A Well Regulated Militia: History of the Second Amendment

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. Saul Cornell asserts both are wrong in this discussion of his book A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America (the only comprehensive history on the topic). 

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 nineteenth century. The modern debate, Cornell reveals, has its roots in the nineteenth 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 the Reconstruction Era South. He concludes with a description of modern Second Amendment case law and recommends ways to approach the issue in a post-Newtown America.

[curtbressler]

Your description of your video misleads & oversimplifies the pro 2nd amendment perspective.
It's not about simply owning guns. It's about enabling self protection; whether from criminals or tyrants.
'Arms' isn't only guns....it is anything that you might use to protect yourself. Be it a stick, a sword, a rifle or a frying pan.

[afternoondelight]

They didn't need to keep track of the citizens weaponry because they were All armed.

[EmeiBaguazhang]

Quotes on the Second Amendment
The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
The Founding Fathers on Arms

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
The Founding Fathers on Maintaining Freedom

[awellregulatedmilitia]

He ignores a lot of the facts about history. Most "gun registrations" that he's refering to simply were gun inspections to make sure the guns that could be used in battle were functional for that purpose, also, those were not put in a National Database, those sorts of inspections took place at the town, county or district level, hardly ever state level.

Also the first militia act called for all men to have either a musket, a firelock or rifle, this idea that everyone in the militia was suppose to have a musket is a flat out lie.

24:15 that the fear was the government was not going to do anything is a lie.

James Madison in the Federalist Papers of all places state militias could be used to resist a standing army:

" Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men."

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it." (Federalist 46)

So here I am listening to this guy at 30:24 and this guys lying again. One of the primary reasons for the militia is to stand up to the regular army if the federal government turns to tyranny. This interpretation is upheld in the Heller Decision as well

[cameronsimonton]

See 5:55 time

He glosses over the fact that he falsely believes the Government has the right to track who owns weapons…

If the time came for the “individuals” were called to act as a State-regulated militia were called into service and were required to bring their own firearm and ammunition, THAT is when they would determine the person was not adequately armed. Not before, by tracking gun ownership of individuals.

I’ll keep listening, but it’s looking like he is anti-2A

[DonTrump-svsi]

Carrying a weapon, or in this case a gun, is a god given right. A piece of paper/law is not needed to grant this right.

[michaelcollum]

I has been many years since I was in school but if I am not mistaken the British troops that marched out of Boston that April day in 1775 did so for the purpose of putting down a 'budding' rebellion. Their mission was to arrest persons thought to be in rebellion against the crown and to remove their means to resist (personal weapons). The colonial militia that mustered at Lexington and Concord were there to prevent British forces from completing their assignments. The vast majority, if not all, firearms carried by the colonial militia that day were privately owned. I believe the 2nd amendment and the clause in the Constitution prohibiting quartering of soldiers in private homes were a direct result of the actions of the British military government during the occupation of Boston in the years leading up to the actions at Lexington and Concord. The primary reason the British forces were not successful is the fact that the colonial forces were armed with personal firearms maintained in their homes. Since the establishment of the county the US is, to my knowledge, the only country in the world that guarantees its citizens the right to continue to possess the means to change the government in the same manor in which it was established. Again, these thoughts are based upon recollections of my early school days (almost 70 years ago) and I may be mistaken. Thanks for your time.

[cullisonjt]

What other amendment follows the same line of thinking? Only news papers have the right to free speech. Only churches or clubs should not have to quarter solders in time of war but individuals have no protection. Only groups not individual people have the right to vote.

[daytona]

"the founders were vary troubled by Shays rebellion".. he comes to conclusions about things but does not cite any sources or give any quotes. where is your EVIDENCE that they were "troubled" by the colonists owning guns during the rebellion.

[jeronimoromero]

Revisionist claptrap. Read Madison, Jefferson, Monroe. The right to bear arms was an individual right, not collective.

[kavinbell]

I wonder why Benjamin Franklin said this quote if they didn't believe in the second amendment that they put into the constitution, Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[marcusdavenport]

This was surprisingly bad....

The founding fathers made laws which forced people to carry better guns than they normally would have. They had to carry a bayonet, some had to have cannons, some had to have horses and the horse had to be a certain height... These are minimums to make the citizens more deadly... Not less.

So it's a minimum... Not a maximum.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceble citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788.                  

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Cartwright, June 5, 1824                    

"If the representatives of the people betray their constitutents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense..." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, No. 28                                

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book quoting Cesare Beccaria, 1774 - 1776            

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, Virigina's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788              

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

[kavinbell]

The concept of a militia as understood by the Founding Fathers is not exactly equivalent to the modern National Guard. While there are some similarities in terms of citizen-based military service, there are also significant differences between the two.

The militia of the Founding Fathers' time and the modern National Guard have distinct characteristics:

**Militia in Founding Fathers' Time:**

1. **Local and State-Based:** The militia was primarily organized at the state and local levels. It consisted of able-bodied citizens who were subject to call-up by their local or state governments for defense purposes.

2. **Broad Participation:** The militia included a wide range of citizens, often all able-bodied men within a certain age range. It wasn't a professional military force but rather a collection of ordinary individuals who could be mobilized when needed.

3. **Independence:** Militia members typically used their own personal weapons and equipment. They often participated in military training and drills within their local communities.

4. **Local Defense:** The primary role of the militia was local defense against threats to the community or state, including potential Indian attacks, insurrections, or other emergencies.

**Modern National Guard:**

1. **Dual Role:** The National Guard serves both state and federal roles. It can be called upon by the governor of a state for local emergencies, but it can also be federalized and deployed by the President for national defense or overseas missions.

2. **Professionalized:** The National Guard is a professional military force with standardized training, equipment, and organization. It includes part-time members who often have civilian jobs but train regularly and can be deployed in times of need.

3. **Uniform Equipment:** National Guard members are issued standardized equipment and weapons by the military. They are subject to the same training and regulations as active-duty military personnel.

4. **National and International Scope:** The National Guard can be deployed to support federal military operations both within the United States and abroad.

While the modern National Guard carries on some aspects of the historical militia concept, it has evolved to meet the needs of a modern military and the complex security challenges of today. The Founding Fathers' concept of a militia was rooted in local defense, the involvement of ordinary citizens, and the maintenance of a balance of power between the government and the people.

[chelseaboss]

Interesting at how comfortable you seem to be allowing only the wealthy access to firearms, it is interesting especially considering that much of what gun control is today, is simply fees, and costs added on to owning firearms, I think there is a clear inequality gap that isn't being mentioned here, and just because the founding fathers were comfortable with inequality on masse and handing out civil rights to those they saw fit, doesn't mean we have to feel that way today.

[charlestreadway]

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well-regulated Militia (Well regulated meant it functioned well. A “well regulated” business was one that operated efficiently. Consider that a well-regulated gun was one that worked right.

A well-regulated militia would be a group of people who could unite together well and act as a cohesive unit. To protect against threats. Foreign or domestic, it did NOT mean government regulations). is necessary to the security of a free State (The state of being free men, not the state government), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.4

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people, ” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990) :

[zachforbes]

I don't think this guy understands how the founders defined a well regulated militia 🤣🤣

[casper]

Actually the 2nd Amendment doesn't give you your individual Right, the 2nd Amendment is a directive to the men elected to your government that the Right is a Retained by the People and shall not be infringed upon. Thus, the reason the 2nd Amendment reads The Right and not A Right as it would be written if our government had given us the Right. The Right to keep & bear Arms is a retained Right of the People.

[gyro]

Wrong. Well Regulated means to be well supplied, and serviceable. In the first statement. Anti Federalists. Read a cook book from the period. A well regulated table means that all the utensils and plates be the same, and usable.

[michaelchristensen]

There are so many quotes from the Founders saying that the people should not be disarmed.
The best way to oppress the people is to give the government of list of those who are armed, and therefore those who need to be disarmed in order to oppress the populace.

[thomaschase]

If the 2nd Amendment were read as merely granting states the right to maintain a militia, it would contradict Art. I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the states from keeping "troops, or ships of war in time of peace, " "without the consent of the Congress."

But the right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment goes beyond merely what is necessary for a State to form a militia when needed. As a People's Right, necessary aspects of it exist regardless of whether Congress gives its consent for states to keep troops in time of peace or not. Congress could prevent a state from forming a militia, but this would not affect the right of the people to remain armed, and to be ready whenever the State called upon them to join a militia, or to protect their liberties in other ways contemplated by the Founders.

It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated, " it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

God given, natural, and people's rights are not voidable by any person, any party, any political body or any government. To attempt to do so, is nothing less than treason and an act of war.

There is no argument.