Hacker News Reader

Comment by t-writescode | Hacker News Reader

To compare from the "other side" (though I'm not actually a Democrat), this is how I feel when I see the people I vote for screech propagandized speaking points for anti-gun stances.

There are 2A Democrats out there that have to tolerate the insane (to them) things their representatives support.

View on HN

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...

> 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.

Separate 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.

I 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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com