The 2nd Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

To me, the language of the 2nd Amendment itself is very awkward. The final comma seems totally unnecessary in a grammatical sense, and it makes me wonder if in its drafting this awkward wording served some intentional purpose. Justice Scalia focuses on the latter clause of 'the right of the people' before interpreting the 'militia' preamble, while Stevens argued that the 'militia' preamble suggests the Amendment was to protect state militia's rather than individual persons in a state right to bear firearms.

So that leaves me curious if whether the Founders went through the same sort of semantic debate about the Amendment's structure/goal?

I've got to say I know way more about European beer industries and the history of beer in Europe. Can anyone fix this oversight of mine?

Hockey is the least diverse of the big four sports in America. Despite having no (written) restrictions against black players in their history, they were the last of the big four to have a black player in their league. I was wondering what factors led to this lack of diversity within the league, and sport in general.

I understand that the league used to draft players mostly from Canada, who has a historically small black population. And that cost may be an issue. But the Colored Hockey League was very predominant until it collapsed in WW1. From then it wasnt until 1958 when willie o’ree joined and then Mike Marson became the 2nd player to join in 1974. I would think that the league would be a lot more diverse because of the league’s liberal principles that stem from Canadian history.

I understand that the British imperial mission in India was greatly aided by the translation of various Hindu and Muslim legal texts, especially in understanding their legal traditions and facilitating British administration.

While Britain never colonized China in a formal sense, the expansion of extraterritorial privileges (and of course the Opium Wars) strongly contributed to the downfall of the Qing Dynasty.

How great was the impact of Staunton’s translation of the Qing Code (“Ta Tsing Leu Lee”) on British perceptions of Chinese law and society, and did it have practical value in aiding the British efforts in securing extraterritoriality and semi-colonization of China?

[deleted]

Basically, I was wondering if the general people of the time viewed this as a monumental change in the way citizens should be treated by their government, (which is a mindset heavily suggested by US History Classes) or if most people just saw it as the rich keeping their positions of power.

I keep hearing about how Adolf Hitler was supposedly a massive fan of the Islamic religion, how he viewed Christianity and of course Judaism as outdated and weak, etc but I would like to know how specifically Hitler thought about Islam, Mohammed, Arabs, etc.

If we need to be specific, let's say in the Pacific theatre. I was taken by surprise when the game World of Warships introduced carrier-launched attack aircraft armed with rockets. I've since learned that rockets a) were used and b) could be reasonably effective, but I have trouble imagining flights of rocket-armed planes during WWII (I usually think guns, bombs, torpedos). So I'd love to know more about how widely they were used. Thanks!

This could be completely wrong, but it seems that a lot of ancient Egyptian studies tend to be in French; I've also heard that it helps to be fluent in French if you go decide to specialize in Egyptology. Is there any particular reason for this?

I remember reading, I think it was in the "History of the World in 6 Glasses", that regarding grains, in ancient mesopotamia, first people would make gruel, which was wheat mixed with water, and from their they made either bread and from breadmaking we got brewing, or made beer, and from there we got breadmaking, but there was controversy as to which came first. So two parts to this question:

1. Is my understanding of the basic chronology of grain cultivation/cooking basically correct? Gruel, leading into bread or beer, which led to the other?
2. Is there a consensus now as to which came first?

In my History class we got assigned a project to design a medieval castle in western Europe. Our teacher is going to attack our imaginary castle (d&d style) and we only win if we can withstand his siege for over 20 years (longest medieval siege), or if we kill all of his army (he has an army of 3000 knights and at-least 3000 squires) Our design has to be realistic, and any ideas incorporated into our castle must have been used somewhere during the medieval era.

The invasion is in a closed environment (no reinforcements, no political stuff at all). This being said, does anyone know of any castles, or any ideas that could help us design an impenetrable castle?

Thanks in advance, Sawyer

What happened to Hitlers body after he committed suicide?

Or maybe "the art of war" is a common phrase across the world. I don't know

Where does this quote source from? Can't seem to find any at all and am starting to doubt the legitimacy of it.

Hey, first how are you all? Second I'm working on a tabletop thing and I'm wanting to know of some potential candidates for weapons I can add. Namely European between the 1300s through the 1600s (big gap I know).

I have the usual suspects(Greatswords, halberds, axes, etc) but I was wanting to know of some other more unique options? I was wondering about examples of Two handed maces and single edged greatswords(best I could find was an exceptionally large messer.) I'd love to hear what y'all have to say, and examples in artwork or surviving items would also be appreciated.

Democrats were also experiencing a prolonged stretch of success in Congress, controlling the House for the vast majority of this stretch and the Senate only slightly less frequently- what were the Republicans major policy goals in this time? Has any other American party survived such a fallow stretch?