3 ms·
Only insane in the context of recent decades. The vast bulk of jurisprudence (centuries) supported a much more restrictive reading of 2A, and changing that was
by cwal37 5y ago
Only insane in the context of recent decades. The vast bulk of jurisprudence (centuries) supported a much more restrictive reading of 2A, and changing that was a concerted effort of conservative groups (starting in the ~1980s), particularly out of more conservative law schools such as those in Tennessee.
This was pretty well documented at the time if you would like to read about it[0].
[0]https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/09/21/to-keep-and-bear-arms/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/09/21/to-keep-and-bear...
- t-writescode 5y ago> particularly out of more conservative law schools such as those in Tennessee. This sounds contradictory to my understanding, related to the Black Panthers in California back in the 60s.
- cwal37 5y agoSeparate things. Black Panther activity in California led to Reagan passing some restrictions in that state. I'm referring to jurisprudence at the higher court levels, which generally did not support the very strong individual rights to gun ownership that you see stated as "basic" rights now. The popular (and largely in practice) understanding of what 2A means for an individual is pretty different today, and very expansive.
- t-writescode 5y agoI believe that was Malcom X's whole stance and a major part of the argument that the Black Panthers had; and he died in 1965