Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Does Yglieas try to outsmart National Review, or grabs here their hook and sinker?

Stevens Makes at Least One Good Point in His Controversial Essay

Two and a half cheers for Justice Stevens!

Let me say it up front: I don't think we should repeal the Second Amendment. But I applaud retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens for arguing that we should.

Their other headlines:

You Can Try to Repeal the Second Amendment, but You Can't Repeal History  

The 'Nice Girl' Who Saved the Second Amendment

Regarding history, I found Fukuyama's cursory remarks in "Political Order and Political Decay" interesting:

According to Huntington, the Englishmen who settled North America in the seventeenth century brought with them many of the political practices of Tudor, or late medieval, England. On American soil these old institutions became entrenched and were eventually written into the American Constitution, a fragment of the old society frozen in time. Those Tudor characteristics included the Common Law as a source of authority, one higher than that of the executive, with a correspondingly strong role for courts in governance; a tradition of local self-rule; sovereignty divided among a host of bodies, rather than being concentrated in a centralized state; government with divided powers instead of divided functions, such that, for example, the judiciary exercised not just judicial but also quasi-legislative functions; and reliance on a popular militia rather than a standing army.
While there was an incipient navy, the United States had no need to maintain a large standing army and relied entirely on local militias for security [...]

Jackson's presidency was the foundation of what Walter Russell Mead has labeled the Jacksonian tradition of populism in American politics that continues up to the present day and finds echoes in groups like the Tea Party that emerged after the 2008 election of Barack Obama. This tradition has its roots in the so-called Scotch-Irish settlers who began arriving in North America in the middle decades of the eighteenth century. They hailed from northern Ireland, the Scottish lowlands, and the parts of northern England bordering on Scotland. These regions were the least economically developed in Britain, and it was indeed their high levels of poverty that drove hundreds of thousands of Scotch-Irish to emigrate [...]

These emigrants from Britain came from what had been an extraordinarily violent region, racked by centuries of fighting between local warlords, and between these warlords and the English. Out of this environment came an intense individualism, as well as a love of guns, which would become the origins of the American gun culture. The Scotch-Irish became pugnacious Indian fighters; Jackson led his Tennessee volunteers in campaigns to drive the Creeks from Georgia and northern Alabama and the Seminoles from Florida. They settled in what at the time was the frontier, the mountains of Appalachia extending from western Virginia through the Carolinas into Tennessee and Georgia.

Somewhere else I read that Scandinavians were the original main characters in Appalachia. Either way, the Second Amendment was useful for coping with Indians:

The Brutal Origins of Gun Rights -- The New Republic

A new history argues that the Second Amendment was intended to perpetuate white settlers' violence toward Native Americans.
by das monde on Sun Apr 1st, 2018 at 05:40:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Oui 4
Bernard 4


Occasional Series