Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (28822)	7/2/2008 7:37:53 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: "If the militia was an important issue being considered at the time, that does not suggest that the right was only to be confired on, or recognized and codified for the militia." The point that I would agree with the historian on is that the ACTUAL WRITTEN LEGISLATIVE HISTORY of the debates that happened over the adoption of the Constitution --- including the evidence that the House put into the language a specific authorization for individuals to have a right to individual ownership of guns... and that the Senate refused to go along, and struck the language from what was being considered... and that the Senate's more 'ambiguous' version of the constitution's granting of a right --- is about as "on-point" as you possibly could get if one is looking for the "original intent" of the language. And, so, if "original intent" is truly what you are after (not just to preconceive what you want the answer to be... and then go looking for anything, no matter how obliquely related, to justify the result you want to arrive at)... then the ACTUAL WRITTEN HISTORY of the government's deliberations should be the first place you start. (But not necessarily the only place to look, I'll grant.) Re: "Also no where in the article is there any quote of or actual analysis of the debate or contemporary discussions of it, so the article is just providing assertion, not real evidence or much in the way of argument." The language of the Constitution's legislative deliberations fill books. And, I believe this particular historian has also written a book on the matter. No doubt there are several that have been written. But, this was just a SHORT news item. There is no way in Hell that such a short news item could possibly contain even the smallest fraction of the voluminous debate about this issue that was recorded by the scribes. (Grab one of the books... I'm sure there will be chapters devoted to the major amendments: both proposed and approved / not approved, and footnoted to the 'nth. degree to link you to the original archival materials, Tim.)

To: TimF who wrote (28822)	7/2/2008 8:25:14 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 71588

Hey, Tim. After making that last reply to you on this issue I realized that there is probably a 'better' (read: easier :-) way to get at the core historical referents that these historians used to make their arguments --- (better that is then going out and buying a half dozen books, and spending your summer reading them. <GGG>) I remember the article referred to a 'friend of the court brief' that this group of American historians filed with the US Supreme Court for their consideration in this case. Most likely that legal filing (which should be public information...) contains all of their 'best' arguments and references to the historical legislative record from the two years of debate surrounding the crafting of the US Constitution. (Gotta be easier then reading a library... especially if what you are trying to do is get familiar with the arguments and claims that these historians are making.)