Debate on Saul Cornell's book "A Well Regulated Militia"

When I was questing after the meaning of the Second Amendment I happened upon Mr. Cornell's book.

I have to say I found his arguments compelling...until I read the writings of Mr. Hardy, Mr. Kopel, Mr. Volokh, and others.

I also found it notable that Mr. Cornell is funded by the Joyce Foundation.

What's really amazing is that somebody like Saul could have spent so much time in Williamsburg and not understand a day in the life of an 18th Century Virginian.

It's telling that Cornell immediately resorts to strawmen in defense of his book.

I haven't read any of Cornell's books, but I have read a lot of his writing on the web, and I have found all of it dense, obscure, slippery, facile and vituperative.

And unconvincing. Even people new to the subject will be baffled by his arguments. In U.S. vs Emerson, Judge Sam Cummings demolished all of Cornell's arguments. So did Judge Silberman in Parker vs. D.C. So did Sanford Levinson and Lawrence Tribe.

Jeez! Is this the best they can come up with?

I thought Churchill's review was mostly positive, but Cornell seems furious about it. Maybe he thought it was "damning with faint praise."

Another shill of leftist Joyce foundation forgets that "the People" means the same in first and second amendments. Then he goes so far as to assert that the rights of the people, which can not be infringed by the states, per the 14th Amendment magically leaps from amendment 1 to 3.

Good for you Mr Cornell. The swamp that is the Joyce Foundation has been drained just a little by the funds paid for your unconvincing blather. I am glad they did not get their moneys worth. Though bought and paid for, you are an inefficient slave.

With regard to pistols, they were a critical part of military organizations, to include the essential arm of cavalry, and the supplementary arm of infantry, artillery and engineers. In particular after the Civil War when the 14th Amendment extended 2nd Amendment protection to individuals, even against the States, it was recognized that cavalry equipped with pistols was much more effective than with lances or sabers. The horse and pistol equipped civilian would have been available for militia call up as cavalry just as the dismounted man would have been available for call up to infantry, and the man with an axe, shovel and rifle would be able to be pressed into service as a pioneer or sapper.

They aren't in the archive yet, but the mailing list in question has just sent out my criticisms of Cornell's claims.

Unlike some commentors above, I find the discourse between Messrs. Churchill and Cornell scholarly and polite, as well as illuminating. Would that all academic disagreements were so civil. That said, it appears to me that Mr. Cornell has not squarely engaged Mr. Churchill's arguments. I hope that he does so.