Obama’s Gun Ban List Is Out

[Old Dog New Trick]

Wolverines!

Oh, wait, wrong thread...

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Sometimes those who temporarily occupy an office attempt to give themselves powers beyond what were delegated.
This is a usurpation and they are in rebellion against the authority which delegated powers to their office.

The authority which delegated limited powers is clearly stated in the first three words of the charter.
"We the people."

inconceivable!

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Second, Breen's account, although aimed at a general audience (sell, sell, sell!), is clearly meant to advance an ongoing historiographical debate over the nature/causes/point of no return of the American Revolution that has been going on for generations among specialists of that period. (The reference to "pamphlets" is directed at Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution [1967; enlarged edition, 1992].) While it is always nice to think that a book one is reading breathes fresh air into a vibrant chapter of America's past, a "bottom up" approach to that time period that de-emphasizes New England is not exactly new nor "typical."

Thank you, I was interested in the view from the academic historical perspective bubbling up. Guess I'm part of that general audience. I'm not as deeply immersed in the full body of work available as some others, on this specific topic, specialists as it were. So it is a different look. To clarify a point: While it may have been mentioned in a post, it's not selective reading at this end - just reading.

[Pericles]

No problem, just let me know when you are coming by, and I'll have them ready for you.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Badger52

Thank you, I was interested in the view from the academic historical perspective bubbling up. Guess I'm part of that general audience. I'm not as deeply immersed in the full body of work available as some others, on this specific topic, specialists as it were. So it is a different look. To clarify a point: While it may have been mentioned in a post, it's not selective reading at this end - just reading.

Had you read end note 1 on pages 300-301 when you wrote the following?

Originally Posted by Badger52

The description at the above Amazon link is pretty accurate, as it examines what were individual tipping points in the small towns up & down the colonies by so-called "normal" people, vs. the typical focus on more written-about personages (who were elites of the time) and only what was happening in Boston, NY, and Philly.

[Richard]

I was surprised to see Nerf guns omitted from the list(s). They must have one hell of a lobby.

Richard

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Had you read end note 1 on pages 300-301 when you wrote the following?

Nope, still going through it for the first time but just took a look at that. Thank you, I appreciate that. Looks like a list fit for a Wisconsin winter and a furthering of... well, a 'furthering'.

[Paragrouper]

Excellent list. I'll take it with me to the gun show tomorrow and do a little Christmas shopping.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Badger52

Nope, still going through it for the first time but just took a look at that. Thank you, I appreciate that. Looks like a list fit for a Wisconsin winter and a furthering of... well, a 'furthering'.

IME, reading a book by an academic historian is generally more efficient if one reads the end/footnotes as one goes along. YMMV.

[chance]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

inconceivable!

"You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means"

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

IME, reading a book by an academic historian is generally more efficient if one reads the end/footnotes as one goes along. YMMV.

Quite possibly in this case (although it wouldn't have gotten the books on the list read any sooner).* I will sometimes just go through the end-notes at the end and reference back to the material which causes a re-reading of a whole section to reinforce it. In many cases the experience isn't about efficiency at all; there's actually a readable story going on.

* Efficiency, in my estimation, would be footnoting the thing as the author takes the reader along, but that's just me.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

MOO, posts #13 and #14 exemplify the type of selective reading of America's past that is helping to enable the GOP's increasing political ineffectiveness and to sweep it into the dustbin of historical irrelevance.

First, a consideration of the entire Constitution of the United States within its historical context provides numerous opportunities to realize that the founders understood that the new nation would have its growing pains as different institutions and individuals at the federal and state level tested the limits of power and boundaries of authority when it came to the actual governance of the young republic. (Question: If the founders weren't aware that people would push the boundaries, then why did they provide for checks and balances, attempt to protect the federal government from the will of the people, and install mechanisms for changing the constitution? Oh, that's right. The Constitution meant exactly the same thing to everyone who read or heard about it, and all those who voted for its ratification did so for exactly the same reason, just as all those who opposed ratification conformed to the single shared meaning as soon as Rhode Island said "We're in!")

Second, Breen's account, although aimed at a general audience (sell, sell, sell!), is clearly meant to advance an ongoing historiographical debate over the nature/causes/point of no return of the American Revolution that has been going on for generations among specialists of that period. (The reference to "pamphlets" is directed at Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution [1967; enlarged edition, 1992].) While it is always nice to think that a book one is reading breathes fresh air into a vibrant chapter of America's past, a "bottom up" approach to that time period that de-emphasizes New England is not exactly new nor "typical."

What's your point?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Badger52

Quite possibly in this case (although it wouldn't have gotten the books on the list read any sooner).* I will sometimes just go through the end-notes at the end and reference back to the material which causes a re-reading of a whole section to reinforce it. In many cases the experience isn't about efficiency at all; there's actually a readable story going on.

In this specific case, reading the endnotes along with the principal text enables patient readers to see three points clearly. First, Professor Breen is taking up an argument that has been advanced a great deal over the last twenty plus years, and, therefore, he's not breaking new ground to the extent he suggests.

Second, some of the works he doesn't mention might cover the ground as well as he does, if not better.* Breen states "I can list here only a few of the more provocative and original works[....]" but in doing so he mentions the abridged version of Nash's The Urban Crucible published in 1986 rather than the longer, original version, published in 1979. And he also omits entirely from the list of works Nash's more recent The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America (2005). Similarly, while he mentions Royster, he neglects a contingent of military historians who have advanced similar arguments of a revolution from the bottom up over the past several decades. (See, for example, the works discussed here and there.)

Third, despite all of Breen's discussion of "popular resistance," he does not pay a lot of attention to the roles women did and did not play in that resistance.

Originally Posted by Badger52

* Efficiency, in my estimation, would be footnoting the thing as the author takes the reader along, but that's just me.

AFIAK, the footnote vs. endnote decision is the publisher's call, not the writer's. Endnotes with truncated citations, allow for the more economically efficient use of pages. And some publishers think that the aesthetics of footnotes distracts general readers.

________________________________________
* MOO, one of the primary duties of an academic historian is to frame his/her work within the context of the relevant scholarly debates, even if doing so may impact sales of a work aimed at general audiences.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

What's your point?

My point is that the American political right's treatment of American history undermines its ability to achieve its political agenda.

Too many on the right act as if matters of continued debate were settled in the late eighteenth century.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

AFIAK, the footnote vs. endnote decision is the publisher's call, not the writer's. Endnotes with truncated citations, allow for the more economically efficient use of pages. And some publishers think that the aesthetics of footnotes distracts general readers.

Ok, potato, potahto.

As to relative merit of a particular book (singular, 1 each), I raised it into the discussion simply to put forth the idea that America hasn't - in my view - reached the point of intolerance discussed during that period. I could've made that statement without a source of any kind, still believing it true, but perhaps not the best practice. Whether a particular author has been remiss in a collection of citations I can't say; I am obviously not a scholar in that area. I don't think a peer review of the citations present or missing, in one academician's work or another's, changes the point I made originally.

So I'll continue with this book, and read another at some point. As a suggestion, try going back to my post #14 and re-read it, with less attention to the 1st paragraph and a particular author. Try this:

Originally Posted by Badger52

Don't think we've seen a local "Committee of Safety" in East Ottertail, MN publicly shame a Fed official & cutoff their comms with DC, or run them outta town in disgrace, yet. Much was organized (and tolerated) in small ways, locally, before the smoke flew during another attempted "assault weapons confiscation raid."

Remains to be seen if another (unlikely) AWB is a tipping point. Or is a simple extra-legal "rule making" by the ATF tolerable?