What about in the six states that had prohibited slavery well before the Constitution was ratified? How do they fit into your version of history?

Do you understand the concept of federalism?

Do you have any comprehension of the impetus for the 9th and 10th Amendments?

No, not really.

Bogus can conjure up some far-fetched theories but this one takes the cake. This paper is 10 years old and the theories posited have enjoyed no traction in historical or legal circles. In fact you would be hard pressed to find any of the theories repeated anywhere, . . . even by Bogus himself.

I must ask, have you even read the paper or just VPC's commentary on it? Didn't you "find it interesting" that Bogus works for Brady and the VPC yet there is no link to this paper on the page that you linked to touting it?

Why????

This "Hidden History," like many other "scholarly" papers supporting the "collective right" theory of the late '90's - early 2000's were written by professors under generous grants from the Joyce Foundation. Each of them cite the others as support like an incestuous family and all are also overly self-referential to the point of it being a joke. Bogus' 7 citations in Hidden History to the disgraced "historian" Bellesiles now stand as mute testimony of the level of scholarship in this hack's papers.

In 2000, the Joyce Foundation paid Bogus an honorarium to organize and edit a "Second Amendment Symposium" under the respected banner of the Chicago-Kent Law Review where historians and scholars were to discuss the 2nd Amendment . . . The program was widely criticized because Bogus only invited a one sided panel. He unashamedly admitted this, arguing that the lack of balance was intentional and meant to counter the overwhelming dominance of the individual rights position. His intention was to work out alternative paradigms with the scholars who were dissenters from the individual rights position and to provide fresh thinking on the 2nd Amendment.

To me it seems Bogus' "alternative paradigms" are little more than throwing buckets of crap on the wall and seeing what sticks . . . Well patriot, this slavery theory slid right down to the floor . . .

If you would like to read something from Bogus that is truly "recent" Bogus wrote the amicus brief in support of DC in Heller commonly referred to as "The History Professors" (305KB pdf) and nowhere is this slavery angle argued. He argues specifically about what they consider to be the primary issues regarding the 2nd Amendment's ratification and reason for being and protecting slavery ain't there.

If you are moved to read on this subject I highly recommend the amicus briefs filed with the Supreme Court in Heller, there are quite a few (47 for Heller, 20 for DC). These are after all the most important arguments on the 2nd Amendment . . . presented to the Court to sway the Court. These arguments are the "state of the art" position papers for both sides.

All are available from the the Respondent's legal representative, the law firm of Gura & Possessky. PLEADINGS

I guess if you find "alternative paradigms" to history interesting, Bogus is your guy. If however you value truth and real scholarship you will dismiss Bogus, as bogus.

What emotion? I don't make emotional arguments or appeals -- I deal in facts and logic. I welcome your arguments based in the same.