There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.That "scholarly and judicial consensus" was a modern fiction, invented by "liberals" in the first place. Here's what William Rawle had to say about that (and if you don't know who he was, you are shorting yourself on things you should know):
No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
Now there's no doubt that on the front of modern scholarship, the conclusions of self-described "liberals" such as Levinson and Kates and Tribe has been authoritative. But some of us came to our own conclusions without benefit of law reviews. And it is also the self-described "liberals" who are currently at the forefront of the disarming of America.
Here's the thing: "Conservative" is a relative term--what you want to conserve changes depending on the time and place, so in 1776, such a person would be called a Loyalist or a Tory. "Liberal" has a meaning that, if properly applied, pertains to freedom--you'll find many observers describing Jefferson as a "Classical Liberal." The problem is, as they have with so much of our language, the Orwellian totalitarianists have co opted and perverted words to serve their ends.
Don't let them get away with that theft. Reclaim our language and the power it holds. Then we'll all be able to agree that the liberals--that would be us--are the people to be credited with saving the Second Amendment.