3 ms·
By "pretty popular" you must mean the majority of historians, right? Here's Britannica's take: > Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller and McDonald, ma
by culi 4y ago
By "pretty popular" you must mean the majority of historians, right? Here's Britannica's take:
> Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller and McDonald, many constitutional historians disagreed with the court that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to “keep and bear Arms” for the purpose of self-defense in the home. Indeed, for more than two centuries there had been a consensus among judges as well as scholars that the Second Amendment guaranteed only the right of individuals to defend their liberties by participating in a state militia. However, by the late 20th century the “self-defense” interpretation of the amendment had been adopted by a significant minority of judges.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment/Origins-and-historical-antecedents https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment/Origins-an...
- pclmulqdq 4y agoIt was certainly the popular consensus view among historians (registering about 95% democrat) at the time of Heller, but that does not in any way mean that it is or was the consensus view of notable legal scholars, Supreme Court justices, or anyone else who is actually well-informed on the issues and history of the second amendment. And also facts, which matter a lot more than "consensus." If you would like to back up your argument from authority with actual evidence, can you pull out a gun control law from before 1900 that bans anything close to the weapons that are banned today?
- culi 4y agosure, but first can you pull up a law from before 1900 regulating social media?
- wolverine876 4y ago> the popular consensus view among historians (registering about 95% democrat) Can you address the claims with facts and reason? Resorting to ad hominen attacks seems to indicate the facts and reason are lacking.