I left paying subscribers in terrible suspense last time. Contra the late Justice Scalia, in his landmark gun-rights opinion in Washington, D.C., v. Heller, which calls the opening of the Second Amendment a prefatory clause, grammatically, I identified it
I know that our conception of rights is linked to the Magna Carta in some way, but it seems silly to me that everything Parliament ever exacted from the British king should become a permanent, inalienable right. Surely Parliament has demanded some pretty ludicrous things over the years which are not healthy to a functioning society.
Thank you Bill - historical accuracy is a bitch some would say - and the writers deep dive into the words and meaning of the English debates around gun ownership and militias illuminated a dark and fuzzy
Illuminated dark and fuzzy assumptions around the issue. Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle and there is as much chance of the Court rejecting Scalia’s historical misunderstanding as there is of Elon Musk getting good manners.
The truth is so often as clear as the ringing of a well made church bell.
The Catholic James II had been disarming Protestants. As part of the new deal, the aggrieved Protestants asked for a Protestant right to keep and bear arms and asked to get their confiscated arms back.
"... .the justices as a group are addicted to history, and yet can’t handle it...'
That can be said of a lot of Americans who quote history nuggets in an ahistorical way, in whatever way bolsters their prejudices and adds volume to their constant judgements. All so tiresome. Grateful for this substack!
I know that our conception of rights is linked to the Magna Carta in some way, but it seems silly to me that everything Parliament ever exacted from the British king should become a permanent, inalienable right. Surely Parliament has demanded some pretty ludicrous things over the years which are not healthy to a functioning society.
Thank you Bill - historical accuracy is a bitch some would say - and the writers deep dive into the words and meaning of the English debates around gun ownership and militias illuminated a dark and fuzzy
Illuminated dark and fuzzy assumptions around the issue. Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle and there is as much chance of the Court rejecting Scalia’s historical misunderstanding as there is of Elon Musk getting good manners.
The truth is so often as clear as the ringing of a well made church bell.
The Catholic James II had been disarming Protestants. As part of the new deal, the aggrieved Protestants asked for a Protestant right to keep and bear arms and asked to get their confiscated arms back.
Love this:
"... .the justices as a group are addicted to history, and yet can’t handle it...'
That can be said of a lot of Americans who quote history nuggets in an ahistorical way, in whatever way bolsters their prejudices and adds volume to their constant judgements. All so tiresome. Grateful for this substack!