PDA

View Full Version : The Secret History of Guns (Adam Winkler, Atlantic magazine)


vladbutsky
08-09-2011, 10:55 PM
Very interesting reading about history of gun control. Author is trying to do honest analysis of the past gun control laws and people/organizations that supported or opposed it.


The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight.


By ADAM WINKLER


http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/1/

Ubermcoupe
08-09-2011, 11:00 PM
I don't know, a little bit of a logical fallacy to me. Albeit true, there is no explanation for some of the examples, seems like us "gun nuts" are made out to be, well... nuts.

I prefer my american example, 1776 Colonies v. England when discussing gun control :D

Dreaded Claymore
08-09-2011, 11:05 PM
I'm so glad someone mentioned the Black Panthers in connection with gun rights.

Stonewalker
08-09-2011, 11:14 PM
Just for reference, Adam Winkler is an antigunner. He writes an antigun blog for the Huffington Post.

He is correct that the KKK have tried to restrict arms in the past, and they have been successful. Along with several State's governments. Heck, our very own CA government passed our Carry License law in 1923 with the sole intention of invalidating county-based carry licenses and disarming the Chinese and the Latinos. See this SF Chronicle article from 1924 (http://old.californiaccw.org/files/sf-chronicle-article.htm) for reference.

Gun Control has always been aimed at disarming the "lower" classes throughout history. Our movement is a movement to ensure the rights of all people in this country (and perhaps beyond) to own and bear arms and therefore have effective means of self-defense against crime and tyranny.


*******************
ETA: I've somewhat reformed my words form this post. Check post #10 for more info on my stance.

dantodd
08-09-2011, 11:19 PM
Adam is a ConLaw professor at UCLA, good guy and very smart. While he is quite rational we still disagree on many aspects of gun laws etc. You should be following him on Twitter @AdamWinkler and try to attend his Tuesday twitter seminars (search for #twem to read past "tweminars") they are great discussions on constitutional law and often cover gun laws and policy.

You should pre-order his book "Gunfight (http://www.amazon.com/Gunfight-Battle-over-Right-America/dp/0393077411/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1312957116&sr=8-3)" on Amazon.

If you're lurking here, hello Adam....

hoffmang
08-09-2011, 11:22 PM
Calling Adam Winkler anti-gun overstates his position. He is the first honest individual on "the other side" I've found such that I'm not so sure he's really on the other side. Said another way, his side of the debate is generally worrying him more than ours.

Now often you will see him in public foster socratic debate which has him take positions he himself doesn't find fully tenable. Note that a tweet of his was used in our side's filings in Ezell that supported the eventual outcome we all saw.

-Gene

vladbutsky
08-09-2011, 11:23 PM
I don't know, a little bit of a logical fallacy to me. Albeit true, there is no explanation for some of the examples, seems like us "gun nuts" are made out to be, well... nuts.

I prefer my american example, 1776 Colonies v. England when discussing gun control :D

Well, we are representing an extreme view on gun control by the definition of the very word "extreme". So if author is not strongly for or against guns, he will see us as sort of "nuts" :)

But overall the article feels balanced and intellectually honest.

The author is coming out with a book this September. Probably more will be explained and more facts will be given in the book.
Adam Winkler is a professor of constitutional law at UCLA law school. This article is adapted from his forthcoming book, Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, to be published by W. W. Norton in September.

G60
08-09-2011, 11:25 PM
That article is an excerpt from his book 'Gunfight'.

He has spoken at Brady campaign events, but he does not toe the line, and called out Ladd Everitt of the CSGV when mr Everitt dismissed claims of gun control laws being passed to disarm minorities as 'insurrectionist propaganda'

dantodd
08-09-2011, 11:30 PM
That article is an excerpt from his book 'Gunfight'.


Didn't realize that was an excerpt.

As Gene said, Adam seems intellectually honest and we can use more of that type of research on both sides of the debate.

Stonewalker
08-09-2011, 11:37 PM
Oi, by the time I did adequate research on Adam Winkler and got back here I had already been rebuffed. Damn my large mouth! I have read a couple articles/opinion pieces by him on the Huffpo in the past and being the no-compromise/divisive site that the Huffpo is, I associated him with the anti-gunners. Adam, I apologize for my over-broad statement and to the rest of you, I apologize as well. I tried to make it black-and-white in this case and have been confronted with the fact that life is often-times not so easy.

I will read Gunfight, I will read more articles by him and I will take a more humble stance. Again, sorry for my words :o One other mistake I made - I assumed that Adam Winkler was part of the anti-gun blog - "The Gun Guys" ( I Can't seem to find them now, but they were an astro-turf website set-up to promote gun control under the guise of pro-gunners). They had an article called "The Racist Roots of the NRA"... I assumed this article was part of that BS. I'm sorry again.

Ok, now to ACTUALLY read the article that the OP posted...

goodlookin1
08-10-2011, 7:38 AM
I thought the article was interesting. I couldnt really extract how the author really feels about gun control, but it seems he does understand the true history and roots of gun control.

I disagree with him in his understanding of what the founding fathers envisioned as far as gun control goes, however. If the framers believed what he said they did, then they wouldnt have written the 2nd Amendment the way they did, which includes no infringement on individual ownership of arms. The militia is the "well regulated" part....not the people.

GrayWolf09
08-10-2011, 8:55 AM
He certainly builds a strong case for the Second Amendment establishing an individual right to own firearms.:)

G60
08-10-2011, 1:55 PM
He certainly builds a strong case for the Second Amendment establishing an individual right to own firearms.:)

Heller already decided that, and McDonald applied it to the states, so no further case need be made as far as the courts go.

dantodd
08-10-2011, 2:49 PM
Oi, by the time I did adequate research on Adam Winkler and got back here I had already been rebuffed. Damn my large mouth! I have read a couple articles/opinion pieces by him on the Huffpo in the past and being the no-compromise/divisive site that the Huffpo is, I associated him with the anti-gunners. Adam, I apologize for my over-broad statement and to the rest of you, I apologize as well. I tried to make it black-and-white in this case and have been confronted with the fact that life is often-times not so easy.

I will read Gunfight, I will read more articles by him and I will take a more humble stance. Again, sorry for my words :o One other mistake I made - I assumed that Adam Winkler was part of the anti-gun blog - "The Gun Guys" ( I Can't seem to find them now, but they were an astro-turf website set-up to promote gun control under the guise of pro-gunners). They had an article called "The Racist Roots of the NRA"... I assumed this article was part of that BS. I'm sorry again.

Ok, now to ACTUALLY read the article that the OP posted...

You should also follow his twitter feed (@adamwinkler) he is a real constitutional scholar with a special interest in the 2A, not an anti-gunner trying to use the constitution to justify his position. In many ways Adam represents the future of the gun rights v gun control battle.

GrayWolf09
08-10-2011, 4:48 PM
Heller already decided that, and McDonald applied it to the states, so no further case need be made as far as the courts go.

You obviously did not read the briefs in McDonald. A number of people are trying to re-litigate Heller.

Can't buy anything here
08-14-2011, 7:39 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/1/

sandwich
08-14-2011, 7:49 PM
:dupe:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=464775&highlight=history

Excelsior
08-16-2011, 6:39 PM
Stretch Your Brains a Bit -- Awesome Article! I'll bet not 1 in 100 on this forum knows this history -- I certainly didn't.

Not 1 in 10 of you will actually read the entire article but for most of you that actually do, it will provide some real insight and some huge questions to ponder.

Most will simply (and ignorantly) dismiss it because it's a product of The Atlantic and that's just too bad. Others will simply give up after a few paragraphs because the information runs so contrary to their inculcated beliefs. In other words the information won't stretch their brains -- it will threaten to implode them.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/

HowardW56
08-16-2011, 6:43 PM
:dupe:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=466407&highlight=The+atlantic

Excelsior
08-16-2011, 6:52 PM
GREAT article. I could see how it would bother many on these forums.

Ratboy
08-16-2011, 7:26 PM
I read this the other day. I found it to be interesting.

tiko
08-16-2011, 8:01 PM
Good to bring it up, I did not see the other threads

radioman
08-16-2011, 8:46 PM
this was a good read, his history was spot on, it made me think, that some day we might see an end to most gun control. after all it was to keep the blacks down. in 67 I lived in San Francisco and I remember the fear of the panthers, but I also remember my father, a democrat, saying. put a actor in office and lose your rights, and telling me that someday I would need a gun, and thanks to the republicans I would not have one.

kperry
08-16-2011, 9:21 PM
Oi, by the time I did adequate research on Adam Winkler and got back here I had already been rebuffed. Damn my large mouth! I have read a couple articles/opinion pieces by him on the Huffpo in the past and being the no-compromise/divisive site that the Huffpo is, I associated him with the anti-gunners. Adam, I apologize for my over-broad statement and to the rest of you, I apologize as well. I tried to make it black-and-white in this case and have been confronted with the fact that life is often-times not so easy.<snip>
Ok, now to ACTUALLY read the article that the OP posted...

Well-said apology, sir!- and I really wish that more of the threads on this site rose to the level of discussion we've had so far in this thread. The article is a very interesting, well-thought out read. I'll definitely be pre-ordering his book.

Andric
08-16-2011, 10:58 PM
very good article. I hate having to argue against smart people, I wish he would go study the 4th amendment.

radioman
08-16-2011, 11:05 PM
very good article. I hate having to argue against smart people, I wish he would go study the 4th amendment.

The article did no harm to our fight, in fact I wish someone would post it on the Brady face book and web site. They need to know they are in step with the KKK, not good.

Big Ben
08-17-2011, 8:03 AM
Interesting read. Threads like this are the reason that I frequent the 2A forum more than any other area of Calguns.

lhecker51
08-17-2011, 10:01 AM
Calling Adam Winkler anti-gun overstates his position. He is the first honest individual on "the other side" I've found such that I'm not so sure he's really on the other side. Said another way, his side of the debate is generally worrying him more than ours.

Now often you will see him in public foster socratic debate which has him take positions he himself doesn't find fully tenable. Note that a tweet of his was used in our side's filings in Ezell that supported the eventual outcome we all saw.

-Gene

Agreed. Adam is a breath of needed fresh air and adds credibility to the debate. I welcome respectful debate that is based on fact and supported by logic and Adam meets that criteria in my opinion.

Uxi
08-17-2011, 10:46 AM
His conclusion about Scalia is a spurious and more than a little underhanded jab, going back to 1789-1791 but forgetting to include an important bit about 1868 that the Winkler himself already referenced earlier.

Mesa Tactical
09-02-2011, 3:29 PM
GREAT article. I could see how it would bother many on these forums.

I'll say.

“[There's} no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” -- Ronald Reagan.

Thanks, Gipper!

Knuckle Dragger
09-02-2011, 6:03 PM
An outstanding article. Required reading for all.

hoffmang
09-02-2011, 6:24 PM
The book is equally good or better. It's certainly a quick way to get up to speed to the McDonald decision.

-Gene

G60
09-02-2011, 6:24 PM
I'm only 50 pages into the book, but it's just as good as the excerpt so far.

The chapter 'gun grabbers' was scathing, so much so that i was afraid to get to the next chapter 'gun nuts' (Mr. Winkler went no holds barred in criticism of gun-control extremists in the former chapter), yet the chapter on us 'gun nuts' so far seems very fair in comparison!

A recommended read indeed.

meaty-btz
09-02-2011, 6:46 PM
The Ruling class has never been anti-gun. They have ALWAYS, throughout the centuries been against the underclass and disenfranchised possessing arms. Though to be honest in some ways they are right. Some of the worst governments and situations were born of the underclass fomenting into revolution. American's revolution was not one driven by an underclass and of course the results differed from, oh say, the French Revolutions (note the PLURAL!) or many of the countries who have had revolutions in the last centuries, from Russia to China to many middle eastern countries.

jak77
09-02-2011, 6:55 PM
Tagged so I can read this when I get home.

vincewarde
09-03-2011, 2:14 PM
Calling Adam Winkler anti-gun overstates his position. He is the first honest individual on "the other side" I've found such that I'm not so sure he's really on the other side. Said another way, his side of the debate is generally worrying him more than ours.

Now often you will see him in public foster socratic debate which has him take positions he himself doesn't find fully tenable. Note that a tweet of his was used in our side's filings in Ezell that supported the eventual outcome we all saw.

-Gene

Gene THANK YOU for coming to the defense of an honest guy with whom we may disagree. I have also have followed Prof. Winkler and you are definitely correct. Sometimes he even ends up helping us.

Tripper
09-03-2011, 2:29 PM
1 in 10 may not read it
i'd bet less than 1 in 10 know what inculcated means
I'll admit i didnt, I was close in my assumption, but actually had to look that one up

Tripper
09-03-2011, 2:30 PM
I'm referring to this post btw

Stretch Your Brains a Bit -- Awesome Article! I'll bet not 1 in 100 on this forum knows this history -- I certainly didn't.

Not 1 in 10 of you will actually read the entire article but for most of you that actually do, it will provide some real insight and some huge questions to ponder.

Most will simply (and ignorantly) dismiss it because it's a product of The Atlantic and that's just too bad. Others will simply give up after a few paragraphs because the information runs so contrary to their inculcated beliefs. In other words the information won't stretch their brains -- it will threaten to implode them.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/

ruchik
09-03-2011, 3:28 PM
A very enlightening read. I myself did not know that the NRA used to support forms of gun control that we today find completely abhorrent. That's not to say I don't support the NRA's vision today, but it's good to know both sides of the story. It can only better arm you for whatever stance you decide to take and defend. This is the kind of rational debate and discussion BOTH sides, gun control and rights activists, should engage in, not just pointing fingers at each other. I believe if both sides presented their views like Professor Winkler did, more people who are not familiar with the gun control debate would be more inclined to weigh in and listen. As of right now, we've got gun nuts and gun-free-means-no-crime crusaders in the eyes of the rest of the population.

hoffmang
09-03-2011, 4:37 PM
As of right now, we've got gun nuts and gun-free-means-no-crime crusaders in the eyes of the rest of the population.

Chapter 2 of GunFight is entitled Gun Grabbers while chapter 3 is Gun Nuts.

The book is very good.

-Gene

SwissFluCase
09-03-2011, 6:01 PM
Seems like a lot of anti's are coming out of the closet ---- I mean *gunsafe* these days. I am wondering if this is one of those cases.

I will look for his book.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

yellowfin
09-03-2011, 6:20 PM
I'm guessing the 4th chapter title does not combine the previous two.

G60
09-03-2011, 6:43 PM
4 is 'guns of our fathers', discussing founding-era regulation.

Anchors
09-03-2011, 7:15 PM
He is correct that the KKK have tried to restrict arms in the past, and they have been successful. Along with several State's governments. Heck, our very own CA government passed our Carry License law in 1923 with the sole intention of invalidating county-based carry licenses and disarming the Chinese and the Latinos. See this SF Chronicle article from 1924 (http://old.californiaccw.org/files/sf-chronicle-article.htm) for reference.


Great link. I wish it was updated to reflect mainstream language so that I could share it with others. Most people don't know what a "CCW" (or an LTC, for that matter).
But nonetheless, I very much enjoyed that link.

Calling Adam Winkler anti-gun overstates his position. He is the first honest individual on "the other side" I've found such that I'm not so sure he's really on the other side. Said another way, his side of the debate is generally worrying him more than ours.

Now often you will see him in public foster socratic debate which has him take positions he himself doesn't find fully tenable. Note that a tweet of his was used in our side's filings in Ezell that supported the eventual outcome we all saw.

-Gene

He seems to be incredibly rational even if I disagree with some of his theories (or what appear to be his theories) on the preferred outcome of the "gun debate".
A rarity. I hope he stays vocal with them or at least they let him continue to speak with their side. The antis seem to abhor reason and logic, especially since he has no problem calling them out on their outright lies.

That is crazy that a "tweet" was able to secure a place in a legal filing.
Care to share a link to the tweet and how it was included? (if you have one handy).

hoffmang
09-03-2011, 7:50 PM
That is crazy that a "tweet" was able to secure a place in a legal filing.
Care to share a link to the tweet and how it was included? (if you have one handy).

It's in the Ezell briefing available in the docket linked on the CGF wiki under litigation. I also posted it here somewhere.

-Gene

G60
09-04-2011, 12:48 AM
tweet used in Ezell reply brief: https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/adamwinkler/status/21334933905

"defendant's argument relies heavily on the work of professor Adam Winkler--who dismissed the notion that Chicago's range ban is constitutional in under 140 characters:"

Anchors
09-04-2011, 6:44 AM
tweet used in Ezell reply brief: https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/adamwinkler/status/21334933905

"defendant's argument relies heavily on the work of professor Adam Winkler--who dismissed the notion that Chicago's range ban is constitutional in under 140 characters:"

Hahaha. Thank you for that.
What an epic b-slap.