Re Pauline Maier's article nyt
She knows some history.
Read especially "There is a problem with Justice Breyer's argument...."
Not unusual.
'...Thus the right to keep and bear arms was granted as a means to sustain that “well-regulated militia....”'; ie not for other reasons asserted in the current debate.
Current politics, and law, are filled with factual misconceptions; what I would call 'phenomenologist politicians', and some historians even, Schama being a notable example, are no longer always concerned, so much, about historical accuracy.
They don't want the facts to interfere too much with the story they want to tell, the picture they need to paint, or the argument they have to make.
No comments:
Post a Comment