What do you think?
Rate this book
Living With Guns: A Liberal's Case for the Second Amendment
Newtown. Columbine. Virginia Tech. Tucson. Aurora. Gun violence on a massive scale has become a plague in our society, yet politicians seem more afraid of having a serious conversation about guns than they are of the next horrific shooting. Any attempt to change the status quo, whether to strengthen gun regulations or weaken them, is sure to degenerate into a hysteria that changes nothing. Our attitudes toward guns are utterly polarized, leaving basic questions How can we reconcile the individual right to own and use firearms with the right to be safe from gun violence? Is keeping guns out of the hands of as many law-abiding Americans as possible really the best way to keep them out of the hands of criminals? And do 30,000 of us really have to die by gunfire every year as the price of a freedom protected by the Constitution?
In Living with Guns , Craig R. Whitney, former foreign correspondent and editor at the New York Times , seeks out answers. He re-examines why the right to bear arms was enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and how it came to be misunderstood. He looks to colonial times, surveying the degree to which guns were a part of everyday life. Finally, blending history and reportage, Whitney explores how twentieth-century turmoil and culture war led to today's climate of activism, partisanship, and stalemate, in a nation that contains an estimated 300 million guns--and probably at least 60 million gun owners.
In the end, Whitney proposes a new way forward through our gun rights stalemate, showing how we can live with guns -- and why, with so many of them around, we have no other choice.
In Living with Guns , Craig R. Whitney, former foreign correspondent and editor at the New York Times , seeks out answers. He re-examines why the right to bear arms was enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and how it came to be misunderstood. He looks to colonial times, surveying the degree to which guns were a part of everyday life. Finally, blending history and reportage, Whitney explores how twentieth-century turmoil and culture war led to today's climate of activism, partisanship, and stalemate, in a nation that contains an estimated 300 million guns--and probably at least 60 million gun owners.
In the end, Whitney proposes a new way forward through our gun rights stalemate, showing how we can live with guns -- and why, with so many of them around, we have no other choice.
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
304 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2012
20 people are currently reading
270 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
May 19, 2013
I enjoyed the first five chapters of this book, which gave an overview of the history of gun control debates in the United States from independence to present. There was a lot of new information in there for me, and Whitney was pretty thorough, it didn't feel like he was cherry-picking the cases and incidents that supported his views. Based on those five chapters alone, I recommend reading the book.
The back half of the book I had more problems with. For one thing, I found the title misleading. From the subtitle "A Liberal's Case for the Second Amendment," I was hoping I'd find some new ideas about the benefits of guns that might hold greater appeal with liberals. I did not find that to be the case. For all of Whitney's self-characterization as a "conservative liberal," he didn't really give any reasons why guns are valuable to American life... more a complicated documentation of guns as a long-term fixture of American life and his own interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment. The former made me think, well okay, but there are lots of "fixtures" of American life that have been overturned since the days of the founders. And the latter was kind of weird because Whitney isn't a lawyer or a judge and it shows.
My other issue was the final chapter, which was the author's proposed solutions to gun violence in the United States. Again, I was hoping for some novel thoughts here that would reflect both Whitney's views as a lifelong gun owner and NRA member and his views as a Democrat, and I found that lacking. Basically he rehashed all the existing ideas about gun control... that guns are an individual right, but with that right comes responsibility... mandatory background checks at gun shows, safety training courses and a more educational role for the NRA, etc. Not a whole lot of new stuff. Not a whole lot of stuff that hasn't already been shut down by the GOP and the NRA.
On balance, I considered this book interesting for the historical aspects and not that illuminating in terms of arguments on the role of guns in American life and gun control solutions for the future. It is short though, so I would recommend it anyway for the good parts.
The back half of the book I had more problems with. For one thing, I found the title misleading. From the subtitle "A Liberal's Case for the Second Amendment," I was hoping I'd find some new ideas about the benefits of guns that might hold greater appeal with liberals. I did not find that to be the case. For all of Whitney's self-characterization as a "conservative liberal," he didn't really give any reasons why guns are valuable to American life... more a complicated documentation of guns as a long-term fixture of American life and his own interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment. The former made me think, well okay, but there are lots of "fixtures" of American life that have been overturned since the days of the founders. And the latter was kind of weird because Whitney isn't a lawyer or a judge and it shows.
My other issue was the final chapter, which was the author's proposed solutions to gun violence in the United States. Again, I was hoping for some novel thoughts here that would reflect both Whitney's views as a lifelong gun owner and NRA member and his views as a Democrat, and I found that lacking. Basically he rehashed all the existing ideas about gun control... that guns are an individual right, but with that right comes responsibility... mandatory background checks at gun shows, safety training courses and a more educational role for the NRA, etc. Not a whole lot of new stuff. Not a whole lot of stuff that hasn't already been shut down by the GOP and the NRA.
On balance, I considered this book interesting for the historical aspects and not that illuminating in terms of arguments on the role of guns in American life and gun control solutions for the future. It is short though, so I would recommend it anyway for the good parts.
January 6, 2013
Very interesting and well researched. Gun control is a passionate interest of mine and I read a lot about it. I also am not afraid to read things that disagree with my views. How else do you learn?
Whitney believes that the Second Amendment confers the individual's right to bear arms (I disagree) but he says Scalia's reasoning is all wrong.
He makes the case that the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution because Americans were deathly afraid of the Government creating a standing army. They did not want a standing army as they were afraid the Government would use it to subjugate the citizenry. The amendment was put in to guarantee that the states' would be able to raise their militia without interference from the Government.
Whitney basically says that an individual's right to bear arms was so common that there was no need to enumerate it in the Constitution. He says that if you would have asked someone in 1776 if a citizen had the right to bear arms they would have laughed at you and said, "Of course, what are you, an idiot?" However he goes on to explain that with that right ALWAYS came the obligation to handle guns in a safe and responsible manner.
The bottom line is the two sides need to be less doctrinaire to decrease the the amount of gun violence in the U.S. Liberals make these big pronouncements about "getting the guns off the street". They know it's not going to happen and all it does is give the NRA more fundraising materials. On the other side the NRA thwarts any idea that may actually help under the guise of privacy.
The NRA and the Liberals should probably go into a room with a mediator and try to come up with something. Whitney ends his book with a list of suggestions that would actually help if the two sides were willing to compromise a little for the good of the country.
Whitney believes that the Second Amendment confers the individual's right to bear arms (I disagree) but he says Scalia's reasoning is all wrong.
He makes the case that the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution because Americans were deathly afraid of the Government creating a standing army. They did not want a standing army as they were afraid the Government would use it to subjugate the citizenry. The amendment was put in to guarantee that the states' would be able to raise their militia without interference from the Government.
Whitney basically says that an individual's right to bear arms was so common that there was no need to enumerate it in the Constitution. He says that if you would have asked someone in 1776 if a citizen had the right to bear arms they would have laughed at you and said, "Of course, what are you, an idiot?" However he goes on to explain that with that right ALWAYS came the obligation to handle guns in a safe and responsible manner.
The bottom line is the two sides need to be less doctrinaire to decrease the the amount of gun violence in the U.S. Liberals make these big pronouncements about "getting the guns off the street". They know it's not going to happen and all it does is give the NRA more fundraising materials. On the other side the NRA thwarts any idea that may actually help under the guise of privacy.
The NRA and the Liberals should probably go into a room with a mediator and try to come up with something. Whitney ends his book with a list of suggestions that would actually help if the two sides were willing to compromise a little for the good of the country.
February 7, 2017
Full caveat to this review: I got less than 100 pages into this before I had to put it down.
For any sort of non-fiction book that delves into areas like history, law, and the like, the reader needs to have some basic trust in the author that he/she's not just making things up, is presenting information from other sources appropriately and with the right context. Right out of the gate, Craig Whitney goes in the opposite direction. "I am no lawyer or scholar of constitutional law" he states a couple of pages into the introduction. Well, who would want to have someone like that talking about an issue relating to constitutional law...wait. I don't know if this is a sort of proto-Trumpean disdain for expertise and belief that "good old fashioned common sense" is all one needs to understand anything. I don't know.
It didn't get any better a few dozen pages in when he made a leap of logic wholly unsupported by the evidence he had presented. After several pages outlining how many of the colonies had laws requiring men to furnish themselves with arms and serve in militias, he says the following: "What is obvious even from this early history is that, for these Englishmen who were also Americans, having firearms was a matter of right" (pg 45). How does a legal requirement to do something imply a right? In fact, it seems to negate the idea of a right. If you were required by law to take part in public demonstrations, you wouldn't say that you have the right to public assembly, would you? Reading this and similar arguments flowing from flawed logic did not give me any assurance that this guy knew what he was talking about. Without any trust in his ability to deliver a convincing and correct argument, I could not continue reading this book.
I'm sure there are better books on this subject by better writers. Only stoop to this if you can't find any or have absolutely nothing else to read.
For any sort of non-fiction book that delves into areas like history, law, and the like, the reader needs to have some basic trust in the author that he/she's not just making things up, is presenting information from other sources appropriately and with the right context. Right out of the gate, Craig Whitney goes in the opposite direction. "I am no lawyer or scholar of constitutional law" he states a couple of pages into the introduction. Well, who would want to have someone like that talking about an issue relating to constitutional law...wait. I don't know if this is a sort of proto-Trumpean disdain for expertise and belief that "good old fashioned common sense" is all one needs to understand anything. I don't know.
It didn't get any better a few dozen pages in when he made a leap of logic wholly unsupported by the evidence he had presented. After several pages outlining how many of the colonies had laws requiring men to furnish themselves with arms and serve in militias, he says the following: "What is obvious even from this early history is that, for these Englishmen who were also Americans, having firearms was a matter of right" (pg 45). How does a legal requirement to do something imply a right? In fact, it seems to negate the idea of a right. If you were required by law to take part in public demonstrations, you wouldn't say that you have the right to public assembly, would you? Reading this and similar arguments flowing from flawed logic did not give me any assurance that this guy knew what he was talking about. Without any trust in his ability to deliver a convincing and correct argument, I could not continue reading this book.
I'm sure there are better books on this subject by better writers. Only stoop to this if you can't find any or have absolutely nothing else to read.
April 23, 2013
No, this isn’t a Western or a Detective story as the top title might suggest. This is actually a well researched and cogent examination of one of the most controversial topics in American culture: gun ownership and its place in modern society. The author gives us a through grounding in the history of this subject that so deeply divides Americans today and he re-examines why the second amendment was enshrined in the Bill of Rights in the first place. This topic has been so contentious for so long that even though gun violence has become a modern plague, politicians seem afraid to take a reasonable and attentive stand on this issue that’s so fraught with emotion, and surprisingly this has been the case throughout our history. Is keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens the best way to keep them out of the hands of criminals? Is mindlessly quoting, and often misquoting, a legal position written into the Constitution more than 200 years ago a suitable basis for refusing to write updated laws in this modern age? For hardened gun rights and gun control advocates this argument continues, but here Whitney suggests some common ground that might provide answers for those that are willing to keep an open mind. This is a book that everyone, truly looking for a solution, should read, even if they don’t have a dog in this fight.
October 6, 2018
I picked up Mr Whitney's book hoping that in it I would find someone who, though we'd fundamentally disagree about some things, I would have the opportunity to engage in actual DISCUSSION with - as opposed to the hysterical nonsense that is so pervasive today. Thankfully, I was not at all disappointed! Craig is a level-headed thinker, an engaging writer, and while I staunchly disagree with some conclusions he comes to, he is man I have great respect for and someone we would all do well to emulate. In this book he takes a deep dive into the history of the 2nd Amendment and the battles surrounding it, blatantly calls out the idiocy coming from both sides of the debate currently, and tries to establish a common ground that we can all agree on first, then depart from. This is an excellent read regardless of your views on the topic!
Favorite Quote: "But strict gun control alone cannot solve our gun problems. It is not guns that cause those problems, but human behavior, and influencing that in communities troubled by gun violence is just as important as cutting down the number of illegal guns available there. Hard as it is for many liberals to accept, what the gun-rights activists say is mostly true - guns don't kill people; people do."
Favorite Quote: "But strict gun control alone cannot solve our gun problems. It is not guns that cause those problems, but human behavior, and influencing that in communities troubled by gun violence is just as important as cutting down the number of illegal guns available there. Hard as it is for many liberals to accept, what the gun-rights activists say is mostly true - guns don't kill people; people do."
February 29, 2020
It took me a month to read this book, one of the choices for a lively book club discussion on the gun issue, but "Living With Guns: A Liberal's Case for the Second Amendment" was slow and frustrating going. Author Whitney goes into great historical detail in the first four chapters, and some of the extended excerpts from historical documents (including the writing of the Bill of Rights and 2A) were long, long, and muddled.
O for simple declarative sentences. If there had been more of them, including in the 18th Century, we might have a different gun culture and legal system now.
I had to read many sentences and paragraphs more than once to keep ahold of the thread of the idea. I'm no dummy; I thought the writing was sub-par.
There were other books in the recommended list for the book club, and while the meeting and discussion are over, I may, in the fullness of time, try to seek one or two of the others out for a better analysis of this difficult issue.
O for simple declarative sentences. If there had been more of them, including in the 18th Century, we might have a different gun culture and legal system now.
I had to read many sentences and paragraphs more than once to keep ahold of the thread of the idea. I'm no dummy; I thought the writing was sub-par.
There were other books in the recommended list for the book club, and while the meeting and discussion are over, I may, in the fullness of time, try to seek one or two of the others out for a better analysis of this difficult issue.
September 10, 2018
I really wanted to like this book. I tried and tried to finish it because I found the concept of the book important, but it is entirely too tedious to complete! A lot of the book covers the history of the Second Amendment and this book suffers from the same problem as most history books - historians may know history, but most of them don't know how to write well! This book reminded me *why* I never enjoyed history in school. The books were insufferably boring.
Only historians of the caliber of Joseph Ellis should write history. Otherwise, publishing houses would do well to have historians collaborate with actual interesting talented writers who can translate their historical facts into prose worth reading.
Only historians of the caliber of Joseph Ellis should write history. Otherwise, publishing houses would do well to have historians collaborate with actual interesting talented writers who can translate their historical facts into prose worth reading.
February 12, 2020
This book was written by a self-proclaimed liberal who is a gun owner and a member of the NRA. He goes through a somewhat excruciatingly detailed historical review of federal and state laws regarding guns. At the end he does make a number of suggestions of what are mostly reasonable measures for gun control that would be an improvement over what we have now
October 14, 2017
3 1/2. Good overview of 2nd Amendment both pro and con. For the most part, Whitney's conclusions are well thought out and practical. A bit of a hard book to read because of all the statistics, but good in short doses.
October 24, 2025
Very well researched and definitely recommend it based on that along. I appreciated a lot of the history of gun control since my job literally is gun control🫠 I liked the different perspectives but the recommendations at the end left a lot to be desired
February 15, 2022
Gave up after about 50 pages, way to much detailed history. I wasn't interested in reading page after page of what happened in the 1600's.
August 29, 2021
Well thought out but I feel he makes a series of liberal assumptions that are not actually true. One in particular is that the pro-gun side has won and does not have to worry. This is obviously not true as can be seen they the increasing clamor on the left to actually change the supreme court and seize people's firearms by force if necessary.
The second assumption is that there is a civic responsibility that goes with ownership but starts by saying it is a right recognized by common law. If it is a right how can it be tied to a civic responsibility?
Obviously I have some serious reservations about the conclusions and possibly the author does not with the changes it the country since it was written
The second assumption is that there is a civic responsibility that goes with ownership but starts by saying it is a right recognized by common law. If it is a right how can it be tied to a civic responsibility?
Obviously I have some serious reservations about the conclusions and possibly the author does not with the changes it the country since it was written
December 31, 2012
The first 2/3 to 3/4 of the book is a pretty fair and balanced review of the history of the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court rulings that have defined how the 2nd Amendment has been applied. He shows how guns were an integral part of life when the Constitution was written and that the 2nd Amendment didn't so much as grant the right to own guns but affirmed that citizens should be able to use their guns to defend the liberty they just gained. He also points out the Militia Act that required citizens to be armed so they could be called into the militia. He shows the attempts of the states and cities to regulate guns and the problems they've had with different states having different laws or enforcing them differently. It was quite informative.
However, when he gets to his suggestions for reducing gun violence he seems to forget what he'd just written. He makes suggestions for federal laws that would overrule the state laws but doesn't show how those could be implemented within the current Supreme Court rulings.
Whitney also says that since the Heller & McDonald Supreme Court decisions gun rights folks shouldn't worry about losing the right to own guns for self defense so they should allow reasonable restrictions. But in his coverage of the earlier Supreme Court decisions he shows how the SC has essentially reversed itself. And with a narrow (5-4) decision in both Heller and McDonald a slight shift to the court could turn things around.
He had also pointed out how the NRA is a huge lobbying force that many in congress listen to, but then says we should "just ignore" their protests about new restrictions. That seems like wishful thinking.
Finally, he suggests the ATF is granted more power and that congress should get out of it's way. He says this even after covering the screw-ups of operations "Gunrunner" and "Fast and Furious."
Don't get me wrong, I'm a gun owner and I'm appalled at the recent gun violence and mass shootings and I think there should be reasonable restrictions on gun purchases, training, and storage. But Whitney's suggestions are all wishful thinking with no real possibility of getting implemented. I was hoping for more concrete suggestions.
However, when he gets to his suggestions for reducing gun violence he seems to forget what he'd just written. He makes suggestions for federal laws that would overrule the state laws but doesn't show how those could be implemented within the current Supreme Court rulings.
Whitney also says that since the Heller & McDonald Supreme Court decisions gun rights folks shouldn't worry about losing the right to own guns for self defense so they should allow reasonable restrictions. But in his coverage of the earlier Supreme Court decisions he shows how the SC has essentially reversed itself. And with a narrow (5-4) decision in both Heller and McDonald a slight shift to the court could turn things around.
He had also pointed out how the NRA is a huge lobbying force that many in congress listen to, but then says we should "just ignore" their protests about new restrictions. That seems like wishful thinking.
Finally, he suggests the ATF is granted more power and that congress should get out of it's way. He says this even after covering the screw-ups of operations "Gunrunner" and "Fast and Furious."
Don't get me wrong, I'm a gun owner and I'm appalled at the recent gun violence and mass shootings and I think there should be reasonable restrictions on gun purchases, training, and storage. But Whitney's suggestions are all wishful thinking with no real possibility of getting implemented. I was hoping for more concrete suggestions.
March 12, 2013
I picked up this book at the library one day; I always like reading two sides of an issue. With that said I don't know how you can call your self a conservative liberal as the author states up front! Mr. Whitney seems to like the second amendment but with conditions. Like anyone writing a book he picks the historical facts he likes and leaves out whole segments of original writings that could be used as well. The beginning of the book is what I did like. Mr. Whitney goes on to give his ideas of what he calls common sense solutions to a rampant problem. He presents a good case for the second amendment but then goes on to say that we should have common sense legislation for modern day issues. If the second amendment is a right as stated in the Bill of Rights that shall not be infringed and the federal government is the law of the land. Then wouldn't local and state laws against said amendment be unconstitutional? Mr. Whitney also seems to believe Wayne LaPierre and the NRA is a propaganda machine. He doesn't believe that lobbyist groups can evolve over time and perform the tasks it originally set out to do in conjunction with the modern day need to protect second amendment rights. Mr. Whitney also seems to think that stand your ground laws lead to a Wild West mentality. He points to one case repeatedly which says to me he can't point out other cases that would substantiate his position.
I don't know who Mr. Whitney was writing this book for, it's confusing. People on both sides of the issue will find it a waste of time as he never grounds himself firmly on either side of the issue. It’s either a natural right or not.
I don't know who Mr. Whitney was writing this book for, it's confusing. People on both sides of the issue will find it a waste of time as he never grounds himself firmly on either side of the issue. It’s either a natural right or not.
December 20, 2013
Living with Guns is a book that reviews the second amendment and the history of both guns and gun control. It analyzes the effect of past gun control laws and talks about why they can be both effective and ineffective. It gives a many statistics, making it very interesting for many people no matter what their views on gun control are. It gives a very long history of gun control in America, going back to as far as the first English colonizers of the New World.
Living with Guns was the book that I read for my semester project, which was about gun control. It was a very interesting book and affected my perspective on gun control. It gave a very fair stance on gun control and evaluated both the pros and cons of implementing gun control laws. Because it gives such a very fair stance on gun control, it is interesting to read regardless of one’s views on gun control, and that made the book very enjoyable for me to read.
Another reason I thought Living with Guns was an excellent book was that it went back into the very beginnings of gun laws in America, even before it came the United States. I am very interested in history, so this was easily my favorite part of the book. It was also very interesting how the author looked into why the second amendment was created and how it affected people in the United States.
Living with Guns was the book that I read for my semester project, which was about gun control. It was a very interesting book and affected my perspective on gun control. It gave a very fair stance on gun control and evaluated both the pros and cons of implementing gun control laws. Because it gives such a very fair stance on gun control, it is interesting to read regardless of one’s views on gun control, and that made the book very enjoyable for me to read.
Another reason I thought Living with Guns was an excellent book was that it went back into the very beginnings of gun laws in America, even before it came the United States. I am very interested in history, so this was easily my favorite part of the book. It was also very interesting how the author looked into why the second amendment was created and how it affected people in the United States.
February 22, 2013
A bit dry but topical, this book examines the historical aspects of the 2nd amendment as it relates to the gun debate at present. How the original milieu in which the Bill of Rights was constructed informs the drafter's intent, how that has been bastardized over time by the lobbyingly wanton NRA and how we have come to the present implacable/impassable dialogue regarding gun ownership.
This book is an important perspective providing addition to the (potentially) rational gun discussion we need to have in America, not all guns away or all armed, just somewhere in the middle with some intuitive restrictions against items that are martial in nature...seems very simple, but the devil is in the details.
Take away the NRA's non-profit tax-abated status, not "their guns"; they are waist deep in conflict of interest.
This book is an important perspective providing addition to the (potentially) rational gun discussion we need to have in America, not all guns away or all armed, just somewhere in the middle with some intuitive restrictions against items that are martial in nature...seems very simple, but the devil is in the details.
Take away the NRA's non-profit tax-abated status, not "their guns"; they are waist deep in conflict of interest.
December 31, 2014
Whitney's book offers insights on both the historical context of firearms ownership in the US (and pre-revolutionary colonial America) and the modern state of affairs based on the SCORUS decisions in Heller and McDonald. He hits the nail on the head in being critical of both federal failures and NRA overreaching fear mongering at distracting from the substance of the issue: how do we safely live in a free society where private firearms ownership is codified in constitutional formalities as well as common law?
Well worth the read regardless of your stance on the second amendment. His "What can we do" closing chapter doesn't deconstruct pros and cons so much as paint with a broad brush but I found that acceptable as he continually came back to the idea that much "control" should be handled at the local level.
Well worth the read regardless of your stance on the second amendment. His "What can we do" closing chapter doesn't deconstruct pros and cons so much as paint with a broad brush but I found that acceptable as he continually came back to the idea that much "control" should be handled at the local level.
April 8, 2013
That Whitney's points in this book are not universally recognized as practical common sense is, frankly, crazy and self-defeating. The premise is that the Second Amendment does in fact guarantee an individual right to bear arms, but it is not an unlimited right, nor should it be. Whitney provides several practical ways that gun violence can be reduced in America, plus a truckload of background details to back them up. My only issues with the book are that 1) too many pages are spent on the colonial history of our attitude toward guns, and 2) there's a lack of organization at times that makes it difficult to derive his central point. But overall, this is an informative book that I'll recommend to others.
Read
June 18, 2013'Author Craig R. Whitney, a former reporter and editor for the New York Times, has written a volume that tells the cultural and legal history of Americans’ attitudes toward guns, as well as of their right to own and use them.
The book also pushes a set of policy prescriptions that Whitney paints as the rational, intelligent middle between untenable pro-gun attitudes (no new laws restricting our ability to buy, carry, and store weapons) and untenable anti-gun attitudes (no private ownership of firearms). Whitney argues there’s an intractable political divide about guns that only his measured wisdom can bridge.'
Read the full review, "Gun Control, RIP," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
The book also pushes a set of policy prescriptions that Whitney paints as the rational, intelligent middle between untenable pro-gun attitudes (no new laws restricting our ability to buy, carry, and store weapons) and untenable anti-gun attitudes (no private ownership of firearms). Whitney argues there’s an intractable political divide about guns that only his measured wisdom can bridge.'
Read the full review, "Gun Control, RIP," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
March 13, 2013
The first few chapters of this book are an American history refresher of the highest demand on the reader's focus and synthesis. Just seeing the push-and-pull over guns as this country coagulated is enough to make us reconsider the arguments from both extremes of the gun debate, as they both attempt to lean on what this country is and has been all about when it comes to guns. Lots of sketchy stuff back there in our history. Lots now. This conversation should be more complicated than the cable news talking heads generally allow for.
February 9, 2013
The was a useful well reasoned contribution to the current debate about gun violence and safety. The author provides the historical context for where we are today and a reasonable explication of the 2nd amendment issues. He concludes with a few rational recommendations for actions we could take now that would help us address the complex issues now being debated in the nation and help us move from the current highly polarized status quo.
May 19, 2023
This book is quite informative and goes back before the Revolutionary War, explaining the history and thinking behind the creation of the Second Amendment and its evolution to the present day. It explores the notions of a "well regulated militia" and "standing army", and goes into depth regarding the various court cases and rulings over the years. It also focuses on how the self defense argument is integrated into the present concept of the right to bear arms.
January 8, 2013
Good information for thinking about gun reform rationally and logically.
It helps to be informed in working through these issues.
There are solutions for better regulation without confiscating all guns. In other words, a middle ground (something quickly vanishing from our problem solving in America).
Highly recommend.
It helps to be informed in working through these issues.
There are solutions for better regulation without confiscating all guns. In other words, a middle ground (something quickly vanishing from our problem solving in America).
Highly recommend.
March 18, 2013
Gun debate is fascinating. Gun ownership is a constitutional right and a grave public health/safety issue. Hunting/sports/self-defense all make sense. Yet too easy for criminals and nuts to get guns. Rural vs. urban politics. Conspiracy wackos. My view = keep it free, but with way more civic responsibility and supervision.
July 25, 2015
I wish this book had examined the constitutional aspects more; I've seen guests on Bill Maher introduce legal cases and contrast them to the constitution in a compelling way. Instead this book focuses more on a social case for the 2nd amendment.
July 25, 2016
This is an excellent and comprehensive book on our gun culture. Whitney starts the story in colonial times then advances forward. Evenly written and the author owns his liberal bias toward gun control. Highly recommended. Well written and easy to follow.
February 17, 2013
Highlights the tension between the personal right to bear arms and the right to be free from violence, with some interesting details of how the Second Amendment came to be passed.
February 15, 2022
Gave up after about 50 pages, way to much detailed history. I wasn't interested in reading page after page of what happened in the 1600's.
April 5, 2014
A very interesting book. I enjoyed reading it for the historical background and his take on the 2nd Amendment.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews