Newsflash: Bellesiles just resigned his position at Emory. Apparently, it’s come out that his research on gun ownership was fraudulent.
Cecil, I didn’t doubt ya for a minute!!
For those who think the second amendment applies only to the militia, ask yourself this:
Let’s say this was the way the first amendment was written:
“Because a free press is vital to the functioning of a democracy, the right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed”
Would you conclude from that that only CNN and the New York Times have the right to speak, and any other private speech could be muzzled by the government at will?
That is EXACTLY the phrasing of the second amendment. Or, for you language parsers who keep trying to parse the 2nd amendment to be what it isn’t, note that the first half of the sentence does not modify the second half. It is a preamble. In other words, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the reason is because we want the ability to raise a well-regulated militia”.
And a well-regulated militia, if you read the supporting documents of the day, meant that the state wanted the ability to draw up a militia FROM THE CITIZENRY, and that the citizenry would be able to provide its own arms. Or that if the state were under attack, the people could form their own militia and arm it themselves, thus removing the reliance on government for protecting their freedom in cases of emergency (not just invasion, but also civil breakdown. The LA riots might be an example: When the police couldn’t enter the riot area, shopkeepers armed with weapons protected their own stores, which minimized the destruction and violence).
Uh, Sam? Read the dates on the last two posts before yours.
(I suppose that it won’t hurt to run around this tree a few more times, of course, but I think lucwarm was simply pointing out the problem with some of the original sources in this debate rather than attempting to start it from scratch.)
Yeah, I saw that after I posted. My bad.
Aww, shucks–someone else beat me to the news that Michael Bellesiles had just resigned in disgrace.
According to the Associated Press, a panel of historians from Harvard, Princeton, and the University of Chicago released a 40 page report on Bellesiles’s book and found that he was guilty of producing “unprofessional and misleading work” and stated that his failure to cite sources “does move into the realm of falsification.”
Bellesiles had been on paid administrative leave this semester; his resignation will be effective on 31 December. So the fact that he’s providing zero services, and that he’s sullied the name of his institution isn’t going to prevent him from collecting a paycheck from the students of Emory University.
Feel free to start a thread on the subject. That’s what I probably should have done from the get-go.