a post unless it’s by stupid misclick accident.
      OBJTRUTH– I concur, in fact it is very similar to L.Neil Smith’s “Prime Directive” for his Libertarian Utopia “The North American Confederacy”—”Thou shalt not INITIATE violence.” Once some sombeech has initiated violence toward you or a neighbor you are ENCOURAGED to blow his head off. BUT that’s not GLENN’s position, as I understand it, unless he’s mitigated it someplace I haven’t seen. His latest seems to be a “overload the legal system” “non-violent” strategy for dealing with Government attempts to TAKE your arms. THAT position I still see as Cognitive Dissonance unless he has mitigated it.

      Report this comment

      The Big Mick  
  • bread and circuses
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:00am

    Cornell is an “educated” moron, what good is a weapon against a home invador if it is stored “in a safe location”?
    Cornell shows his bias and ignorance about adam lanza when he repeats the MSM lie that was disseminated that lanza used a rifle, lanza did NOT !
    The FBI found the AR15 in the trunk of his car, lanza only had pistols when he committed the murders.

    Report this comment

    bread and circuses  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:00am

    Funny how the anti gun crowd uses this argument, considering how much they fear militias and encourage the Feds to crack down on them..

    Report this comment

    Gonzo  
  • Skeeterhawk
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:59am

    If you go back to your eighth grade English class one would conclude that the first half of the Second Amendment – the part about the militia – is merely prefatory, while the amendment’s operative main clause guarantees every American the right to gun ownership

    Report this comment

    Skeeterhawk  
  • MDECKER
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:57am

    “Well Regulated”, implies Governmental Control. The Second Amendment means that any and all governments, do not have the authority to infringe any Right, given by God. Word games and statistics do nothing to change this fact. I guess we’ll see how far these progressives want to push the issue.

    Report this comment

    MDECKER  
    • AxelPhantom
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:53am

      “Well regulated” actually meant prepared, disciplined and ready to go.

      Report this comment

      AxelPhantom  
    • team1blazer
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 3:11pm

      Well Regulated meant NO SUCH THING! “Well regulated” meant “well trained, prepared”. Get your facts straight.

      Report this comment

      team1blazer  
  • The Big Mick
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:52am

    I’m reminded of a line from. C.S. Lewis “The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe”.
    “What ARE they TEACHING them in schools these days, logic…logic.”

    If the point was “a well REGULATED” (ARMED and TRAINED) Militia, and, thus, the INDIVIDUAL was/IS? not only ALLOWED but OBLIGATED (my civic responsibility if not de jure) to BE ARMED and TRAINED, then LOGICALLY you have an ARMED CITIZEN! “Well regulated” is then “Trained for WARFARE”. I’m all in favor of that.
    In other words it don’t MATTER how you parse and spin it, IN THE END the 2nd Amendment PROTECTS the INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT to KEEP an BEAR WHATEVER ARMS HE CHOSES and can Afford.
    Now THERE’s a thought Novel to Our Nanny State Society—SAFETY through CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY rather than Government Fiat.

    Report this comment

    The Big Mick  
  • Sargeking
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:49am

    The Left wants to pigeonhole the “Militia” as solely a modern state force of troops that can be drafted into the national defense. In fact, the original “Militia” were ordinary people born in America or recently arrived that formed a new, national defense and ejected the British Red Coats. Clearly, the 2nd Amendment henceforth is an individual right to own and legally employ firearms. Granted that common sense precludes the ownership of modern AT-4 rocket launchers and military grade high explosives for public sale at Wal-Mart. That being a given, please be so kind as to leave my Armalite Rifle (AR-15) alone. Thanks.

    Report this comment

    Sargeking  
  • soybomb315_II
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:49am

    militias were supposed to be local units from which the state or federal government could draw upon to raise an army or repel invasion. The militias also served as a deterrent from overreach of the federal government. So the second amendment was an individual right with the PURPOSE of a militia

    But nowadays we have permanent standing army, so if you ever want to return to the intent of the founders, we must get rid of standing army.

    Report this comment

    soybomb315_II  
    • BADDOGGYDESCIPLE
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:55am

      You contradict yourself.

      The militias also served as a deterrent from overreach of the federal government.

      Followed by- But nowadays we have permanent standing army, so if you ever want to return to the intent of the founders, we must get rid of standing army.

      Which is it? See, the military is for foreign deployment and the militia, or us, is for invasion.

      Report this comment

      BADDOGGYDESCIPLE  
    • 00100111
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:05am

      I’m fine getting rid of the standing army. Standing armies in times of peace are dangerous, and the most used tool for oppression and suppression of rights. The means of war abroad are most often the means of enslaving citizens at home.

      Report this comment

      00100111  
    • civilwarcometh
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:05am

      WRONG it’s are right to protect ourselves from an over reaching tyrannical government. This crap about the 2nd Amendment is getting old. Leave us and it alone. F’ing elitists commies.

      Report this comment

      civilwarcometh  
    • objectivetruth
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:06am

      Wrong answer.We the citizens are the true permanent standing militia army.If an when our offical troops aren’t paid and are disbanded we will still be standing.So too will they be as individual soldiers.
      Stop playing word semantics with those who can wrap them around you.It makes you look like a fool and wastes our time and resources.

      Report this comment

      objectivetruth  
    • soybomb315_II
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:11am

      @Objective

      When the standing army comes to your neighborhood to ensure your compliance, you will see that “we, the citizens” is not the same as our standing army. Look around the world, the military always turns into a tool of the dictator and they will be the first ones to be paid…That is how the emperor keeps their allegiance.

      Standing army is and has always been a progressive idea. You don’t carry an axe unless you intend to chop stuff

      Report this comment

      soybomb315_II  
    • AUsername
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:09pm

      yeah but radical christians have nightmares over the muslim boogeyman and want them killed due to them being different.

      Report this comment

      AUsername  
    • AUsername
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:12pm

      our military is no different than the nazis or ussr, they will just follow orders and kill people and as it is they have been taught the same dehumanizing of their enemy with propaganda that those oppressive armies have in the past.

      Report this comment

      AUsername  
    • objectivetruth
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:08pm

      Wrong answer again.The difference is in the firepower.That I will agree with you on.You don’t seriously think they will get that far do you?They will be bankrupt and unpaid long before that, I suspect.While the political machine has the dreams of Hitler and his despotic control,we currently have the financial resources of Rome, as it burned.That in itself may be the only saving grace.Rather than go door to door they will instead use obammacare for genocide.Its not as costly and easier to contain.I believe that they will make liberal use of civilian authorities first.
      @ausersname
      There is a difference in depersonalization and dehumanization.The first allow you to see someone as a stranger.Its necessary both in the military and even the individual for self protection[in certain instances]The latter is the fact that you don’t see them as being human at all.They are targets objects exc.

      Report this comment

      objectivetruth  
    • soybomb315_II
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:30pm

      @objective
      They will never be bankrupt because they can print money. That is the curse of federal reserve. Me and you will be bankrupt long before the government

      Report this comment

      soybomb315_II  
    • SubmarineMan
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 4:55pm

      Soybomb,
      Sorry, but your assertion is incorrect. The Dick Act of 1903 and as amended created the army and naval reserve (or organized militia). It also created and and explains the Unorganized or Reserve Militia, “all able body males (is suppose we should include females also) between 18 and 45.

      Report this comment

      SubmarineMan  
  • BADDOGGYDESCIPLE
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:48am

    There it is again – The Fordham University professor, who lives just near Newtown — site of the horrific school shooting that claimed the lives of 20 children and six adults.

    Who cares where dude lives, not germaine to the story, another propaganda opportunity not to be missed.

    And two paragraphs later -“If you go back and read the Second Amendment, they talk about the militia more than the right to bear arms. In the modern world we ignore the first part of the amendment” – simply false. The 2nd is one sentence, a subordinate clause supported by the independant clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

    Report this comment

    BADDOGGYDESCIPLE  
    • carhouse
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:06am

      This D bag lives miles from the Newtown school, then he should know that about 5 years ago the State of CT shut down a mental health faciclity 3 miles from the school. It was called Fairfield Hills,
      They put all the patients out into the streets. This is why the state bueracrats are pushing for gun control, they do not want anybody to accuse them of malice. so watch this hand while the other stabs you in the back.

      Report this comment

      carhouse  
  • Lloyd Drako
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:42am

    “[Cornell] posits that the debate reached a fever-pitch during Reconstruction, when the Second Amendment and its connection to the Fourteenth Amendment were hotly contested among Democrats and Republicans. He maintains that upon victory, Democrats elevated the idea of “collective rights” to new heights.”

    I’d like some clarification here. Does he mean Union victory in the Civil War, Republican victory in securing the 14th amendment, or Democratic “redeemer” victories in the South at the end of Reconstruction?

    Surely he must know that at least until the Progressive Era, by and large the Democrats–leaving race aside–were the more individualistic, and the Republicans the more “collectivist” of the two parties.

    Report this comment

    Lloyd Drako  
  • Uechi
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:41am

    It was settled in 1791! All this bull crap from some college weenie is exactly that bull crap. Loads and loads of writings by our Founding Fathers on the meaning of Militia. People in this country didn’t have to lock up their firearms every family member learned how to shoot and knew gun safety. There were very few gun accidents.I really don’t give a rats behind what this lefty Prof has to say about anything. Colleges have become bastions of Marxist thoughs and actions.

    Report this comment

    Uechi  
    • objectivetruth
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:00am

      Precisely.In years gone past the guns weren’t locked up.The kids didn’t end up as killers or shooters.They were taught right from wrong and about guns safety from birth in many cases.Lot safer society.

      Report this comment

      objectivetruth  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:31am

      In 1791 it took a minute or so to load, aim and fire a single round, even with training. It would have been impossible for a lone gunman to kill a dozen or more people in a confined space such as a schoolroom or theatre in five minutes or less. What progress we’ve made!

      Report this comment

      Lloyd Drako  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:57am

      LLOYD DRAKO, I imagine that it would take somebody like a minute or more to reload a flintlock. While the estimates for the well trained and practiced the average is 15 seconds. But advances in technology marches on. Much like starting a car is much faster than hitching a team of horses to the carriage. While many here argue that the automobile was not designed to kill like guns, the automobile has certainly become super efficient for that task.

      Report this comment

      RJJinGadsden  
    • katzkiner
      Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:08pm

      Flintlocks came with bayonets and heavy wooden stocks, very capable of killing dozens in minutes. Ask the Iroquois, some of the best warriors on this continent, decimated by militia with flintlocks.

      Report this comment

      katzkiner  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:29am

      Seriously, I appreciate your devotion to unrestricted gun rights, but I think you’re reaching here.

      If I really wanted to kill a lot of people with my car, I wouldn’t drive around in an access of road rage smashing into school buses and such, I’d turn the thing into a car bomb and set it off where it would do the most “good.”

      The single-shot muzzle-loading flintlock could indeed kill a lot of people in a few minutes–but only when used in volley fire, whether by a standing army or by a militia force. In close quarter fighting, the bayonet and stock might come into play, but again, only by a body of armed men, not an individual.

      The Iroquois, and other Indians, themselves used flintlocks very effectively in their own style of warfare, relying on ambush, surprise raiding and hit and run. They gave as good as they got, until the settler populations simply ovewhelmed them demographically.

      But let’s be realistic for once. A lone-wolf madman in 1791 might have liked to kill lots of people all at once, but in the absence of breech-loading, automatic and semi-automatic mechanisms, firearms would not have been his weapon of choice. Today, he wouldn’t think twice.

      Report this comment

      Lloyd Drako  
  • carhouse
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:41am

    many people are for a registration list, however, this country has been known to use the list later for unconsititutuional purposes. and that is why the change of heart for the list.
    What will it be used for later.

    Report this comment

    carhouse  
  • Locked
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:40am

    “Is the Second Amendment Really ‘About the Militia More Than the Right to Bear Arms’?”

    The Supreme Court doesn’t think so. It has ruled many, many times that the right to bear arms is protected regardless of whether or not the citizen is part of a militia.

    Report this comment

    Locked  
  • carhouse
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:38am

    It makes more sense to teach school age kids about guns like they have with sex and drugs.
    We should have marksman classes like gym class, 2-3 times per week for 6th through 9th grades.

    Report this comment

    carhouse  
  • SpankDaMonkey
    Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:35am

    .
    All I Know is…..I WILL NOT COMPLY!!!!!!

    Report this comment

    SpankDaMonkey  
1 2 3 … 5

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love