The Amazingly Dishonest Professor Amar [View All]

[MrBenchley]

Some "enthusiast" trotted this yobbo up here the other day in an attempt to prove that the dishonest interpretation of the Second Amendment that the NRA has been peddling since about 1975 isn't a total load of crap.

The key argument this academic hack had to offer was: ""In 1789, when used without any qualifying adjective, 'the militia' referred to all citizens capable of bearing arms. The seeming tension between the dependent and the main clauses of the Second Amendment thus evaporates on closer inspection — the "militia" is identical to "the people" in the core sense described above. "

What is, of course, the gaudy bit of utter dishonesty in this rubbish is the phrase "when used without any qualifying adjective." IN FACT, the second amendment has quite a fine qualifying adjective "well regulated" that makes the professor's rhetoric both meaningless and used-car-dealer-quality dishonest.

Such is "scholarship" for those who think Mary Rosh is a real scientist.

Why, do you suppose, does the RKBA crowd have to depend on such blatant falsehoods?