A Wel l - Regul at ed Mi l i t i a: The Foundi ng Fat hers and the Ori gi ns of

Gun Cont rol i n Ameri ca

Int roduct i on:
The second amendment is the important aspects of American from which they are
deeply divided. The amendment focuses on the right to own gun. Individuals has no
right to keep guns for their own safety. So it will never have rights maintain militias.
There is only comprehensive history and many sour controversies which are hard to
digest.
The writer Saul Cornell has tried to prove that both of sides of the stories are wrong.
Saul Cornell, he has been a leading historian in a constitutional, he has tried portraying
that there is a right that people can keep gun arms and this is there neither right for the
self safety, it nor an individual nor collective either. He has focused on the collective
rights from the view point of Second Amendment. Second amendment is the only
amendment in America that is being accepted from hundreds of years. It is based on the
Anti federalist people than it should be on the founders. The one and only individual
rights that are was emerged in nineteenth century. In was emerged in the Americas first
gun violence because of crisis in economy and it has forgotten now. That was the time
when America passed the first case that people have right to bear gun arms. The writer
have also plotted that how did the gun controlled the battle for the reconstruction and
collective individual rights in America.

In this book he has done debate over the collective individual rights in the light of
second amendment of America. He wanted to restore the forgotten meaning of the second
amendment with reference of the current and historical facts figures on great America
debate on gun.
Second Amendment:
The first part of this book is based about the second amendments and its meaningless
restriction on the people of America. It fundamentals are completely meaningless with
full of conflicts. The history know that American has unusual rights to own gun arms
because of the following second amendment course. There are many thoughts about it
some are in favor and some are totally against. The against one are in large number. The
individual rights to own a gun was taken by the courts, general public and commentators
of united states of America throughout in 18
th
and 19
th
century. The collective rights
views were being rejected by the American court since the 1905. And till 1939 US court
wasnt not in the situation to accept about the collective rights for individual.
Since then miller had tried to endorse collective rights threshold or they should go
farther to accept the approach. Miller starting writing articles about collective rights of
individual and everyone should own a gun for themselves for their own security purpose.
Writer says about himself that when he began to write articles about this happening and
tried to wake up people, there were hardly any scholars which seemed to be interested in
it. But over the next few decade many scholar started focusing it and began to write huge
articles and books about the collective rights of the people in America. Thus, here was a
great expansion in the scholarly treatment about the individual collective approach of the
people. So not much probably but till early 1900s there was much knowledge to people
about collective rights and what are the benefits of it. Still deep split was seen in the
individual rights approach.
AWRM has rejected the collective rights view and broad reading of the individual
rights approach. The main key points that he focuses on was the rights of the civic
approach, and the main emphasis was on the militia relatedness to the individual rights
for the arms. AWRM was successful in distinguishing just individual rights to individual
rights of self defense. And did bring a large amount of evolution in scholarly treating in
1840 to 1850.
AWRM has focused much on uncertainty which thought of being accepted in his
point of view. At one point AWRM has fought for the militia duties and the regulations
to own arms and equipments. The second amendment has said clearly that there would be
no concept of owing arm. And the main core objective with second amendment was that
they can bear arms but in particular ell regular militia.
Professor Cornells work is totally surreal, its excellent in read and contains
exceptional points and some other revelation that was previously escaped by the authors.
There is a better example to explain about the treatment and the evolution about legal
defense system , shifted from warding off from common law.
There was another person who helped Cornell in through a Harvard review article
which had played a significant role in bringing in light of collective rights of the
individual in 1905, he was the one who founded judicial acceptance border and discussed
much about the black militias of post wars. And this did received much attention then
they even thought off.
There is a big history that has created by AWRM, and its shortcomings not only they
proved there thesis. But they also gave the partial evident, selective evident amount that
America rights to bear arm guns. He also gave different understandings for the people so
that they can value the fundamentals enabling their own self defense from the enemy
through which they can become a militia for their own self.
AWRM has also portrayed the historical background of America that they saw hardly
any militia centric people available there. None of the constitutional in America ever
focused on the individual rights for owning arms and guns.
Background of Second Amendment:
There were many overlaps in the recent treatment which was done by many other
scholars although it was relevant but didnt cover all the aspect of the rights of the
people. There were still some lag and missing contexts in it.
They had dig into this industry for more than 30 years and still not much result was
coming out as a treatment for the sources which was worthwhile for the lack that was
represented. AWRM main focus was rights. Rights of the Americans to arm and the
important development prior to the British concepts. America never ever invented the
idea of freedom, freedom of ideas, freedom of rights to arms, freedom of jury and last
freedom of warrants which is never presented in America.

American thoughts of Revolution and debates:
Self defense against collective resistance and criminals is not much surprising in such
period where there is American Revolution. The AWRM has played a really important
role, arguing with the congress party about protection against the street criminals that
happens every day in our daily lives and government has just no concern about it. They
had also complaints about the extra power that should be given to the militia for the self
defense criminals.
There are different kinds of political acts in second amendments of America. It also
involves dramatic political purge. First they finished virginal militia and after that they
also finished the rights to keep arms. Than that the people have right, so they can bear the
arms for their own self defense as a tool for security purpose. The second main important
thing was that that declaration of the rights in Virginia was given back and they were
much happier and safe. They enjoyed it by defending themselves by acquiring and
protecting main liberty rights of their individuals.
AWRM is the best way to express the rights for the individual being. And why they
think about the militias self defense in Pennsylvania. And it means that had used the
same term for incorporating language in it and declared the rights for Pennsylvania so
that they can bear arms. AWRM started a campaign in Pennsylvania that there were some
groups which were targeting them and were of course a harm. What they did that they
started revolution so that they will get more safeguarding rights to hold militia in the
state. There was a movement going on in entire nation for ratification. And AWRM faced
large number of treatments in order to make it case law. In last the methodology was
proven and everyone had right to own an equipment for their own safeguard rights..
References:
Cornell, S. (2006). A well-regulated militia: the founding fathers and the origins of gun
control in America. Oxford University Press.
Finkelman, P. (2000). 'A Well Regulated Militia': The Second Amendment in Historical
Perspective. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 76(195).
Higginbotham, D. (1998). The Federalized Militia Debate: A Neglected Aspect of
Second Amendment Scholarship. The William and Mary Quarterly, 39-58.
Rosenthal, L., & Malcolm, J. L. (2011). McDonald v. Chicago: Which Standard of
Scrutiny Should Apply to Gun Control Laws. Nw. UL Rev., 105, 437.