I'm kinda pissed because I thought all the conservative fuckery about guns started way earlier than it actually did. Republicans didn't get their dumbshit ideas about the Constitution passed by the courts until George W. Bush, which is insane to me. I'd assumed that since it had been happening for as long as I'd been politically aware that it had been happening a lot before that, but nope, this second amendment as individual right bullshit is an extremely new trend that mostly gained traction because of Antonin fucking Scalia. For the previous 200 years and especially since the New Deal, individual gun ownership had been a non-issue and gun control upheld by the Supreme Court, but then the NRA gains strength in the 1970s and Reagan comes along to ruin everything by polarizing the shit out of the parties and Clinton tries to help but mostly fucks it up by pandering to the people who hate him and then George W. Bush makes it even fucking worse so now here we are. At least there's the hope that since this trend was completely manufactured by the NRA's team of lawyers, it can be made to slow down and then swing in the opposite direction or even be reversed. But shit, man, I'm so angry that people just stood by and watched all this happen. I just want to be like other civilized countries where I and my family and all other families aren't at risk of being shot in public by some angry white guy. Anyway, fuck Charlton Heston, doublefuck Wayne LaPierre, and quadruplefuck Antonin Scalia.

An interesting overview of how the Second Amendment was created as an addendum to the U.S. Constitution, and how our perspective of its use and relevance has changed over the centuries. It's a little dry, and assumes you know your American History around the time of the revolution pretty well. (Which ... I mean most of the stuff I remember is because I spent parts of 2017 and 2018 listening to the Hamilton soundtrack on repeat.) I liked the writing of it, and got kind of outraged once the NRA started showing up, but I didn't feel like it swung too far to either the right or left overall. This guy clearly cares about the history and got real irritated (as did I in reading the history) when people started writing court papers to support opinions on 2A that no court had previously ever held.

But! I did get a lot of not-relevant Fun Facts out of it. Like, did you know that the term gerrymandering was named after a guy named Gerry? And that the facial hair that grows by your ears was named after a guy named Burnside? Hee.

at times a bit biased and you can see it coming through. however lots of good research and different views. really looks clearly at the amendment and not the debate.

Short but informative

Michael Waldman's book is, as its title announces, about the history of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The real subject of the book is the complex dynamics of how a changing and evolving culture reflects itself in the rules and processes of government.

The Second Amendment is making headlines lately (and bumper stickers...) yet the majority of Americans, including me until I read this book, probably don't fully understand its history and how it differs from what people are taught to believe.

A fascinating look back through the history of the second amendment and the strange way the Supreme Court's biggest fan of "originalist" interpretation somehow read a personal right to own guns into the language for the first time in history in 2008, despite it only applying to militias before that. On the other hand, the damn amendment is written so stupidly, even the Founding Fathers barely knew what they meant by it, other than they wanted the states to be able to keep their own militias in fear of a federal "free standing Army".

I mean, it should be pretty obvious that they never intended to memorialize ownership of something as stupid as a gun as a constitutional right. Nowhere else in the Constitution does it mention chattel, and there are many such personal items that would be considered more important than a gun when it comes to "rights" - clothes, food, water, air shelter. (Basic necessities covered under the welfare clause - and I might add, highly regulated and restricted.) But yeah, your gun is more important than coffee. Lord help us all.

Don't get me wrong - I think there is a time and place for guns (hunting, target practice, etc.), just like there is a time and place for other things like cars. But I also think that like a car, using a gun should be a well-regulated privilege. Age limits, education, registration/licensing, and storage/usage rules seem reasonable - there is no need for a gun in a grocery store; the animals are already dead. Restrictions from ownership/usage for those who have lost that privilege also seem reasonable. This isn't going to stop anyone from hunting or safely owning a gun. Maybe it won't stop the criminal contingency either, but then again, seatbelt laws and drunk driving laws saved lives. Yeah, people still drive drunk without a seatbelt on, but most people on the road are fairly safe.

But meh. This will continue to be a major area of contention as long as both the Constitution and guns still exist, which hopefully is a long, long time. So, uh, praise the lord and pass the ammunition.

Very thoughtful read about the history of the second amendment in the US. Gets a little off topic from time to time, but still ends up tying it back together. Highly recommend.

Good book, well researched, but I couldn't tell whether whether he was arguing against originalism, or that the 2nd amendment didn't originally refer to gun ownership apart from civic duty in the militia. Maybe he was arguing both, which doesn't make much sense, or maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention. Valuable for the bibliography if nothing else.