Reminds me of cartoons of various high school teaching types, one of which is The Fanatic. It has a wild-eyed person exclaiming "WHILE MY THEORY FLIES IN THE FACE OF EVIDENCE AND LOGIC, IT IS NONETHELESS TRUE!"
With regard his general thesis, Glen Reynolds and Don Kates have an article on it, from some years back. I must wonder how the "militia only" theorists would react if Arizona announced it was authorizing a well-regulated militia, as well-regulated as colonial times (twice a year some shooting practice and a close-order drill), and we're all to be armed with M-16s, M-203s, SAWs, M-60s, and none of this National Firearms Act BS. Oh, and we want to join the nuclear club. Deterring tyranny and all that. The Russians will sell anything for hard currency. -----Original Message----- >From: Henry E Schaffer <[email protected]> >Sent: Feb 4, 2011 7:03 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Legal Scholars Are ?Best? Researchers on the Second Amendment?.Not > >Charles Curley writes: >> Legal Scholars Are ?Best? Researchers on the Second Amendment?.Not >> >> by Patrick J. Charles > > I guess it's interesting to see our list and my comment mentioned :-) >> ... >> In contrast, these legal scholars at FireArmsRegProf continue to miss >> the historical mark, and insert their modern viewpoints and biases into >> the equation. Henry E. Schaffer, professor emeritus at North Carolina >> State University, is completely off the mark: > >but I'm amazed that he refutes my mention of the (historical and >present) meaning of "regulated" very simply by stating, "Schaffer's >reference to a shotgun is mind-boggling". > > In science we refer to something like this as "proof by assertion." > >> http://patrickjcharles.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/legal-scholars-are-best-researchers-on-second-amendment-not/ > >> I shall well regulate myself and withhold comment for the nonce. > > You have somewhat more self-control than I do. :-) > > The author has a longer treatment (which I haven't read) at >http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1705564 >The 1792 National Militia Act, the Second Amendment, and Individual >Militia Rights: A Legal and Historical Perspective >Patrick J. Charles >affiliation not provided to SSRN >Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2011 >with a 1200+ word "Abstract". > >--henry schaffer >_______________________________________________ >To post, send message to [email protected] >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof > >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. > Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people >can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward >the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
