Was the first bullet a fatal shot? I know three shots were fired, one missed, and one of the shots was a head shot. The first shot that hit him penetrated below his neck I believe. Was this shot enough to kill him without the second one?

Is there any meaningful historical research on the issue? Additional thoughts: Doesn't the originalist interpretation approach give effect to the mistakes made by the founders? Is this a tenable approach when it is practically impossible to amend the constitution to correct mistakes?

Bork was nominated more than 20 years ago, so can I shoehorn this into askHistorians?

A while back I came upon a recent article about how 49% of all web links in supreme court cases are now inaccessible, because some particular website or content has been taken down. This made me think of how future historians might curse us because we didn't see the value in preserving historically important documents of our own time. And I was wondering if this is something which professional historians think about.

Also, what sort of policy changes would you propose that a government adopt in order to preserve information, which might be of interest to future historians?

I know about the 20 year rule of this subreddit, but I'd like to think that it only extends from 20 years ago to now, and doesn't extend to the future :)

thanks for all the interesting responses.

Could you recommend me some worthy articles or books covering kingdom of Provence/Arles or in general western Mediterranean in the medieval period? I'm frustrated after searching and finding out everything is in French :( [like Poupardin's Le Royaume de Provence Sous Les Carolingiens)

I understand, that Buddhism was stronger represented in India during late Antiquity, how come that it was mostly supplanted by Hinduism?

I need to find images to put in my essay, but I can't seem to find any images or artwork depicting barber-surgeons or physicians in Italy during the 1300-1400s.

From what I understand (from an op-ed by Conrad Black in the National Post), is it true that from World War I to the bicultural policies of Pearson and Trudeau in the 1960s, the French-Canadian political/cultural elites insisted that biculturalism should become reciprocal and not just the French learning English from economic necessity?

Is it also true, from what I understand, that the French-Canadian elites (at least in Quebec) greeted the federal promotion of biculturalism in the 1960s as an attempt at assimilation (which it certainly was not), and for that reason Quebec nationalism was embraced at that point (cutting loose the French-Canadians outside Quebec and discriminating against Anglos in Quebec)?

I recall reading that the first waves of Europeans hated cranberries and tried to make tea out of Jimson weed, and hilarity ensued. I don't remember where I read this, but the idea that some people experimented in this way and wrote down the results is fascinating. I'd love to get more information.

NPR radio just said that Ford doubled his worker's wages a hundred years ago. Did he ever explain why he doubled wages?

Was it more limited or was it a full effort cooperation? Did they send supplies? I know Mussolini led a splinter state, but how did the main Italian state aid the Allies;

Up until now I've gotten most of my information on this topic from movies and television. Natives are usually depicted in loin cloths using sitcks and stones while the English, Spanish and French were laying the smack down on them with their superior weapons and fortifications. I know some (if not most) of this information might have been manipulated to make an interesting story, and probably isn't 100% accurate.

Exactly how advanced were the Europeon settlers in terms of Technology compared to the Native population of North and South America?

I'm actually looking for the answer for a philosophical paper. Heidegger says not everything people do can be objectively justified, some practices only make sense in the context of their culture, which is basically a self enclosed jumble of practices.

An Inuit guy I worked with told me the 'eskimo kiss' comes from wanting to expose minimal skin in a cold climate, so I thought different cultural greetings would be a good example of practices that only make sense in their own cultural context!

The Spanish Flu '18 killed about 2-3% of the WORLD'S POPULATION - about 20M people even in remote areas like Antarctica and Micronesia. However, very few of us are aware of this pandemic.

• What are the legacies of this flu?
• Do you share my views?
• Why or why not?

I find it confusing mostly because the language name French is clearly based upon the people who used it the Franks, but they were Germanic, so surely they would have originally spoke a Germanic language.

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.

So that opening phrase says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" seems like a listed reason for why the 2nd amendment was important. But there is no such explanation for the other ten (such as "the importance of open discourse being necessary to the functioning of a healthy republic" preceding the first).

Is there a historical reason for why the second amendment included such language? The wikipedia article shows that there was plenty of deliberation over its language, but there's nothing about that stand-out feature.