Since you lack the necessary understanding it should be interesting to you. Though I'm sure you could cite some example of this rewriting/reinterpreting.

Actually you probably can't but I find your shallow thinking on this topic amusing.

I'll bring up a few of the more poorly researched parts of the article and see where you "interests" lies.

quote:
was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum

Unfortunately there was no such consensus, either in the courts or with historians. You see, prior to Miller the courts (lower Federal courts largely) often contradicted each other with the scope of the 2A with respect to the question of applicability and whether it protected an Individual or Collective right. Historians have argued whether the 2A created a new right or simply protected and codified an existing right, based on its relation to the English BoR as well as which ownership theory the 2A protected.

quote:
Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008...

In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.

Interesting and factually devoid. First, with regards to the curious wording of "every other time the court had ruled previously". No question that "the court" refers to SCOTUS, but "every other time" seems to imply multiple cases. There are no multiple cases dealing with the 2A at the SCOTUS level prior to Heller, only the 1939 Miller case and that did not touch on the Individual/Collective Rights theories at all. It simply dealt with what constituted a weapon suitable for militia purpose (e.g. short barreled shotgun). Maybe you are too ignorant to know intellectual dishonesty when it's presented but you are far from alone.

Love how the author of this hit piece seems to think the NRA galvanized its support of the 2A in a complete vacuum by citing a general Conservative "backlash" of the period. Makes no mention of certain lobbying groups such as The Coalition to Ban Handguns coming into play during the same time period. I'm sure you'd find that interesting too, if you had more than a room temperature IQ on this topic. You have anything to say of their radicalizing for strict gun control laws?

quote:
But a historian fact-checked the justice: “Malcolm’s name may sound British, and Bentley College, where Malcolm teaches history, may sound like a college at Oxford, but in fact Malcolm was born and raised in Utica, New York, and Bentley is a business college in Massachusetts.

All true but why did this historian leave out the fact that Prof. Malcolm's background is in American Colonial and British history? No mention of the the books Malcolm has authored on the history of the 2A and its roots in English Common Law? Guess he didn't want to lend scholarly support to Scalia's decision.

This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 11:52 am