Debating Saul Cornell's New Book (excellent 2A history debate)

[hoffmang]

The debate over Saul Cornell's new book is very interesting. Cornell's book is an attempt to to be more sophisticated and balanced on interpreting the Second Amendment over time, but fails from Mr. Cornell's fundamental bias that the 2nd shouldn't really mean much.

David Hardy has the background and the links to the debate here:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/09/debate_on_saul.php

All three links are very interesting and you can learn a lot about the interpretation. One of the most interesting thoughts that leaped out at me is that the 2nd probably protects guns at a higher level than the 4th protects the rest of your possessions.

-Gene

[jdberger]

It's an interesting read (the debate).

Have you're magnifying eyeglasses, though. The font is small and difficult to read.

[-aK-]

One of the most interesting thoughts that leaped out at me is that the 2nd probably protects guns at a higher level than the 4th protects the rest of your possessions.

-Gene

I think it definitely should. After all one says "shall not be infringed" and the other says "secure ... against unreasonable."