Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« Milwaukee trial judge rules CCW unconstitutional as applied | Main | New Blog -- End The War on Guns »

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

Posted by David Hardy · 25 September 2007 03:28 PM

There's a debate going over at Humanities and Social Sciences Net Online.

Here's Robert Churchill's review of the book.

Here's Saul Cornell's response.

And here's Robert Churchill's reply.

9 Comments | Leave a comment

dwlawson | September 25, 2007 5:04 PM | Reply

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.

Rudy DiGiacinto | September 25, 2007 6:39 PM | Reply

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.

thirdpower | September 26, 2007 7:05 AM | Reply

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

Dave | September 26, 2007 7:17 AM | Reply

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."

Don Meaker | September 26, 2007 8:49 AM | Reply

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.

Don Meaker | September 26, 2007 8:57 AM | Reply

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.

Clayton E. Cramer | September 26, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply

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

Shelby | September 26, 2007 11:39 AM | Reply

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.

Don Williams | May 25, 2012 11:18 AM | Reply

1) I find it strange that Dr Cornell thinks the insurrectionary view was fringe or a later development. Thomas Jefferson stated it pretty plainly in the Declaration of Independence. And what about his view that a little blood now and then is the natural fertilizer of liberty? How can the People replace a tyrannical government if they are disarmed?

Leave a comment