- Joined
- Oct 1, 2005
- Messages
- 38,750
- Reaction score
- 13,845
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I never said it protected a "collective" right, but rather it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that is contingent on militia service. This isn't just something I made up, it's well understood among legal scholars, here is an excellent argument by Richard Posner, a legal scholar of the first order that all the standard model advocates around here seem to be very adept at ignoring.
Mostly because he doesn't even mention the Standard Model in that piece; his beef is with "originalism" in general. It would help to understand the Standard Model in order to know this, of course.
Again, I repeat the request, find me one historian who supports the standard model.
Joyce Lee Malcolm.
If it was good history, there would be plenty.
Given that the Standard Model is entirely a work of legal research concerning interpreting law, this argument is just . . . stupid. Indeed, it is like demanding that dentists weigh in on cancer research. Even for mouth cancer, that's laughable on its face.