I only bring up Mr. Cornell because he has joined with 14 other professional academic historians to file an amicus brief in support of D.C. in D.C. v Heller. These 15 history professors came to the conclusion that
"...the authors of the Second Amendment would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous property as firearms..."Just reading that quote brings a little bile to the back of my throat. These are professors of history, people we pay good money to teach our kids history.
David E. Young, author and historian, has taken this brief to task. He points out their errors and omissions in an article published on the George Mason University's History News Network.
Historical arguments about American bills of rights are major points of discussion in the District of Columbia vs Heller case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. At issue is exactly what the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution means and whether it was proper for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to overturn Washington D.C.'s handgun ban for violating the Second Amendment. An amicus brief in support of Washington D.C.'s handgun ban dealing with the historical issues in the case was filed by fifteen professional academic historians. One would expect such a brief to be historically accurate, address the Second Amendment in its proper Bill of Rights related context, and include the most relevant figures, statements, and actions for understanding any historical issues in the dispute. However, any such expectation is left largely unfulfilled in the historians' brief.Mr. Young does a very good job of disproving the basic premise behind these so called "scholars" support of the DC gun ban. Head on over and give it a read, you may learn something.