A provocative history that reveals how gunsnot abortion, race, or religionare at the heart of America's cultural divide.Gunfight promises to be a seminal work in its examination of America's four-centuries-long political battle over gun control and the right to bear arms. In the tradition of Gideon's Trumpet, Adam Winkler uses the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, which invalidated a law banning handguns in the nation's capital, as a springboard for a groundbreaking historical narrative. From the Founding Fathers and the Second Amendment to the origins of the Klan, ironically as a gun control organization, the debate over guns has always generated controversy. Whether examining the Black Panthers' role in provoking the modern gun rights movement or Ronald Reagan's efforts to curtail gun ownership, Winkler brilliantly weaves together the dramatic stories of gun rights advocates and gun control lobbyists, providing often unexpected insights into the venomous debate that now cleaves our nation.
|Publisher:||Norton, W. W. & Company, Inc.|
|Product dimensions:||6.40(w) x 9.70(h) x 1.30(d)|
About the Author
Adam Winkler is a professor at UCLA School of Law, where he specializes in American constitutional law. His scholarship has been cited by the Supreme Court of the United States and his writing has appeared in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New Republic, Atlantic, Slate, and Scotusblog.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
Mr. Winkler, uses as a law professor of mine would say, many "weasel" words. Conclusions by him based on his opinion, not hard facts. As a probate lawyer, people do not always honestly report assets, if at all, frequently undervaluing them, yet this is "proof" of few guns in early days - ignoring the relatively complete absence of violent crimes as well. His frequent "reasonable" control or safety measures, ignores the fact no other Amendment has undergone an onslaught of attempts to limit it, as the 2nd has. Further, ignores or downplays a key fact, the Bill of Rights was written as individual protection, not state protection, and despite many years of jurisprudence to the contrary, is an individual right. Jurisprudence is not dispositive of the issue, as courts ruled slavery was legal for many years. He often advances the notion of "reasonable" safety, but those would need to be subject to proof they are effective, and that is not proffered, nor does it address the core issue of the burden that must be overcome to impose "reasonable" restrictions on a right ensconced in the Bill of Rights - that was seen as a natural, fundamental right, to some, so obvious it need not be written, but rather a natural right from God to be secure in your person, without the means to protect ones self from those larger, stronger, or greater in number, what inalienable rights do you enjoy?