Comments on: Well Regulated: The Lost Meaning of the Second Amendment http://blog.oup.com/2007/05/gun_control/ Academic insights for the thinking world. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:48:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: AntiClimacus http://blog.oup.com/2007/05/gun_control/comment-page-1/#comment-3778 AntiClimacus Fri, 11 May 2007 04:27:09 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/2007/05/gun_control/#comment-3778 There is a famous line in George Washington's papers where he uses the phrase "well-regulated" in reference to the colonial militias. It is very significant because as a close personal friend of many of the framers as well as a contemporary we can trust his usage of the word much more than we can trust modern reinterpretations. In this instance, he uses "well-regulated" to mean "well-disciplined," not "under strict control of many laws," as it is currently interpreted. Furthermore, if you really wish to get at the meaning of the 2nd amendment, you only have to read the many state constitutions approved shortly after the Bill of Rights or within the next few decades. They are often more direct - for instance, Rhode Island, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There are numerous other examples. Claiming that 2nd amendment refers to the RIGHT OF A STATE (aside from the intellectual absurdities of such a protection in the Bill of Rights for the people)is a scholarly fraud. From the 1856 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Dred Scott v. Sanford case: "If black people were entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which Southern states considered to be necessary FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY. It would give the persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and TO KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and ENDANGERING THE PEACE AND SAFETY OF THE STATE." All caps are mine. Notice that the decision uses fear of public safety to support its goals. Gun prohibition is used to keep subject people in their place. Also notice that the decision doesn't question the right of citizens to keep and bear arms "wherever they went." There is a famous line in George Washington’s papers where he uses the phrase “well-regulated” in reference to the colonial militias. It is very significant because as a close personal friend of many of the framers as well as a contemporary we can trust his usage of the word much more than we can trust modern reinterpretations. In this instance, he uses “well-regulated” to mean “well-disciplined,” not “under strict control of many laws,” as it is currently interpreted. Furthermore, if you really wish to get at the meaning of the 2nd amendment, you only have to read the many state constitutions approved shortly after the Bill of Rights or within the next few decades. They are often more direct – for instance, Rhode Island, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” There are numerous other examples. Claiming that 2nd amendment refers to the RIGHT OF A STATE (aside from the intellectual absurdities of such a protection in the Bill of Rights for the people)is a scholarly fraud.

From the 1856 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Dred Scott v. Sanford case:

“If black people were entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which Southern states considered to be necessary FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY.
It would give the persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union…the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and TO KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and ENDANGERING THE PEACE AND SAFETY OF THE STATE.”

All caps are mine. Notice that the decision uses fear of public safety to support its goals. Gun prohibition is used to keep subject people in their place. Also notice that the decision doesn’t question the right of citizens to keep and bear arms “wherever they went.”

]]>