This is www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm4g8D1ILQHahf-ylqwdIbVXL0S3UmBGsE's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm4g8D1ILQHahf-ylqwdIbVXL0S3UmBGsE's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm4g8D1ILQHahf-ylqwdIbVXL0S3UmBGsE
Recent Activity
In relation to statements about "removing . . . guns from the American population" and "hopes of disarming the population", one has to wonder whether the other reference to "a problem that is not dealt with in its early stages" hearkens back to the failed British attempts to disarm American colonists or something much later historically. As for "the emergence of a gun culture" statement, one also has to wonder exactly how it was that Americans successfully took up their own arms to resist tyranny in 1774 and 1775, prior to the formation of the new states, unless there was something approaching a gun culture already in existence. Perhaps this is a reference to the actual settlement of the American colonies or the much more recent response by Americans to the disarming related attempts of modern gun control advocates. Regarding "an intellectually untenable ... belief in "originalist" interpretations of the Constitution", it would seem the better approach was reliance on the actual facts of period history rather than the opinions of modern historians. Justice Scalia's Heller majority opinion generally followed the history, while Justice Stevens' dissent was buttressed by the historians assertions about it. Because the historians' Heller brief contained numerous errors of fact, serious historical problems also lie in the Stevens dissent. The errors in the professional historians' Second Amendment related briefs have been examined and documented at On Second Opinion Blog. http://onsecondopinion.blogspot.com
1 reply
www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm4g8D1ILQHahf-ylqwdIbVXL0S3UmBGsE is now following The Typepad Team
Feb 21, 2011