Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America

I just started reading this book written by Adam Winkler:

It’s a really interesting, fascinating piece on the 2nd Amendment, including the Supreme Court’s Heller decision. It’s chock full of interesting facts and historical tidbits I was completely ignorant about. Lots of history and info on the NRA, the attorneys who successfully argued the Heller decision, gun rights and gun control arguments, etc.

At first, the author started out describing the horrific mass shootings we’ve all heard in the news over the past few decades. So I thought the book was going to be more of an opinion piece against the 2A by inflaming the reader at the outset. But as I read further I realized that wasn’t the case. It’s more objectively written with lots of citations to different sources. It’s a little outdated, especially now after the McDonald decision and the recent arguments this term before the Supreme Court on the New York case, but it’s still a really well written piece on the 2nd Amendment in my opinion.

Anyone else read it? If so, what are your thoughts?


Haven’t, and probably won’t.

My thoughts are summed up in the 2A as written.


He talks about the two main competing interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. The first is the one where the 2A applies only to a well regulated militia. Apparently, the courts have historically given it that limited application. But Heller was the first Supreme Court opinion that interpreted it as an individual right, not a collective right limited to and solely for the purpose of a well regulated militia.

I’ve always interpreted it as an individual right. But while Heller and McDonald opined that it’s an individual right, those rulings were limited to just the individual right to own a handgun in one’s home. The Court has never ruled on an individual right to have a gun outside one’s home. Personally, I think the use of the word “bear” in the 2A means that you can. It’ll be interesting to see how the Court rules in the NY case, assuming it addresses that issue.


Right. It doesn’t need to be argued.


That you write a good review :+1:


Yeah, I realize I’m preaching to the choir in here when it comes to our belief in an individual’s right to keep and bear arms under the 2A! I just thought it was an interesting book that lays out the positions and arguments of each side, and in my opinion validates more so our interpretation of the 2A - that of an individual, law-abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms inside and outside the home. And it does so in a manner I’ve so far found to be fairly objective, which is especially enlightening considering how emotions and passions often times cloud arguments pro and con. I always appreciate effective and creative legal advocacy for our 2A rights. I know we’re unlikely to convince many on the anti-2A side, but at the same time it’s possible we may also be able convince at least those who are on the fence if the opportunity arises. Anything to help protect our civil rights!


We seem to be converting 'em pretty quick these days Ed. On track to be the 2nd highest number of background checks ever. 2020 was the highest.

Always heard the easiest place to convert a Atheist was in a Foxhole…


Ed, I shouldn’t give the book such short shrift. I apologize if I seem a little short on the subject. It just seems to me how we got here is through the ‘Conversation’. Now they are using the same tactics to limit our other God Given Natural Rights. The 2nd is the only reason we still have as many of them as we do.


No worries! I definitely understand where you’re coming from.

Funny you mention the record sales, especially to new gun owners. One of the points the author was trying to get across is that the anti-gun crowd fails to understand that the sheer number of guns in the US would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to confiscate and get rid of all the guns, no matter what laws were put in place for that effort. It was written after the Heller decision, and as we all know many more guns have been bought since then.


By the millions. Also I think the case could, and has been made that the estimated number is vastly under stated.


Its sad we live in a day the public miseducation system has programmed people to (not even have the intelligence to know there is an all important item called HISTORICAL CONTEXT. So now we live in a day of educated imbeciles who don’t even know there is not a shadow of a case to argue against the 2A being for private individuals.
This is EXACTLY part of what Communist Kruschev (in the 50s-early 60s) said was the marxist plan to kill America. They would infiltrate the education system (done a loooong time ago) and program people towards ignorance and being pro-marxist.
The MINDSET/CONTEXT of the day MUST be taken into account or you can make the 2A, through eloquent manipulation of words, say anything you want, including the marxist-bred idea the 2A is not about the individual.
The people writing the Constitution had a MAJOR thought in mind of limiting the government’s power b/c they had thrown off one dictator and never wanted another one in power. This was the mindset behind the Constitution and the responsibility to make sure it was honored went all the way down to every single US citizen.
Britain had ordered American colonists to feed and clothe British soldiers who were over here at the colonists own expense (called “quartering”). The hard working (non-legally-represented in Britain) colonists saw quartering as Britain freely helping themselves to whatever they wanted - a sort of legal pillaging. Quartering would not have gone so well for Britain had every colonist been given the right to bear arms in their own house/and or be able to group together as an armed militia.
Anyone refusing to study history is doomed to repeat its mistakes.
And one more item.
We all claim here to be hardcore behind the rights of the individual …
yet so many still are helping the legitimate powers behind the hijacking of the election and illegal globalist/marxist installation of the Brandon administration. These powers are big tech including amazon, facebook, youtube, and google. Yet for our own personal convenience people keep using these traitorous platforms - aiding those working so hard to get rid of not just the 2A, but ALL of our rights.
What would those who wrote the 2A think about this? And thinking “I am just one individual so it won’t matter,” is exactly how they stay in power.
If you have to use youtube - install an ad blocker (ads support youtube), and don’t comment or like - this pushes videos to the front and more people see them - generating more advert views so advertisers keep funding youtube. Use duckduckgo instead of google. Find another social media platform instead of facebook and avoid amazon altogether.
Or…just forget about it all. After all, how important can supporting the enemies of the 2A be anyway?


Hear! Hear!


“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”

Two years, welcome back


Thank you and :+1: on the comment.

I wish I could be here more. I am a forum admin for another hobby which takes most of the time online now (5 hours not uncommon!). I also am in the process of writing two reference books in another hobby, and I am trying to get started in metal working for building my own firearms (for fun only). Then I keep telling myself I am refurbing my old, but working well, Atlas lathe. We won’t mention unpacking and sorting the woodworking machines/shop from moving two years ago either!

I am not bored!

I DO review the emails telling me what been happening here though.

2 years?!?!? Wow! Time flies!