The Militia and the Right to Arms

How the Second Amendment Fell Silent, Constitutional Conflicts

De: H. Richard Uviller, William G. Merkel

Narrado por: Bob Barton

Duración: 10 h y 23 m

Resumen del Editor

In The Militia and the Right to Arms, or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent, Uviller and Merkel show how postratification history has sapped the Second Amendment of its meaning. Starting with a detailed examination of the political principles of the founders, the authors build the case that the amendment's second clause (declaring the right to bear arms) depends entirely on the premise set out in the amendment's first clause (stating that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state). The authors demonstrate that the militia envisioned by the framers of the Bill of Rights in 1789 has long since disappeared from the American scene, leaving no lineal descendants. The constitutional right to bear arms, Uviller and Merkel conclude, has evaporated along with the universal militia of the eighteenth century.

Using records from the founding era, Uviller and Merkel explain that the Second Amendment was motivated by a deep fear of standing armies. To guard against the debilitating effects of militarism, and against the ultimate danger of a would-be Caesar at the head of a great professional army, the founders sought to guarantee the existence of well-trained, self-armed, locally commanded citizen militia, in which service was compulsory. By its very existence, this militia would obviate the need for a large and dangerous regular army. But as Uviller and Merkel describe the gradual rise of the United States Army and the National Guard over the last two hundred years, they highlight the nation's abandonment of the militia ideal so dear to the framers. The authors discuss issues of constitutional interpretation in light of radically changed social circumstances and contrast their position with the arguments of a diverse group of constitutional scholars including Sanford Levinson, Carl Bogus, William Van Alstyne, and Akhil Reed Amar.

©2002 Duke University Press (P)2014 Redwood Audiobooks

Great background

Would you say that listening to this book was time well-spent? Why or why not?

With all of the people either trashing the 2nd amendment, or supporting it, what is very obvious is that neither side really knows much about the topic. This book, while a little clumsy, offered a great background to the topic. Again, not meant to be pro or against the argument, the book simply lays out the facts, which are then open to interpretation.