Yes, exactly. Prior to the 1990's, people didn't believe there was a god given right for crazy people to have guns.
So it looks like I nailed it, everything you "know" was learned at Vox or ThinkProgress or Salon or HuffPo . . . Have you ever cracked open a history book or is everything you know about history a derivative of your politics?
Then the NRA needed to sell more guns and started pushing "Guns as a right" bullshit. Something they didn't even believe.
Everything you
think you know is a goddamned lie.
Actually, the shift in academia was a product of a liberal anti-gunner's epiphany. In 1989, Yale Law Review published a seminal law review article that challenged the legal intellectual elite to begin a true examination of the 2nd Amendment.
The Embarrassing Second Amendment was written by Sanford Levinson, and his arguments were compelling and the (mostly liberal) legal academic community did what he challenged them to do, and the "militia right" and "state's right" and "collective right" interpretations began to wither under their scrutiny--
as the NY Times noted in 2007 writing about the case that preceded DC v Heller, "A Liberal Case for the Individual Right to Own Guns Helps Sway the Federal Judiciary ".
It is important to understand why Levinson titled his article the way he did; to liberals like him, especially those formally trained in the law
and even worse, constitutional law in the mid 20th Century, finding out what they were taught, what they believe about the 2nd Amendment was
totally wrong . . . was, well,
embarrassing (this sense of surprise is spoken of in the NY Times article).
Sanford Levinson upset that paradigm and the deluge of anti-gun propaganda that followed his article, written by anti-individual right "intellectuals" like Saul Cornell, Carl Bogus, Jack Rakove, Michael Dorf, Adam Winkler, Erwin Chemerinsky and yes, Michael Bellesises, erected castles in the sky in the 90's and early 2000's, to try to disprove the individual right interpretation.
Understand that those "militia / state's / collective right" theories were
never legitimate,
never recognized or endorsed by SCOTUS. Those theories were, as I've mentioned before, inserted in the federal courts in two lower federal court decisions in 1942, and were embraced and endorsed by the leftists in academia -- BECAUSE OF AND IN SERVICE TO, THE STATIST, COLLECTIVIST, AUTHORITARIAN LEFTIST POLITICS THEY ALIGNED WITH.
In the federal legal system, the individual right interpretation was the
only interpretation until 1942; that was when
your theory began, which means
your theory is the newcomer. The question is, for what purpose was the anti-individual right interpretation crafted and promoted and why do you embrace and support it?
The answer is the same . . .
You have adopted your anti-Constitution / anti-rights and especially anti-gun rights positions not derived from knowledge of the Constitution and rights theory and the 2nd Amendment and what it is, what it does and its enforcement . . . Your positions on and about the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment comes from a place of hate for those who vote for your political opposition. Your hostility for gun rights and especially gun rights supporters is first grounded in in their opposition to your politics , not by any grand altruistic sentiment or concern for public safety.
You don't know what you don't know and what you think you know is propaganda, which is why you have no factual or legal argument in support of your posisitions, it is
all politics . . .
