Test captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2008 thats why they pay us the remarkably modest bucks at the end of the day. But that is, in essence, one of the major problems okay. Just continuing on this question of contextualizing, i want to ask you a very specific question about infringed and abridged and how those two words differ if their implication and whether there is a Historical Context to that or whether we only need concern ourselves with our contemporary conception of the distinction between those two words . Well, i mean it depends on whether you think were doing a linguistic exercise where the meaning interchangeable. You know, you could say infringed means just the same thing as to violate. Its one of the definitions. It could be a binary. Either its on or off. You infringed or you vichavent a spectrum, a diminution, an infringement and theres not a good linguistic account i have seen so far about which way to interpret that. As between infringed and abridged im not sure how much im not sure how much work you can do wet that kind of thing. In the 18th century things like certain rights shall not be questioned and i dont know what that means. In a system of judicial review where judges get to interpret the constitution, shall not be questioned, does that mean ought not be questioned. Ought not be questioned, i dont know what it means. You can press hard on that sort of linguistic nuance, but im not sure i do think theres one thing thats very clear, though, and i agree with al, the First Amendment talks in a language of, you know, abridgement and the Second Amendment talks about a language of infringement. The specific question is about whether theyre individual or collective. Oh. I think the more important question is the First Amendment has the idea you can diminish something without crossing the threshold of destroying it. The Second Amendment has this different kind of sense there is some point which you cross the threshold you have undermined the nature of the right. But what you do with that i think is still up for debate okay. Heres heres a specific question about very briefly, saul. Spot the professor. Takes one to know one. This is about the long history of gun regulation in the 20th century and how gun regulation has changed in the 20th century in two sentences. The federal government, the new deal. Okay. All right. Commerce clause. You can have one more sentence. Clearly the major transformation is until the 20th century with the exception of militia, statutes, the Commerce Clause is not the great engine of regulating anything and that would include guns. Yeah. Did you want to add to that . Nope. Okay. All right. I have im going to wrap up with a question for you in just a second, but theres a question here for saul thats about historical analogs with the current trend of the way the question is phrased on the card selfidentification by gun ownership meaning identifying ones self as a gun owner, having ownership be a sense of ones identity and whether that is 21st century phenomenon and how significant that is in three sentences. Thank you. I think its very cheer that in the 18th century firearms are utull tare yan, theyre a tool, they know about them, need them, use them, they may have a powder horn they carve in an elaborate way to lend some kind of artistic quality to it. People do not identify themselves the way modern socalled super gun owners, people who own over 15 guns, as this is who i am, this is what defiance me, this is the thing that makes me an american and sense of self in society. It was not part of the way guns because theyre not advertising the way they are in modern america. You dont get your man card the way you do when you buy an ar15 in the 15th century. You look in this newspaper and say somebody has some fire locks i should go get a new gun. You cant analogize to the display of other weaponry so common in the early modern period including 18th century, the Governors Palace in williamsburg you will see a collection of swords, broad swords and all kinds of things, displaying weaponry, what has a longer history . Sure. In terms of the state and the military function in the state, all kinds of rituals, musters, you have parading, all kinds of symbolic. Im thinking more in the sense of having this gun in my house, is key to understanding who i am as an american. What about the english mobility and their ability to guard castles and so on with extraordinary weaponry . Of course the right to be able to carry an arm in public is a privilege of rank in english society. Theyre one of the few people exempted out of the statute of north hamptons prohibition, allowed to carry weapons suitable to their condition and is allowed by law. Thank you. I have one final question for daryl just to ask you to do some future casting for us, which is weve been talking about the history of history i gave that up in 2016. But, you know, some of what you have said suggests that history in and particularly by analogy is going to have a significant role Going Forward in this legislation and legal realm. Do you want to say anything more about how significant you think that will be . Whether that will grow and become more intensive . I mean it could. I have a feeling that the history of the Second Amendment and the regulations will end up finding their way about shading what might otherwise be what i think most legal scholars think is a conventional approach to Second Amendment adjudication or any constitutional adjudication. Theres always these coverage questions, are we dealing with a constitutional issue. Not every kind of speech is First Amendment speech. Even if it is First Amendment speech its not protected exactly the same way everywhere that such speech occurs. Its going to, you know, even if we adopt those sort of baseline runofthemill constitution Decision Making structures the history i think is going to influence how both, you know, strokes of this piston operate. The other thing i will add is, and this is what we keep dancing around, which is the issue about the historical materials is they dont present their own anna logical, you know, bases. Theres a juris prudential imperative which is like a rule of relevance as fred has said. You can say that a crowded market is like a plane if what you think is relevant is the fear that people will be harmed in close spaces. If you say no, the relevant material between that is, you go to a fair to entertain yourself an get on a plane to travel somewhere, then the analogy breaks down. Theres nothing in the materials themselves that tell you which way to jump. Thats what the judge does. Exactly. Well as a historian, i thank you for saying its complicated. So thank you all so much for being here and thank you to dar darrelle and to saul. Good job. Thank you for coming out. Two forth and legislate. Tonight on American History tv at 8 00 eastern, a look at why june is lbgt pride month. Six days of protest began on june 28, 1969, after a raid on a gay club in new york city that proved to be a key turning point if the gay rights movement. Mark stein, editor of the stone wa stonewall riots joined us. Watch tonight and over the weekend on cspan 3. Every saturday night, American History tv takes you to College Classrooms around the country for lectures in history. Why do you all know who lizzy board is and raise your hand if youve heard of the between harris murder before this class. The deepest cause well find the true meaning of the revolution was in this transformation that took place in the minds of the american people. Were going to talk about both sides of the story here, the tools, the techniques of slave owner power and also talk about the tools and techniques of power that were practiced by enslaved people. Watch history professors lead discussions with their students on topics ranging from the American Revolution to september 11th, lectures in history on cspan 3 every saturday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv and lecture ms history is available as a podcast. Find it where you listen to podcasts. Cspan has coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and Public Policy events. You can watch all of cspans Public Affairs programming on television, online or listen on our free radio app and be part of the National Conversation through the Washington Journal Program or through our social media feeds. Cspan, created by americas Cable Television companies