Quote:
Originally Posted by rdret1
For the life of me, I cannot figure out what was/is so hard to understand about plain english. It took them long enough to figure it out.
Sig, I know there was much debate when the SA was drafted, along both sides, even then, but the main work the antis rely on; Arming America, by Michael Bellisiles, was found to be totally unreliable. He was even stripped of the Bancroft Prize he was awarded, as well as resigning his tenured professorship.
As for efficacy, there is no debate that gun bans are counter-productive, while the knowledge of an armed citizenry prevents crime.
|
Rdret1--
I augur that the kinds of historical arguments the anti second amendment crowd will be using in the next ten to twenty years will go far beyond the particulars of the second amendment itself. If these arguments are managed with civility
(a long shot if historians are involved), our fundamental understanding of what it means to be Americans may change. If we as a people are up to the challenge, we may be in store for profound political realignment.*
IMO, until some of the historiographical dust settles we may be better off politically by focusing on what works.
__________________________________________
* Never trust a historian's crystal ball, but I project this realignment will lead to the growth and diversification of the Republican party, a resurgence of nationalism, and the regeneration of American liberalism (i.e. the repudiation of Clintonian opportunism).