« Tempest in a teapot | Main | "Gates of Fire" »
Saul Cornell interview at Buzzflash
Saul Cornell has an interview at Buzzflash. He sums up his approach concisely: "The state can do whatever it thinks appropriate with regard to handguns. The one thing they can’t do is pass laws which would, in effect, make it impossible for the militia to be armed."
One passage is a bit mystifying, expressing the hope that both sides "will recognize that the right to own guns, although not guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is deeply rooted in American history." As I read his argument, it's that indeed there is a right to arms via the Second Amendment, the dispute is over what laws can be passed to regulate that right, not whether it exists. He may have spoken off-the-cuff, or the reporter may have slipped in transcribing it.
[UPDATE: Prof. Cornell emailed me, the gist of it being that he's there using "individual right" to mean individual right for individual purposes (self defense, maybe hunting), as distinct from "civic right," which I was treating as individual right for civic (militia) purposes.]
7 Comments
You do know that buzzflash is the same dude that runs the hysterical anti-gun website called The Gun Guys (http://www.gunguys.com/)?
First major problem: the meaning of the word "regulated" as used back then. The word "regulated" has a very different meaning today than it did at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.
Today, it is generally understood to mean that there is some government agency issuing detailed rules and requirements spelling out do's and don'ts - what you may and may not do. But I submit that to the founding fathers, the modern concept of "government regulation" would be anathema. Perhaps that's overstating it, but at the very least, it would not be the concept embodied by their understanding of the meaning of "well regulated" or "regulated liberty."
"Regulated" meant "orderly" or "properly functioning" - think of the word "regular." Ever see those old clocks hanging on the wall that say "regulator"? A regulator was not someone who imposed regulatory requirements, a regulator something or someone who assured proper operation or orderly functioning. Hence a "well-regulated" militia is one that knows how to use and maintain its arms and how to function together, as opposed to a rag tag bunch of farmers with old guns. It is also not a militia that is subject to detailed and comprehensive government specifications and prohibitions.
If "regulated" means what he says it does, what the hell does "well-regulated liberty" mean? It is frightenly oxymoronic.
More:
He says "nobody in contemporary America, even the most ardent gun-rights advocates, literally believe that they should drop whatever they’re doing at a minute’s notice and rush off to muster the way the Minutemen did." Well I guess he hasn't asked me or many people I know.
Now that I'm reading the rest of it, I need a roll of duct tape to wrap around my head before it explodes.
So is "off-the-cuff" a new euphemism for "incoherent"? Because while Cornell is a professor and all that, I get a distinct sense of hand-waving whenever I try to make sense of his 2nd Amendment arguments.
Sounds like separate but equal to me. The paid agents of the state can use a handgun, but the taxpaying citizens of the militia can't. My memory of Miller (and given my memory, check the cite) reminds me that one of the points that the Supremes made was that the 2nd Amendment protects those arms useful for military (i.e. militia) use. That's why the case was sent back to lower courts (among other reasons) by the black robed legislators.
I read that interview in detail, and seriously considered using it as a propaganda case study, as it contains fantastic examples of every major propaganda technique there is.
How I wish I had time for that sort of thing!
So the good professor has turned up evidence that there was tyrannical thinking even amongst the founding fathers. Thanks for that contribution professor.
The professor started with the premise that gun regulation is good. He then set out to find justification for his thinking. What a load of hooey.
Of course by his own arguments, every person eligible for the militia should own the appropriate weapons for participation (which can't be outlawed). This leads inevitably to the conclusion that military weapons are what the individual should have. From a well-regulated viewpoint, it makes perfect sense...gotta have ammo and better to use some standards. So 5.56 Nato, 7.62 Nato, 9mm, .45ACP. Guns which use those should be OK.
but can I keep and bear a board with a nail in it? What does Saul think?