News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:MIT Faculty Votes for Statement on Freedom of Expression ... by culi on Monday December 26, 2022 @02:12PM (#34140735)
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-an...

Re:MIT Faculty Votes for Statement on Freedom of Expression ... by pclmulqdq on Monday December 26, 2022 @08:42PM (#34144000)
It 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?

Re:MIT Faculty Votes for Statement on Freedom of Expression ... by culi on Monday December 26, 2022 @09:08PM (#34144187)
sure, but first can you pull up a law from before 1900 regulating social media?
Re:MIT Faculty Votes for Statement on Freedom of Expression ... by wolverine876 on Tuesday December 27, 2022 @02:24AM (#34146171)
> 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.