Book Review: "Gunfight"
Comments (3)
Look for Winkler's discoveries about America's secret history in bookstores now (Todd Cheney).
In “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” the constitutional law professor Adam Winkler tries to find a middle way to sober the debate between gun rights and gun control, with remarkable storytelling. “Gun rights and gun control are not only compatible; they have lived together since the birth of America,” he writes.
In an effort to reveal that secret history of America, he tells stories about both pro-gun extremism and gun control advocacy.
He writes the right to bear arms is "one of the oldest and most firmly established rights in America" and one that predates the Second Amendment. He quotes Ron Paul who claimed that a “lack of respect for the Second Amendment” caused “a whole lot to the disaster of 9/11.”
But he also admits that in the United States, “guns are associated with enough deaths—approximately thirty thousand annually.” And "gun control is as much a part of the history of guns in America as the Second Amendment."
He respects both sides and examines arguments from both sides carefully and critically. There is no pro- or anti- in his book. He seems to believe that the two seemingly conflicting ideas are not at all mutually exclusive.
A large portion of the book is devoted to the Supreme Court case of the District of Colombia v. Heller, which Winkler believes protected the right to bear arms but also showed that “justices deemed many forms of gun control to be constitutional.” This part is told with vivid narration and good pacing. The story starts with people waiting outside the Supreme Court to witness the historical case, with the tone of a novel. Then it goes on to provide insightful analysis on the Second Amendment, with detailed examples and reasoning in plain language. As he has said, the book is written for average readers, and it is true it is easy to read, full of context and historical background, and presents a middle-ground perspective into both sides of the issue.
He also discusses the founding of the modern National Rifle Association (NRA). For a long time after its founding in 1871, NRA promoted gun safety, and even contributed to gun control laws. It was not until the mid 1970s when John Dingell argued there should be a shift, that the organization began its modern advocacy, which as Winkler puts, “shape gun politics for decades to come.”
But the most interesting part of the book is the story of the early history of guns. He shows that founding fathers “understood that gun rights had to be balanced with public safety needs.” He writes “they supported forcible disarmament of slaves, free blacks, and people of mixed race out of fear that these groups would use guns to revolt against slave masters.” He says that before the Revolution, “at least one colony, Maryland, passed a law barring Catholics from possessing firearms” and that “other colonial governments prohibited any white person unwilling to affirm his allegiance to the British Crown from collecting firearms.” The story of the wild west is also attractive. Contrary to popular belief, Winkler says that it was not all wild. There was always gun regulation in the west in early days. Some frontier towns even had very strict gun control laws.
Winkler has done an impressive job in “Gunfight” in telling stories of America while examining gun issues with honesty. The book is informative as well as interesting, even if you are not a fan of law or gun debate.
Reach Staff Reporter Kay here.
Best way to find more great content from Neon Tommy?
Or join our email list below to enjoy the weekly Neon Tommy News Highlights.
Comments
> he tells stories about both pro-gun extremism and gun control advocacy.
pro-gun EXTREMISM and gun control ADVOCACY. Yup - fair and balanced reporting -- NOT!
Advocacy for gun control versus extremism, LOL. No, professor Winkler finds no middle ground between constitutionalists who understand what the US Constitution is and means versus extremist leftist revisionists who wish to change words, sentences and actions meanings to fit their own agenda of eliminating the one right that stands in the way of eliminating all other rights.
The Constitutionalists have facts and evidence on their side, the extremist gun banners, only emotional ka ka based on a plethora of lies, partial truths, and consistent media manipulation by the minority that are the socialistis and nazi's who wish only the government to have monopoly of force. Based on the failures of the police to protect the individual citizen (only solve 8.75% of all violent crimes committed each year) and the courts repeatedly proving the police are not legally liablr to protect the individual citizen, the anti gun zealots insist the police are still capable of protecting you, ROTFLMFAO, EOTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO. No they are only good for marking the body in chalk and trying to catch who did it after the fact, such protection eh?
Middle ground is when two sides agree that one giving up something benefits both sides. Explain again how the 80 mil gun owners who are not responsible for the violence and deaths of which 95% plus are committed by career crimnals/gang members and suicides, should give up any more rights again for soemthing they never did wrong? Only IDIOTS negotiate to give ANYTHING up with the loser of the issue.
Funny how also of the 20,000 uselss existing gun control laws of which the government & BATF only prosecute about 1% of the time, explain again why we law abiding gun owners need to agree to more useless unenforceable or unenforced laws? Again that is not a middle ground, that is stupidity.
Just like the stupidity that gun control actually reduces violence, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL. If laws prevented violence, one would think that countries with such strict gun control would have seen massive reductions in violence, murders, crimes. However, review of their government databases show the exact opposite to be true. Just look at England, Australia, Canada, and any gun control fiefdom in America. Dont believe me, want proof, then go to those countries government databases and show everyone how murders and violent crime did not decrease (aic.gov, statcan, home office uk). Then compare them to the US where during the same time frame, another 9 mil households with firearms 16 more states with concealed carry, 30% reduction violent crime, 20% reduction in murders, 35 more states reinstating concealed carry in eateries serving alcohol, 3 states & 71 universities reinstating concealed carry, all without the chicken littles predictions of blood runneth in the streets as a result. The anti gun zealots really, really, really suck at accurately predicting the increae in crimes committed by the law abiding gun owners.
So much for more guns equals more violence or less guns equals less violence ka ka the anti's love to infer or theorize.
Why again should we agree to negotiate on such a continuous failed solution? Only fools negotiate on failure and too bad for such anti gun zealots who wrap their agenda in the "reasonable" common sense" "middle ground" ka ka like Winkler.
The public continues to move away from their lies. The information age is wonderful indeed with people figuring out for themselves which side is lying. Otherwise why does support for gun control continue to decline at such a devastating pace, lol. You people are persistent, but rather pathetic.
Perfect rebuttal. My anti-gun bigots continue to evaporate.