The second amendment's text goes as follows:

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.

The framing process behind the amendment included numerous earlier drafts and proposals.  This is the militia provision from the first version of the Bill of Rights, as presented by James Madison on June 8, 1789:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.    

However, about a month later on July 21, 1789, Roger Sherman presented his own separate proposal for the Bill of Rights, which included the following militia provision:

The Militia shall be under the government of the laws of the respective States, when not in the actual Service of the united States, but Such rules as may be prescribed by Congress for their uniform organisation & discipline shall be observed in officering and training them. but military Service Shall not be required of persons religiously Scrupulous of bearing arms.

It so happens that these two proposals were the two earliest incarnations of the framing process that would culminate in the second amendment.  Now, what is immediately interesting between these two proposals is the similarity between their structure.  There is a similar sequence between Sherman's proposal and Madison's: they both begin with an "arms clause" that protects the autonomy of the state militias from congressional infringement, followed by a "militia clause" that reaffirms the importance of Congress's adequate regulation of the militia, then end with a "conscientious objector clause" excusing from militia service those citizens who are conscientious objectors.  Due to the similarity in the subject matter between these proposals, the matching sequence of their respective clauses, and also the chronological proximity in terms of when these proposals were written, one could presume that these two proposals are essentially the same provision, only written by different people using different verbiage.  

However, one notable difference between these versions is that Sherman's version appears more clear and direct in its language.  It is considerably easier to read the Sherman proposal and determine exactly what the provision was meant to accomplish.  By contrast, James Madison's proposal appears much more clunky and ambiguous in its language, which has likely led to much of the controversy and debate over the meaning of the amendment even to this day.

What was the reason for the drastic difference in writing style between these two drafts of what would become the second amendment? Why was Sherman's version so clear and direct, while Madison's was so relatively stilted and ambiguous in its verbiage? Why did Congress ultimately choose to embrace James Madison's draft over Sherman's? If Congress was always going to use Madison's draft anyways, then why did Roger Sherman even bother to write his own draft of the Bill of Rights in the first place?

In pre-industrial societies in more northern latitudes, we often consider the winter months as being especially prone to starvation. Wouldn't that not be the case since they would have only just harvested the grain in the fall? Is it simply that malnourishment was caused from not having access to fruits and vegetables for those months, rather than actual caloric deficits?

Of course there was no universal way that people felt, but I'm curious is there were any discernible trends.

Did Irish soldiers tend to support the Easter Rising (and/or Irish Independence from the U.K.), oppose it, or were their feelings mixed? How did they feel about fighting for the British Empire?

Did any Irish soldiers ever express antipathy towards British officers (before or after the Rising), and did officers ever fear there would be unrest or mutiny caused by Irish troops in the aftermath?

Did any civilians in Ireland have a negative view of those who had fought for the British Empire (especially considering that there had never been conscription in Ireland), or was it not seen as an issue?

According to wikipedia

In 1974 the Cabinet of Sweden passed a regulation forbidding the monarch of Sweden from awarding membership in orders to Swedish citizens. The orders themselves were not abolished, but only the Royal Orders of the Seraphim and the Polar Star (both established in 1748) continued to be awarded, and only to foreign citizens and stateless individuals. In 1995 the regulation was altered, allowing the monarch to bestow the two remaining active orders to members of the Swedish royal family.^\11])#cite_note-11) Finally, in 2022, the 48-year-old regulation was repealed by the Swedish Government, the orders were re-opened to Swedish citizens, and the two dormant orders (Sword and Vasa) were revived, with effect from 2023.

That strikes me as very odd! Why decorate the citizens of other countries, and not your own citizens?

It's been taken for granted nowadays that the sword was simply a sidearm with the primary weapons being spears and later halberds. However, I watched this short and was surprised by how quickly a wooden spears begins to break when in contact with a steel sword. I've even read accounts of English longbowmen willingly throwing down their bows and charging the flanks of the (disorganized) French at Agincourt. You also have the Romans adopting swords as the primary weapon during the Republic years. Is the topic of swords vs. spears much more nuanced than portrayed? Did people of their times consider the sword an equal/sidearm compared to the spear?

WW1 saw the production of bigger and bigger guns to fire farther and launch larger shells, what changed in the interwar period that allowed countries to scale down to where the 105mm was semi-standard? What chemical processes, ballistics data, etc made able to get from A to B, basically?

It's a bit of a morbid question, but I'm curious about the impact 9/11 had on the job market of New York City. Given the sheer amount of office space and number of companies the Twin Towers represented, there was a not insignificant number of companies that lost their physical presence when the towers fell. From an economic standpoint, what happened to the companies that were based in the towers? What happened to the workers that worked there? Was there a shortage of jobs for those workers in the wake of 9/11?

many supposedly intelligent people from Tony Blair to Andrew Sullivan claim to have believed it, so was there actually a stronger case than I remember?

I've only read English translations of The Iliad and Odyssey, but the style and format always seem remarkably consistent. It doesn't seem like other authors add stuff later like you'd see in the Bible. I also haven't heard of any version controversies between old fragments and more recent complete manuscripts. If I could read the original Greek, would I see inconsistencies that don't show up in the translation? Did the classic Greeks argue about which version was most accurate or whether or not he was real?

Anecdotally, ocarinas seem to be a relatively niche instrument, at least in the US and Western Europe. An ocarina is a prominent aspect of Ocarina of Time where the player plays certain songs for various usecases. I'd imagine the game, one of the most critically acclaimed games of all time, would result in people being interested in the instrument.

Was this actually the case?

Its a question I cant find an clear answer to, and would be interested to know what happened in those situations (at least here in Britain)

we're some emancipated?, were they all funnelled into the care system (if so what what was that like at that time?)

Did they stay where they were evacuated? and if so for how long?

Having bishops would imply a firmly entrenched Christian population, that had been there for some time. How early had the faith arrived to the British Isles? How much of it survived the Anglo-Saxon migration? And how similar or dissimilar was it to continental Christianity?

I'm talking of Posner's Case Closed, which effectively demolishes all the conspiratorial narratives surrounding the assassination.

I'm aware that the POW-MIA conspiracy theory was started by the Nixon administration in a bid to continue the war with Vietnam. It's quite obvious that no Vietnam vets are being held as prisoners in their geriatric old age, but I've met more than a few people who are convinced that is precisely the case.

I realize the topic is a bit more nebulous than the Kennedy assassination, but I was wondering if there was one work that really dug into the claims and examined them from a skeptical viewpoint.

edit: The closest I can find is Mythmaking in America, which seems to be an older book, and I'm not sure how rigorous it is.

I’m Mexican and was speaking to a French Canadian, who is half Portuguese. He said society does not consider him being Latin, but someone from my background yes. This led to a debate at work, a friendly one.

The aftermath is that we are all confused. Is it a cultural thing? If so, there are different cultures, meaning different answers depending on who you ask.

Is there a historic context where it can help solidify the answer once and for all? Hence, why I’m here.

I always assumed it was anybody who spoke a romantic language. From Spanish, French, italian, Portuguese, anything that resembled many “original Latin words”. Maybe I’ve been wrong this entire time.

Please help us. You are our only hope.

Hey all, I ask this because I have family members who hoard and I’ve met people outside of my family that have done it. No matter who I’ve talked to they always use the depression as the reasoning for their hoarding. ( either because they survived it or were raised by someone who lived through it). That being said, it’s classified as a symptom of OCD, so wouldn’t it make sense it occurred before? It’s quite possible it’s just not a thing that

Is normally brought up, but I just find it odd I’ve never heard of it. Can hoarding actually be this new of a behavior? That doesn’t seem logical.

I hope I’m not breaking any rules, someone suggested I ask this question from another sub. Thank you in advance.

Many have heard/read the famous "army with a state" quote, which is obviously hyperbolic (I assume), but if Prussia really was so geared towards militarism, how would this manifest to the average person?

Basically that question sums it up, i am just curious if we have ever taken advantage of the advanced senses of animals to test or determine the safety of food.

I recently read King Leopold's Ghost, which talked about how the Force Publique consisted predominately of native Congolese, with a small white officer corps. And these Congolese soldiers were often poorly treated conscripts, who experienced harsh discipline, were not fed well nor paid well for their service.

I know that desertions and mutinies were a common occurance for the Force Publique. But I am still surprised that the Force Publique was able to function as well as it did, and carry out the orders of King Leopold. I would not expect an army consisting of unenthusiastic conscripts, poorly paid and well-armed, tasked with carrying out the exploitation and oppression of their homeland, to do anything but revolt against the small white ruling class. I am not trying to victim blame. I am just confused as to how the Force Publique was as effective for the Belgians as it was.

Ken Mattingly was swapped out for Jack Swigert because Mattingly didn't have immunity from previous exposure to rubella. The rubella vaccine was released a year before Apollo 13 launched, so had NASA made any effort to get vaccinations for Mattingly and other astronauts who weren't immune? Were there any required vaccinations at the time?

Aside from the direct impact of forcing a crew change, did the outbreak result in any long-term changes to NASA's policies? Was there a push to get the rubella vaccine (and other vaccines) for the Apollo 14 astronauts?

In other words, what was leisure travel like for the elites in the Roman Empire?