Professor Calls Out Supreme Court Over 2A With This Bizarre Twist On Legal Thinking

16
1361

One of the most frustrating things about discussing the Second Amendment with people is the rabid desire that some folks have to reinterpret the clear language of the Amendment to try to mean something completely different than what it means (if you need a clear explanation on what it means, see the video at the bottom of this page).

The Second Amendment really isn’t that hard to understand. Unless you are already insanely biased against gun ownership in the first place. But if you have an issue with gun ownership, the moral and legal thing to do is to focus on changing laws, not on intentionally misreading it.

But intentionally try to change its meaning is exactly what history professor Saul Cornell tries to do (hat tip to here for the lead). Cornell writes,

Advertisement

In contrast to modern gun rights ideology, the new American approach was not libertarian, but an adaptation of the of the Founding generation’s idea of well-regulated liberty. 

“Well-regulated liberty?” Pardon me while I call out that horse manure. “Well-regulated liberty” is an oxymoron and certainly not what the founding fathers were looking for.

Liberty is not regulated at all. Liberty is freedom from regulation and/or limitation.

But, since Cornell is a professor of American history instead of a professor of law, maybe we should cut him some slack. Except that the Second Amendment is clear and unambiguous that it secures the preexisting right of people to be armed. Period. Read it for yourself:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

There is no limitation as to time or place in which someone can have a firearm, and that part about a well regulated militia? That’s the justification for allowing everyone to be armed. It’s not a limitation which prevents people from being armed (at home, in public, anywhere) when they aren’t acting as part of the militia. To interpret this otherwise is to read “the dog bit Johnny” and to, then, interpret that sentence as “Johnny bit the dog.” They can say that it’s the same words, but the meaning is completely wrong, absolutely reversed.

Cornell needs to stay in his lane because the law is clearly not it, and he needs to keep his government-loving biases (well-regulated liberty? Really?) to himself. If he doesn’t want to carry a gun, no one is making him, but he needs to stop trying to prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves.

Advertisement

16 COMMENTS

  1. Cornell.
    There is a school of “””higher learning””” with his name!
    Hopefully none of his ancestors had anything to do with the name on the school!
    Because if they are, there is a great deal of “”face-slapping”” in the sky going on right now!
    Or “face-palming”.
    Whichever!
    Ron WHITE says it best in his comedy routine:” YOU CAN’T FIX STUPID”!

    • If his ideals are “higher learning” lessons, then may he re-educate himself in defining each section of the 2A. There are commas there for a reason. Besides, there is a difference between the Military and “Militia”. Militia are the “Civilian Volunteers” who are not paid in their fight to protect their home, family, and country!!!

  2. What a dumbass!
    And this guy is a professor!!
    It’s no wonder that todays generations are stupid
    We have become a nation going backwards due to people like this!

    • If you cannot do anything worthwhile then teach. I realize that there are good and smart teachers but this guy is not interested in teaching. He is interested in pushing his political and idealogical agendas. Unfortunately far too many teachers are doing this these days and parents and teachers do not have a reliable means for screening the so called educators to seperate them from young minds. You would not want a pedophile teaching your young children and we should not have teachers who are not there to teach the subject matter without political or idealogical bias. As an example I do not like Hitler or Mao but we need to know about what they did in order to not have those horid times in history repeated.

    • It’s the liberal/far far leftist professors and teachers which is teaching their liberal /Marxist/communist Agenda to all these students in colleges and high school and even in Grade schools wake up students this is a radical takeover of the U S and before you know it you will be or this Country Will be like Russia/China.

  3. I disagree. Liberty is the constraint clause of freedom. Under the concept of liberty you are free to go about your affairs without infringing upon the liberty of others.

    • Excellent point. The Bill of Rights was added to PREVENT the federal government from intruding or limiting pre-existing natural or G*d-given rights. It in no way limits citizens other than implying in the 9th Amendment the federal government was given certain ENUMERATED rights by the people and the States.

      As I see it, all the laws on all weapons, including firearms, are unconstitutional. So if I wanted to own an M-4, that’s my right.

      Thus the government was created to protect our rights and to insure LIBERTY, not mobocracy or anarchy.

  4. Since the founders recognized that they needed a militia,perhaps they knew that they also needed armed
    citizens capable of protecting themselves,in case that militia went astray.

  5. It’s as immoral and illegal to change laws to go against the 2nd. Amendment when you’ve read it, and the law, right and don’t like either as it is to deliberately misread them according to your anti gun preference. Rights are moral and legal. They come from morality. Anti rights, or violation of rights, even when legislated by due process (which is actually a perversion of due process) are immoral and illegal and come from immorality.

  6. Everyone always focusses on the ‘militia’ mentioned in the amendment and not the ‘free state’ portion. The true meaning is that we need an armed populace to maintain a free state from a tyrannical government, so we never had to suffer a monarchy again. Sort of like what we are going through right now with King Biden. How many Executive Orders does it take for people to see the light?

  7. The 2nd. Amendment is very clear A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, ( this states that a Military Force is necessary to defend a free state ) THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS ( this means that anyone can have any type weapon they want ) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. ( is self explanatory NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED AGAINST OWNING A WEAPON ) …

  8. In Colonial times, “well regulated” meant well trained. The militia was comprised of all able bodied men and they were to provide their own weapon and ammunition and be ready on a Minutes notice.

  9. 1. Something that is rarely taught is that for every “right” there is a corresponding “responsibility”. To the extent that you exercise a right you must exercise at least (if not more) an equal amount of responsibility and face the consequences of not exercising the appropriate responsibility. A timeless example of this is Coopers’ 4 “laws”
    2. The second amendment is elegant in it’s simplicity and depth. It codifies the individuals natural right to self defense with out limiting it to a particular type of weapon but rather “arms”. Today it is modern firearms. If tomorrow Star Trek style phasers become available, the second amendment covers that too.

Comments are closed.