Guns Part 1: The Sudden Celebrity of Sir John Knight | Revisionist History | Malcolm Gladwell

Contradictory ect. Nicely done Malcom!

Falling out of my chair laughing.

This was AWESOME!

Isn't Northampton antiquated by the very fact that the founding fathers who knew the law well specifically rebelled against the monarchy to form the country and had that in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment?

The news fits the wave.

I was seriously about to leave a comment decrying the irrelevant nature of this episode as it pertains to the current crisis in America. I almost complained that, for the 1st time in "Revisionist History", I felt my time had been wasted. Then your summary basically admitted all of those things. It was almost your Eminem in 8 Mile moment. Looking forward to the next 5 episodes.

The case taken to court

Now I’m motivated to read the Bruen opinions. Gladwell makes it clear he’s suspicious of the 2nd amendment.

Theatre?

I just never understand why the past has SO much influence. Important yes, review it yes, learn from it, sure. But I have always believed in the right to SELF-GOVERN. So if laws are changed because the current people wish to do so, the PAST is not a sufficient reason to stop them.

This is unbelievable. How is American law this broken ?

Interesting take, the only issue I have with this episode is that it presupposes the bill of rights is not a bill of negative rights. The attempts to erode one of the pillars of this nation, its freedom and balance in the shadow of an ever growing hostile government. It’s shameful the lack of understanding we have as to what the bill of rights means and who it is targeted to.

A pretty biased portrayal of the case. The entirety of the Bruen decision did not hinge on John Knight, and the efficacy of the Statute of Northampton (which should have been the focus of this podcast) is further discussed in Bruen, which, sadly, Gladwell chose not to delve into.

I base my hopes for enough of the US pop to be convinced by the logic of this episode, on what my best friend, who is a member of the same religious community as I am, who would listen to my summary of this episode. He would shake his head and beard as a dog would shake its furry head, to shake off drops of rain . No, nothing changes in his mind, arguements against the 2nd ammendment are as real as the mythical rain falling from a cloudless sky.

I agree with your disappointment. I love Gladwell, except in this case a lot of the fuss is about what a rat knight is Knight was apparently an anti-catholic religious zealot appointed you think the Catholic heavy Scotus would appreciate. Nevertheless, the salient point is that knight traveled around generally heavily armed. So did others. The more specific question is whether the laws specified church and market places as appropriate areas to bear arms. But the piece goes on about knight and sort of an ad hominem approach

More revisionist history from the ivory Tower.

It blows my mind, why the Supreme Court is determining their decision on a British court decision from the 1600. If the court is going to base current Supreme Court decisions on US and British laws in the 1600s, Justice Clarice Thomas and Joyce Malcolm would not be practicing law. That may sound like a silver lining but people with common sense know it is horrible for everyone.

Ohhh how I wish you'd held Joyce Malcolm's feet to the fire, longer, hotter, until she realized she was ignoring facts. She evades your central point @40:05 -- that "Sir" John Knight himself said he willfully complied with Bristol law requiring him to surrender his weapons. He did not object to those gun control laws, instead he tried to comply fully -- she ignores these facts. Instead, her vapid reply: "Professor [Tim] Harris is wrong" -- she's ignorant to say a world-expert professor in the topic (whose PhD is from Cambridge University) is "wrong."

The English constitution is unwritten. They have only had a form of constitutional review until relatively recent times. Our constitution is of course written and ratified by our various states. It is the ultimate law of the land. The interpretation of the second amendment can only be evaluated by the way it was written. Regardless of the militia statement the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. English legal precedent shouldn't undermine the language of the second amendment.

but Malcolm, one paragraph is more than sufficient for an American lawyer suitably motivated to mince each word of the paragraph. for weeks, over wine and cheese at least