A Well-Regulated Militia

The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America

De: Saul Cornell

Narrado por: Kevin T. Collins

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 19th century. The modern debate, Cornell reveals, has its roots in the 19th 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-listen.

©2006 Oxford University Press, Inc. (P)2018 Tantor

Very good until the last few pages

A very good summation of the history and discourse surrounding the second amendment and it’s jurisprudence. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and its unbiased presentation of history. My only issues are in the conclusion which takes a slight left turn. Even so I strongly recommend this book to all pro gun individuals.

In depth thinking about the Constitution

Gives the historical aspect of the second amendment. It's a must read for both sides of the debate. Helps with understanding that we shouldn't ignore the past but embrace the knowledge it gives.

Great content!

However the narration is simply awful. It’s hard work to listen to this reader. I’m sure he’s a nice guy, but the narration needs a do-over.

historically rich

vary left leaning however vary historically rich. when they describes the NRA as an extremist organization you know what the authors political leaning are. however there was allot of detailed historical content.

A good look into history, but slanted.

This author tries to claim very early on that this is an unbiased read, but it is very clear throughout the book, the left lean that they try to not convey. When he speaks of his reading and understanding of historical writings and law, he then force feeds his interpretations using the voice of the original writer (Jefferson, Maddison etc.) but with a liberal stance. As the book progresses and especially, as noted by another reader, the final chapter, it is very clear how this author feels in the issue of "gun control". I do recommend this book for both those who want stricter gun laws but also those who wish the freedoms we have. It is good to understand where we come from, but please keep in mind the leftist views of this author. I also recommend "The Violence Project" by Jillian Peterson and James Densely.

Absolute trash

The author props himself up to be yhe singular “correct” interpreter of the second opinion. As if all previous Authors, none of them could come up with the correct meaning of the second amendment. I needed only a very short while to see his entire basis and argument for the book was horribly flawed. She even states in the preface of the book, that both the pro second amendment, and anti-gun sides of the argument were collectively wrong in their views. Very amusing.

In the opening chapter, the author boldly, and incorrectly, makes the assertion that the second amendment was written to protect the right of the “militia” to keep and bear arms. Except what the author fails to understand, is the text of the second amendment clearly says the right of the people. “The people” if the founding fathers meant the militia, they would have written the right of the militia, not the people. No constitutional scholar can argue that within the same document, the constitution, that the meaning of “the people” changes, depending on the context it’s written in.

“The people” means one thing, the individual, not the militia, not the state legislature, not the federal government. It refers to the individual.

In every other reference to “the people” in the constitution, referring to a right, it is always always referring to the right of the individual. , and so the second amendment is not, and cannot be any different.

This entire book and understanding of the second amendment is based on an incorrect interpretation of what the second amendment means.

Don’t waste your time, it’s no wonder that they have to give this away for free on audible. Nobody would pay for it, and if they did, customers would demand a refund.