TL;DR: A 1996 *Georgia Law Review* article by Nelson Lund examines the Second Amendment right and, particularly, how a court should go about examining which weapons are protected by the second Amendment and which are not as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The most recent mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada is now the deadliest mass shooting in modern United States history. In light of this tragedy, the call for stronger and reformed gun control has made its way to the forefront of political discussion. The desire for stricter gun laws, however, must be appropriately balanced against an individual’s right under the Second Amendment to bear arms. A 1996 *Georgia Law Review* Article by Nelson Lund examines the Second Amendment right and, particularly, how a court should go about examining which weapons are protected by the Second Amendment and which are not.
•29 Apr 2009
TL;DR: Horwitz and Anderson as discussed by the authors reveal that the proponents of this view base their argument on a deliberate misreading of history and expose Insurrectionism - not government oppression - as the true threat to freedom in the U.S. today.
Abstract: The NRA steadfastly maintains that the 30,000 gun-related deaths and 300,000 assaults with firearms in the United States every year are a small price to pay to guarantee freedom. As former NRA President Charlton Heston put it, 'freedom isn't free'.And when gun enthusiasts talk about Constitutional liberties guaranteed by the Second Amendment, they are referring to freedom in a general sense, but they also have something more specific in mind - freedom from government oppression. They argue that the only way to keep federal authority in check is to arm individual citizens who can, if necessary, defend themselves from an aggressive government.In the past decade, this view of the proper relationship between government and individual rights and the insistence on a role for private violence in a democracy has been co-opted by the conservative movement. As a result, it has spread beyond extreme 'militia' groups to influence state and national policy.In "Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea", Josh Horwitz and Casey Anderson reveal that the proponents of this view base their argument on a deliberate misreading of history. The Insurrectionist myth has been forged by twisting the facts of the American Revolution and the founding of the United States, the denial of civil rights to African-Americans after the Civil War, and the rise of the Third Reich under Adolf Hitler. Here, Horwitz and Anderson set the record straight. Then, challenging the proposition that more guns equal more freedom, they expose Insurrectionism - not government oppression - as the true threat to freedom in the U.S. today.
TL;DR: In this article, a brief explication of the meaning of the Second Amendment is given and the manner in which the debate over this Amendment has been depicted in recent news accounts and proceeds to the two chief emergent critiques of Second Amendment analysis: the individualist view and the so-called right of revolution.
Abstract: This Article proceeds, first, with a brief explication of the meaning of the Second Amendment. It then examines the manner in which the debate over this Amendment has been depicted in recent news accounts and proceeds to the two chief emergent critiques of Second Amendment analysis: the individualist view and the so-called right of revolution. Following that, four collateral claims arising from and connected with the individualist and revolutionist perspectives are examined in light of an assessment of the provenance of Second Amendment writings in law journals, as is the reputed role of the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally, three explanations are offered for the emergence of this new body of writing on the Second Amendment.
01 Oct 2011
TL;DR: Johnson et al. as mentioned in this paper have published a political science Ph.D. dissertation with a focus on political science, focusing on the intersection of political science and computer science. 1 computer file PDF; vii, 162 pages.
Abstract: University of Minnesota Ph.D. dissertation. October 2011. Major: Political science. Advisor: Timothy R. Johnson. 1 computer file PDF); vii, 162 pages.
TL;DR: This paper argued that the historical evidence surrounding the adoption of the Second Amendment indicates that it intended to protect the right to self-defense, facilitate a broad-based militia, and serve as a deterrent against governmental oppression.
Abstract: This article argues three major points: 1) The historical evidence surrounding the adoption of the Second Amendment indicates that it intended to protect the right to self-defense, facilitate a broad-based militia, and serve as a deterrent against governmental oppression; 2) the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended the Second Amendment to apply to the states, and their main concern was the right to self-defense, especially the horrors of the Reconstruction South; and 3) an insincere interpretation of the Second Amendment and its state equivalents has led to the militia movement as well as an erosion of respect for American government. The article concludes that the right to keep and bear arms is as old as this country. It was first guaranteed by state constitutions, then by the Second Amendment, and subsequently reaffirmed by the Fourteenth Amendment. It is as sacred as trial by jury and freedom of speech and press. Courts have an obligation to protect it because the integrity of the courts depends on it.