2nd Am history: Until 1959, every law review article concluded it didn't guarantee an individ right

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. It's been considered here several times before, and shown to be false

https://www.theroot.com/2nd-amendment-passed-to-protect-slavery-no-1790894965

2nd Amendment Passed to Protect Slavery? No!

Note that the above was written by an actual law professor, and not a graduate of The University Of What Somebody
Claimed On The Internet, and published on a decidedly left-leaning African-American website

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Finkelman

Finkelman grew up in Watertown, New York, where he attended public schools. He received his undergraduate degree in American studies from Syracuse University in 1971, and his master's degree and doctorate in American history from the University of Chicago in 1972 and 1976. At Chicago, he was a student of Stanley Nider Katz and John Hope Franklin and a contributor to the volume, The Facts of Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of John Hope Franklin, edited by Eric Anderson & Alfred A. Moss, Jr. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, c.1991). Finkelman was also a Fellow in Law and Humanities at Harvard Law School, 1982–83.

...He received fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Philosophical Society, the Library of Congress, Yale University, Harvard Law School, and the American Council of Learned Societies. American institutions at which he was a resident scholar include: Transylvania University, Mississippi State University, the University of Seattle School of Law, and St. Bonaventure University. In 2009, Finkelman gave the Nathan A. Huggins lectures at the W.E.B. DuBois Center at Harvard University. His 2018 book Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation's Highest Court[2] was based on these lectures...

Finkelman has also written numerous entries for encyclopedias and reference works. More than eighty short book reviews he has written have appeared in a wide variety of scholarly journals. His essays, op-eds and blogs have been published in the New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Baltimore Sun, the Huffington Post, theRoot.com, and other non-scholarly avenues. Among them have been about Thomas Jefferson's relationship with slavery[19] and several concerning the American Civil War in the Disunion section of the New York Times' The Opinionator blog.[20] While at the SUNY Binghamton, Finkelman edited the 18-volume Articles on American Slavery, collecting nearly 400 important articles on slavery in the United States, which Garland Publishing published in 1989...

In case the above hasn't made it clear, Finkleman is no fan of Thomas Jefferson or the slave states:

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/thomas-jefferson-statues-latest-target-campaigners-us#survey-answer

Paul Finkelman, author of Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson, said that he couldn’t judge how colleges should deal with Jefferson statues, but he said that the history is clear.

“I don't think you go around honouring people for behaviour that was truly awful, and Jefferson’s relationship with slavery and race was truly awful, even from his own times,” Finkelman said. “This is not looking back from now,” he stressed.

Finkelman, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Program on Democracy, Citizenship and Constitutionalism and the Ariel F. Sallows visiting professor of human rights law at the University of Saskatchewan College of Law, compared Jefferson with George Washington.

“George Washington ceased using white overseers to manage his plantations before he became president” and gave the positions to slaves “as a prelude to emancipating them in his will”, Finkelman said. Jefferson never took such a step. “Washington famously said that he did not take men to the market like cattle, but Jefferson sold nearly 100 slaves in the 1790s,” Finkelman said.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/secession-the-confederate-flag-and-slavery

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/the-real-thomas-jefferson.html?_r=0

The Monster of Monticello

Neither Mr. Meacham, who mostly ignores Jefferson’s slave ownership, nor Mr. Wiencek, who sees him as a sort of fallen angel who comes to slavery only after discovering how profitable it could be, seem willing to confront the ugly truth: the third president was a creepy, brutal hypocrite.

Contrary to Mr. Wiencek’s depiction, Jefferson was always deeply committed to slavery, and even more deeply hostile to the welfare of blacks, slave or free. His proslavery views were shaped not only by money and status but also by his deeply racist views, which he tried to justify through pseudoscience.

There is, it is true, a compelling paradox about Jefferson: when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, announcing the “self-evident” truth that all men are “created equal,” he owned some 175 slaves. Too often, scholars and readers use those facts as a crutch, to write off Jefferson’s inconvenient views as products of the time and the complexities of the human condition.
Continue reading the main story

But while many of his contemporaries, including George Washington, freed their slaves during and after the revolution — inspired, perhaps, by the words of the Declaration — Jefferson did not. Over the subsequent 50 years, a period of extraordinary public service, Jefferson remained the master of Monticello, and a buyer and seller of human beings.