New Book: Gun Fight: The Right to Bear Arms in America

[bon homme richard]

I attended a meeting of the Beverly Hills Bar Association last night, at which UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler spoke about his new book, Gun Fight: The Battle Over The Right To Bear Arms In America

[Librarian]

Apparently always worth seeing Prof. Winkler.

See also the thread on Dave Kopel's latest article at SSRN.

[radioburning]

But, I want an MP5!

[dantodd]

Here are a few more really good threads on Adam and his book.

http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=493439

https://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=507480

[speedrrracer]

In recent decades, as politics becomes more and more divisive, it becomes apparent that Professor Winkler's philosophy is perhaps what the USA needs most at this moment.

Not just in gun control, but in all things political. Liberals and conservatives alike need to self-police, and regulate their extreme tendencies, because it just infuriates off the other side, which then reacts with over-the-top crap of their own. No one in served, nothing gets done and everyone is mad and divided.

[A-J]

In terms of his own philosophy, he argued that both sides can and should come to a compromise. Gun control fanatics should stop passing laws that are patently unconstitutional.

While I agree that we *should* compromise, I do not see a way that we *can* since the anti gunners are arguing from a standpoint of fear and propaganda. You cannot reason with people who are afraid, or politicians who do not want to be perceived as gun rights activists bottom bish. It is not relevant that the legislation that usually gets enacted does absolutely nothing to address the original issue which sparked the legislation to begin with. IE a previously convicted felon, using an illegally obtained weapon, commits a crime. Therefore a law is passed making ownership of such a gun a crime. The politicians who endorsed that are now the fair haired boys for making sure it won't happen again by God! completely ignoring:

1. convicted felons cannot own guns
2. the gun was not obtained legally

The net effect is that Joe Gun Owner who is 100% legit can cross another firearm of the list of "gonna buy sometime" firearms while Joe Criminal will still be able to get one whenever he chooses, since he's not going to the LGS to make his purchases.

It spekas volumes that every pro-gun treatise I've read is immediately crapped all over by the antis as being wrong (even by people who have never actually read the work or looked at the backup documentation!), depsite being prepared using actual facts and figures relative to the topic at hand.

[dantodd]

While I agree that we *should* compromise, I do not see a way that we *can* since the anti gunners are arguing from a standpoint of fear and propaganda.

What gun owners and a tivists are generally asking for should not be the starting point for compromise. If you want to compromise let's start at "no civilian ownership" vs. "nukes for all" and go from there.

I'll give up H-bombs and other NBC weapons in private hands for them recognizing the right to all individually served semi-auto hand and long guns. Seems fair, no?

Then, we can give up any conventional artillery with a range of over 5 miles and munitions over 15 lbs payload for public carry and Eliminating the NFA and reopening the registry.

Now we get to more interesting questions. Explosives, do we give up the right to use explosives over a certain energy level and certain amounts? Maybe less than 5lbs. of anything more powerful than C4?

Wheredo we draw the line on crew served weapons? By caliber? By range? Projectile weight?


I'm all for compromise but gun owners have already given up 90% of the world's "arms."