I just read Finkelman's response to Thom's article on Truthout about the purpose behind the Second Amendment. It seems that Finkelman misunderstands Thom's points and main argument. After all, most of what Thom is arguing comes straight from Professor Bogus and his other references are well cited. If Finkelman is so sure that Thom's main points are wrong, why didn't he directly take on Bogus' arguments on their own and deal with them as such instead of writing as if Thom made all these arguments up himself. It's ironic that Finkelman writes as if he has no idea about Bogus' scholarship since he himself wrote a chapter in a book titled The Second Amendment in Law and History edited by Carl T. Bogus himself in which he provides the first chapter. I really think Finkelman is totally ignorant of Bogus' Hidden History of the Second Amendment or has completely forgotten it. So, why not call Finkelman out on this and actually get him to confront Dr. Bogus in person by having the two meet to hash out their differences in public. After all, the main crux of Finkelman's criticisms should be directed right at Prof. Bogus himself. To me, the best place for this would be on The Big Picture show so that they could discuss their differences uninterupted by all the commercial breaks his radio show has. They could at least do a full half hour, though I would watch for the full hour.
In addition, I personally found Prof. Bogus' evidence in his Hidden History to be far more convincing than nearly all of Fink's objections. I have a B.A. degree in history and have been a life long lover of history and continue to read and study it. I think Fink is being way too arrogant here. After all, the words of Patrick Henry in particular speak for themselves in regards to his paranoia over slavery and its precariousness. I certainly don't think Prof. Finkelman has anymore intelligence or skill in reading legal history than Prof. Bogus does. Both are professional legal scholars who've done significant research and writing in American legal history. So, let's have it out. A real Battle Royale for the alternative media talk show ages! I know you said on your Radio show that you decided not to invite Finkelman on because you thought Finkelman had been particulary personal in his criticism, but we can correct that by having him confront the primary source for this debate, Dr. Bogus himself. Let's see how snarcky he gets then.
Oh, I highly recommend The Second Amendment in Law and History by way as a deeper and fuller discussion of the whole history of the Second Amendment both during its adoption and since. It has chapters by not only Bogus and Finkelman but also by Michael Bellesisles and Jack Rackove among others, all historians and legal scholars. The opening chapter or chapters do alot to explain how the legal scholarship promoting the individual rights theory has been an almost entirely 20th century phenomenon and a late 20th century one at that. It also explain the NRA's role in promoting this and influencing not only legal scholarship but what has actually been taught in our nation's law schools since the 1990's in particular. The individual rights theory really is a tortured fabrication of the Amendment's clear original intent. Thanks.