I had rowed over to the island to find some comedy relief and stumbled upon the below post by the trained historian.
Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #34)Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:19 PM
nadinbrzezinski (113,581 posts)
36. I think so
And I prefer we start going back to 1791 and the context of the second amendment.
It does not need a revision, it needs a correct interpretation
In modern parlance, you want an infantry rifle, you join the guard.
Well regulated was lost somewhere.
As well the fact that the amendment speaks of the needs of the state...individuals come dead last...in the 18th century it makes sense. You had a Kentucky Long Rifle, you served with the local militia.
That's what I want to see. A return to what they really meant...and contemporaneous papers are legion. They meant Switzerland, not the current mayhem.
Hamilton was even prophetic in Federalist 29.
nadalinkIt's been over 25 years since I had a history class. I also freely admit that I'm not a trained historian. With that said, I was always under the impression that the entire focus of the Bill of Rights was the individual. Just from a common sense standpoint, it really doesn't make sense to have the first amendment focus on the individual, the second to focus on the government, then the next eight to focus on the individual again.
Believe it or not I'm really beginning to doubt that she's a trained historian. I don't even think she knows the history of rifffles.
edit to add: Maybe she's a Train (the music group) historian. Maybe she knows all their songs or something.