An historian's take on the Supreme's DC gun case...

[TreasonousBastard]

http://hnn.us/articles/48302.html

[lonestarnot]

1. kick

[villager]

2. Wow: "the dominant understanding of the term “bear arms” at the time the Second Amendment was...

...was proposed fits the militia model, not the private rights model."

all backed up with historical evidence.

[Hekate]

3. I always thought so. It seems to describe the State National Guard more than my next-door neighbor.

[villager]

4. not according to the gun cultists, however...

n/t

[Hekate]

6. Of course. I was once at a party w/ a guy who swore he'd bury his weapons to keep them "safe"...

...from the almighty Feds. He was pretty vehement. My response was "Say, that's a good idea, why don't you get a jump on them and do it now" -- my reasoning being that we'd all be a bit safer if the triggers were under 6 feet of dirt and away from his fingers.

:yoiks:

Hekate

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. A historian who ignores significant historical context to make his case, no less.

At the time the Second Amendment was written, the 'militia' was considered to consist of all able-bodied males of military age (as indeed it still is under United States Code; the 'unorganized militia' consists of all able-bodied males aged 18-45).

The author also fails to mention the firm foundation of the Second Amendment in English Law, most specifically in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which states in part that 'the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law'. Note 'suitable to their conditions'; this is a qualification based on social status (only gentlemen, in 17th-century England, could wear swords). Drawing from this to the Second Amendment's wording that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed', with no qualifications about 'suitable to their conditions', one may read in the Second Amendment a radical statement of a theoretically classless society as much as anything else.

[aikoaiko]

7. Take it with a grain of salt -- he works for a foundation supported by Joyce.

eta:

Specifically, he works for www.secondamendmentcenter.org which is funded by the Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation supports efforts to reduce legal access to firearms under the guise of violence reduction.

Joyce Foundation lackeys should be trusted the same way NRA lackeys should be trusted.

[ThomWV]

8. That is just about as flimsy an argument as I've ever seen

It might tell you something about what newspaper editors thought but it doesn't tell you squat about the intent of the Bill of Rights, not does it speak to the intent of the first Amendments to address the personal liberties left out of the Constitution that were demanded by the majority of the framers as a condition of acceptance of the Constitution itself - of which the 2nd amendment is one.