What do you think?
Rate this book
Armed in America: A History of Gun Rights from Colonial Militias to Concealed Carry
This accessible legal history describes how the Second Amendment has been interpreted throughout most of American history and shows that today's gun-rights advocates have drastically departed from the long-held interpretation of the constitutional right to bear arms.This illuminating study traces the transformation of the right to arms from its inception in English and colonial American law to today's impassioned gun-control debate. As historian and legal scholar Patrick J. Charles shows, what the right to arms means to Americans, as well as what it legally protects, has changed drastically since its first appearance in the 1689 Declaration of Rights.Armed in America explores how and why the right to arms transformed at different points in history. The right was initially meant to serve as a parliamentary right of resistance, yet by the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791 the right had become indispensably intertwined with civic republicanism. As the United States progressed into the 19th century the right continued to change--this time away from civic republicanism and towards the individual-right understanding that is known today, albeit with the important caveat that the right could be severely restricted by the government's police power. Throughout the 20th century this understanding of the right remained the predominant view. But working behind the scenes was the beginnings of the gun-rights movement--a movement that was started in the early 20th century through the collective efforts of sporting magazine editors and was eventually commandeered by the National Rifle Association to become the gun-rights movement known today.Readers looking to sort through the shrill rhetoric surrounding the current gun debate and arrive at an informed understanding of the legal and historical development of the right to arms will find this book to be an invaluable resource.
558 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2018
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
February 10, 2018
The author covers the often polarizing history of gun rights in America through 315 pages (including epilogue) however the astronomical addition of 222 note pages seemed a bit over the top. I fail to comprehend why the author dug back into British Parliamentary law, which is not the foundation for America’s 2nd Amendment. I did not always agree with the author’s interpretations and analytical analysis.
In 1982 the American population was 225 million with 51% of the households owning firearms. The population of the United States soared to 320 million in 2014 with only 31% of homeowners having guns. As firearm purchases continually increased the author questions, who is buying and storing all the weapons? He insinuates that a select group continues to stockpile, while broad nationwide ownership plummets. What the author fails to comprehend is the fact that part of the surge in the American population from 1982 to 2014 is due to illegal immigrants, who although illegal are counted as part of the U.S. Census. Illegal immigrants are not allowed to own a firearm and if they did they certainly would not admit to it. Additionally, surveys rarely reflect the rising influx of criminal gangs.
Regarding his portrayal of a 1960’s gun rights movement he states: “This broad conception of the Second Amendment was common among persons who politically identified as socialist or communist, but there were certainly other persons, without regard to political affiliation, who shared it.” As an observant teenager in Massachusetts during the 1960’s I never witnessed that trend.
The books title captured me but I’m not as impressed by the substance within.
In 1982 the American population was 225 million with 51% of the households owning firearms. The population of the United States soared to 320 million in 2014 with only 31% of homeowners having guns. As firearm purchases continually increased the author questions, who is buying and storing all the weapons? He insinuates that a select group continues to stockpile, while broad nationwide ownership plummets. What the author fails to comprehend is the fact that part of the surge in the American population from 1982 to 2014 is due to illegal immigrants, who although illegal are counted as part of the U.S. Census. Illegal immigrants are not allowed to own a firearm and if they did they certainly would not admit to it. Additionally, surveys rarely reflect the rising influx of criminal gangs.
Regarding his portrayal of a 1960’s gun rights movement he states: “This broad conception of the Second Amendment was common among persons who politically identified as socialist or communist, but there were certainly other persons, without regard to political affiliation, who shared it.” As an observant teenager in Massachusetts during the 1960’s I never witnessed that trend.
The books title captured me but I’m not as impressed by the substance within.
June 6, 2018
If I could give it a lower rating I would. It was written by an admitted pro gun control author in the guise of non biased historical research. Yet when I started checking the citations for ‘facts’ in the first chapter they went to a selection of anti gun articles that had been published in left leaning newspapers or periodicals.
It was so biased I wasn’t able to finish it.
It was so biased I wasn’t able to finish it.
March 1, 2018
Well written and well researched, yet heavily slanted. I will give the author credit for mentioning those who interpret the legal and historical record differently, but not the short shrift he gives them or the ease with which he tosses them aside.
March 17, 2018
Given the ongoing problem of mass shootings in the US, the increasing political turmoil generated by them, and the fact that ameliorative measures will always face a Constitutional test, it is difficult to overstate the importance of this book. To this reviewer it appears to have been written for the very purpose of providing a sound legal and historical basis for the promotion of "gun control" measures ("gun control" being that disastrous misnomer that its adherents should immediately replace with "constitutional firearm regulation").
"Sound legal and historical basis" means that much of the book seems to anticipate its use as an amicus brief to the Supreme Court: it is 3/5 text and 2/5 notes. While many of the notes provide amplifying information (and as such should not be overlooked), the most important purpose in this regard is to cite statutes, case law, and legal analysis.
For it is the simple reality that, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, constitutional interpretation depends on historical analysis and understanding. That being the case, one of author Charles's principal targets in this book is the group of historians who have developed what is known as the "Standard Model" of 2nd Amendment apologetics. It was this "school" that most influenced the thinking of Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion of the Heller decision that currently controls constitutional understanding of the extent to which the amendment guarantees an individual right, as opposed to a societal one.
Charles is both scathing and thorough in his disparagement of the veracity of the Standard Model. His weapons include both the marshaling of positive evidence of his own and pointed critiques of the arguments of the Standard Modelers, who come in for such dismissive assessments as "ahistorical," "egregious errors," "manufacturing history," "completely without historical merit," and--his favorite--"stretching the elastic bands of history past their breaking point."
An example of a particularly 2nd Amendment controversy that he analyzes vis-a-vis the Standard Model has to do with the interpretation of what it means to "bear" arms. The Standard Model argument--which found its way into Scalia's originalism--is that it means simply to "carry" arms. Charles contends that this is to ignore the historical context of the phrase, which situates the usage overwhelmingly in the militia or military context. Thus Scalia's reliance on the Standard Model's unsupported interpretation was "mythmaking at its finest." (p. 109)
Here is a passage that shows Charles's effective combination of argumentation, historical generalization, and illustrative quotation:
"Another problem with the interpretation advanced by modern lawyers and legal scholars [that the 2nd amendment guaranteed guns for private purposes] is that it is in direct conflict with what the Founding Fathers credited as being the palladium or bulwark of liberty. At no time did any political or legal commentator in the late eighteenth century or early nineteenth century refer to the ownership or use of arms as the palladium or bulwark of republican liberty. For those historians who have examined the origins of the right to arms, this is not at all surprising. Every political and legal commentator from the Glorious Revolution through the American Revolution agreed that the right to arms was useless unless the militia was properly trained and disciplined. To quote once more from Timothy Pickering, 'The right Use of the Firelock therefore is not the whole, nay it is the smallest Part, of military Discipline.'" (p. 101)
However important and valuable this portion of the book might be, even more valuable, comprehensive, and original is his treatment of the regulatory "police powers" of the states, and their precedents in British common law. If he is right that the Standard Modelers and originalists have "failed to research ... the rich Anglo-American history of regulating armed carriage," this would seem to be an area of considerable value to those stockpiling intellectual ammunition to advance the cause of gun regulation.
This is too vast and complex a portion of the book to characterize briefly, but here is one example of gun control in shoot-em-up frontier Texas, where in 1869 the governor addressed the legislature as follows: "I would, in this respect of prevention of crimes, call your attention to the provisions of section thirteen of the [Texas] Bill of Rights, on the subject of bearing arms. The legislature is there given a control over the privileges of the citizen, in this respect, which was not in the old constitution. There is no doubt that to the universal habit of carrying arms is largely to be attributed the frequency of homicides in this State. I recommend that this privilege be placed under such restriction as may seem to your wisdom best calculated to proven the abuse of it. Other than in a few of the frontier counties there is no good reason why deadly weapons should be permitted to be carried on the person." (p. 151)
The final portion of the book addresses the rise of the NRA as the supposed champion of the 2nd Amendment. What is most revealing here is to see how so many of the NRA's current tactics, trotted out time and time again, are really quite stale, having been around since the 1920's, e.g. "conspiracy theories" that pointed to an "insidious minority--which at different times the NRA referred to as 'lurking predators,' 'demagogues,' and 'propagandists'--…operating behind the scenes" to deprive gun owners of their rights. (p. 218) Such scare-mongering propaganda tactics have been used repeatedly to rile up the membership in order to enable the organization's lobbyists to try to blunt gun regulation. It bears mentioning that none of the federal or state-level legislation, whether or not the NRA succeeded in changing it, was ever found to be unconstitutional.
Gun regulation advocates should not miss this book.
"Sound legal and historical basis" means that much of the book seems to anticipate its use as an amicus brief to the Supreme Court: it is 3/5 text and 2/5 notes. While many of the notes provide amplifying information (and as such should not be overlooked), the most important purpose in this regard is to cite statutes, case law, and legal analysis.
For it is the simple reality that, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, constitutional interpretation depends on historical analysis and understanding. That being the case, one of author Charles's principal targets in this book is the group of historians who have developed what is known as the "Standard Model" of 2nd Amendment apologetics. It was this "school" that most influenced the thinking of Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion of the Heller decision that currently controls constitutional understanding of the extent to which the amendment guarantees an individual right, as opposed to a societal one.
Charles is both scathing and thorough in his disparagement of the veracity of the Standard Model. His weapons include both the marshaling of positive evidence of his own and pointed critiques of the arguments of the Standard Modelers, who come in for such dismissive assessments as "ahistorical," "egregious errors," "manufacturing history," "completely without historical merit," and--his favorite--"stretching the elastic bands of history past their breaking point."
An example of a particularly 2nd Amendment controversy that he analyzes vis-a-vis the Standard Model has to do with the interpretation of what it means to "bear" arms. The Standard Model argument--which found its way into Scalia's originalism--is that it means simply to "carry" arms. Charles contends that this is to ignore the historical context of the phrase, which situates the usage overwhelmingly in the militia or military context. Thus Scalia's reliance on the Standard Model's unsupported interpretation was "mythmaking at its finest." (p. 109)
Here is a passage that shows Charles's effective combination of argumentation, historical generalization, and illustrative quotation:
"Another problem with the interpretation advanced by modern lawyers and legal scholars [that the 2nd amendment guaranteed guns for private purposes] is that it is in direct conflict with what the Founding Fathers credited as being the palladium or bulwark of liberty. At no time did any political or legal commentator in the late eighteenth century or early nineteenth century refer to the ownership or use of arms as the palladium or bulwark of republican liberty. For those historians who have examined the origins of the right to arms, this is not at all surprising. Every political and legal commentator from the Glorious Revolution through the American Revolution agreed that the right to arms was useless unless the militia was properly trained and disciplined. To quote once more from Timothy Pickering, 'The right Use of the Firelock therefore is not the whole, nay it is the smallest Part, of military Discipline.'" (p. 101)
However important and valuable this portion of the book might be, even more valuable, comprehensive, and original is his treatment of the regulatory "police powers" of the states, and their precedents in British common law. If he is right that the Standard Modelers and originalists have "failed to research ... the rich Anglo-American history of regulating armed carriage," this would seem to be an area of considerable value to those stockpiling intellectual ammunition to advance the cause of gun regulation.
This is too vast and complex a portion of the book to characterize briefly, but here is one example of gun control in shoot-em-up frontier Texas, where in 1869 the governor addressed the legislature as follows: "I would, in this respect of prevention of crimes, call your attention to the provisions of section thirteen of the [Texas] Bill of Rights, on the subject of bearing arms. The legislature is there given a control over the privileges of the citizen, in this respect, which was not in the old constitution. There is no doubt that to the universal habit of carrying arms is largely to be attributed the frequency of homicides in this State. I recommend that this privilege be placed under such restriction as may seem to your wisdom best calculated to proven the abuse of it. Other than in a few of the frontier counties there is no good reason why deadly weapons should be permitted to be carried on the person." (p. 151)
The final portion of the book addresses the rise of the NRA as the supposed champion of the 2nd Amendment. What is most revealing here is to see how so many of the NRA's current tactics, trotted out time and time again, are really quite stale, having been around since the 1920's, e.g. "conspiracy theories" that pointed to an "insidious minority--which at different times the NRA referred to as 'lurking predators,' 'demagogues,' and 'propagandists'--…operating behind the scenes" to deprive gun owners of their rights. (p. 218) Such scare-mongering propaganda tactics have been used repeatedly to rile up the membership in order to enable the organization's lobbyists to try to blunt gun regulation. It bears mentioning that none of the federal or state-level legislation, whether or not the NRA succeeded in changing it, was ever found to be unconstitutional.
Gun regulation advocates should not miss this book.
March 7, 2018
The author is well-known for his excellent research in legal history. He writes clearly, which is particularly good when the reader is not used to examining and understanding what a law actually says. He is as even-handed as possible, I think, though there will be many readers who will not agree with his conclusions.
I've read some reviews of this book and am struck by comments of the substance, "What does all that history of Britain in the 1600's and 1700's and early colonies have to do with the Second Amendment?" Charles makes this quite clear, I thought in the chapters 2 and 3, though they are not easy reading, containing quotations from legal scholars living in these centuries, legal cases of those centuries, and political theorists of those centuries (e.g. John Locke). The style of writing then was "periodic" and not the shorter, less involved clausal kind that we have today. But it does repay reading the quotations over several times. He goes into the history of gun rights and British militias and colonial militias because to understand the preamble clause of Amendment 2 one needs to know what a militia was, how it was trained, who was in it, and what was its purpose/s. Then one can understand where the Constitutional Convention members of the colonies were "coming from." There are a number of legal writers and judges today that are "Originalists", that is, believe that we need to interpret the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) in the conception of thought of the Constitutional Convention; some of these Originalists are and have been on the Supreme Court. Other legal writers and judges of today differ arguing that the America we live in today has changed a lot from 1787, and we need to interpret these documents in the light of today's life and inventions, etc. Today we don't have colonial/state militias today, at least in terms of militias that existed in colonial America. And we need to remember that George Washington et al. were born British citizens and, in many instances reluctantly, came to realize that they no longer wanted to be British citizens. They were conversant with their rights as British citizens in terms of owning and using guns, and knew and understood that the State (Parliament) did have the power over British citizens (which the "Founding Fathers" were prior to the Revolution) to control the carrying of guns and the display of guns. This understanding they wished to encapsulate into the Second Amendment.
In subsequent chapters Charles shows how very soon after the formation of the United States, the civic republicanism that underlay the Second Amendment began fading away. Nonetheless, the caveat that underlay in Britain the carrying of guns etc. continued to underlie the Second Amendment.
The remaining chapters show how the public's conception of "gun rights" continued to underlie the regulation by states and the federal government throughout the 1800's and into the early 1900's and how the gun-right movement began to change the understanding of many Americans (just as many other Americans did not change their understanding).
Charles' book is a clear, balanced exposition of the history of gun rights from the founding of the colonies down to the early 2000's. He provides extensive source citations and meticulously documents his sources (there are 213 --I think--pages of notes, often with extensive discussion, compared to 315 pages of text).
I've read some reviews of this book and am struck by comments of the substance, "What does all that history of Britain in the 1600's and 1700's and early colonies have to do with the Second Amendment?" Charles makes this quite clear, I thought in the chapters 2 and 3, though they are not easy reading, containing quotations from legal scholars living in these centuries, legal cases of those centuries, and political theorists of those centuries (e.g. John Locke). The style of writing then was "periodic" and not the shorter, less involved clausal kind that we have today. But it does repay reading the quotations over several times. He goes into the history of gun rights and British militias and colonial militias because to understand the preamble clause of Amendment 2 one needs to know what a militia was, how it was trained, who was in it, and what was its purpose/s. Then one can understand where the Constitutional Convention members of the colonies were "coming from." There are a number of legal writers and judges today that are "Originalists", that is, believe that we need to interpret the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) in the conception of thought of the Constitutional Convention; some of these Originalists are and have been on the Supreme Court. Other legal writers and judges of today differ arguing that the America we live in today has changed a lot from 1787, and we need to interpret these documents in the light of today's life and inventions, etc. Today we don't have colonial/state militias today, at least in terms of militias that existed in colonial America. And we need to remember that George Washington et al. were born British citizens and, in many instances reluctantly, came to realize that they no longer wanted to be British citizens. They were conversant with their rights as British citizens in terms of owning and using guns, and knew and understood that the State (Parliament) did have the power over British citizens (which the "Founding Fathers" were prior to the Revolution) to control the carrying of guns and the display of guns. This understanding they wished to encapsulate into the Second Amendment.
In subsequent chapters Charles shows how very soon after the formation of the United States, the civic republicanism that underlay the Second Amendment began fading away. Nonetheless, the caveat that underlay in Britain the carrying of guns etc. continued to underlie the Second Amendment.
The remaining chapters show how the public's conception of "gun rights" continued to underlie the regulation by states and the federal government throughout the 1800's and into the early 1900's and how the gun-right movement began to change the understanding of many Americans (just as many other Americans did not change their understanding).
Charles' book is a clear, balanced exposition of the history of gun rights from the founding of the colonies down to the early 2000's. He provides extensive source citations and meticulously documents his sources (there are 213 --I think--pages of notes, often with extensive discussion, compared to 315 pages of text).
July 26, 2018
Not an easy read by any means. Charles has compiled a detailed study of the Second Amendment that is even-handed. He examines the right to bear arms as it was commonly understood by English law dating back to the 14th century, and how this understanding shaped the authors of the American Constitution. With a rare exception (duly noted by Charles), the right to bear arms was understood to be (1) primarily connected to a public militia that countered the idea of a standing army and (2) subject to limitation as to where arms could be carried, and by whom. This changed during the second half of the 19th century until the right of the individual to carry a gun was connected to his right of self-defense. Charles demonstrates that this interpretation was not something that emerged after the hostile takeover of the NRA in 1977 by the radical forces that have inflicted Wayne LaPierre and Dana Loesch upon the Republic. It gathered strength after the 1911 Sullivan gun control law took effect in New York, and while the idea of a public militia was long gone, the impetus in NRA ads during the 40s, 50s and 60s tended to come from the Red Menace and criminals. Things began to spiral out of control in the 1990s, presumably with the Columbine massacre. The NRA leadership has now firmly occupied the "no compromise" corner, along with an immeasurably increased presence as lobbyists. Charles does not offer solutions to our current national dilemma, but he does criticize recent Supreme Court gun decisions that were putatively based upon a demonstrable misreading of Second Amendment history. He calls out the methodology of several hired NRA academics.
The book has almost as many pages of notes as proper text, and they are just as interesting. Again, Charles is not proposing anything by way of legislation, and he certainly doesn't want the Second Amendment repealed. Armed in America offers a cool appraisal of its history and development.
Highly recommend.
The book has almost as many pages of notes as proper text, and they are just as interesting. Again, Charles is not proposing anything by way of legislation, and he certainly doesn't want the Second Amendment repealed. Armed in America offers a cool appraisal of its history and development.
Highly recommend.
May 18, 2018
A very informative book. The intellectual historian and author Charles does NOT purport to tell the reader that they should be for, or against, greater gun control or expansive carriage rights. His purpose is to show the arc (at times in excruciating detail) of the debate, from 15th century England to today. Charles’ irrefutable argument is that the discipline of history has been misused repeatedly in the debate.
March 13, 2018
I'm not here to advance or diss gun rights. I have never taken the time to read much about this divisive subject until I happened across this book on the new book shelf at our little Kona library. Page 72 made an impression on me...."Historians must never assume meaning with a modern predisposition. Rather, when seeking to understand the past, historians must impart historical language into its proper construct, point out conventions and regularities that indicate what could and could not be spoken in the language, and in what ways the language qua paradigm, encouraged, obliged, or forbade its users to speak and think." This made me wonder about other historical books I have read, and how the author may have inadvertently slanted the telling.
This author spends a great many pages giving the history of the 2nd amendment and putting it into historical perspective. If you are pro, or agin, this book is a great historical perspective.
This author spends a great many pages giving the history of the 2nd amendment and putting it into historical perspective. If you are pro, or agin, this book is a great historical perspective.
February 15, 2018
This well-documented survey of gun rights in the US helps discern myth from fact using historical evidence. Upon reading, it is very clear to see that some historical evidence supports the gun control side and some historical evidence supports the gun rights side. In no way is this a one-sided book. This is exactly the kind of evidence-based information that our society needs to inform our opinions on this topic, which is much more nuanced than proponents on either side would like to acknowledge. This book will not end the debate, but it will continue the discussion, which is a healthy endeavor of any truly democratic society.
February 2, 2019
555 pages of: "What they said is not what they meant" I will commend Mr. Charles as a brilliant historian. Unfortunately that brilliance is incredibly dangerous. The ability to use historical methodoligy to attempt to change historical fact is reckless at best. The final exam for a masters degree in history is to do exactly what Mr. Charles has done. This need to perfect that craft has NO PLACE in such a critical field of endeavour. Those practices should be left to the less noble proffession of lawers.
March 28, 2018
An erudite work.
June 12, 2023
An academic study on the history of gun rights in America, "Armed in America" is incredibly thorough and highly cited. The author Patrick J. Charles breaks down the American thought on guns, militias, individual vs collective gun rights, and gun control measures dating back from the 1600s in Great Britain all the way up to the modern day, in 2016.
The cost of such a thorough and academic approach like this can be cold and informal prose, mired with heavy, repeated detail, and this book is no exception to that. I learned a lot, and I think this book achieves its goal in trying to be so thorough as to be irrefutable, but I certainly could see this same book written in a way that delivers the same content while being much, much more readable.
That said, I'm very glad I read this book, and feel very informed on the history of gun rights movements in this country. Charles proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the historical consensus: that the Founding Fathers viewed the 2nd Amendment as a protection against federal intervention into state militias, which were in turn seen as a bulwark of American democracy during the 1700s. That this entailed some aspect of a private, individual right to bear arms is self-evident, just as self-evident as the fact that the government was expected to regulate and monitor this right, and that it was only considered Constitution-level important within the context of a well-trained militia. Charles then does a great job showing all the different ways that gun rights movements slowly came about, most notably through the USRA and it's successor, the NRA in the early 1900s, reaching it's zenith in the 1960s and through today. My largest complaint is that I wish the author explored more of the modern consequences of the gun rights movement, though I understand that wasn't the intent of this book.
While I won't lie and say this is an easy read, it's also not a complete slog. It's just a little north of 100,000 words broken over 8 chapters, easy enough to break down into smaller bites and read over the course of a week or two. With that in mind, I highly recommend every one who cares about the issue to read this book. We now live in an age where gun violence is the #1 cause of death amongst children, and the rest of the civilized world toggles between amused bewilderment and disgusted shock at our weird, chaotic obsession with guns, rooted for many people in an ahistorical patriotism. I can only hope that with better access to correct information, our country can start to correct it's course of the past 60 years and return to our historical norm: common-sense gun regulation.
The cost of such a thorough and academic approach like this can be cold and informal prose, mired with heavy, repeated detail, and this book is no exception to that. I learned a lot, and I think this book achieves its goal in trying to be so thorough as to be irrefutable, but I certainly could see this same book written in a way that delivers the same content while being much, much more readable.
That said, I'm very glad I read this book, and feel very informed on the history of gun rights movements in this country. Charles proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the historical consensus: that the Founding Fathers viewed the 2nd Amendment as a protection against federal intervention into state militias, which were in turn seen as a bulwark of American democracy during the 1700s. That this entailed some aspect of a private, individual right to bear arms is self-evident, just as self-evident as the fact that the government was expected to regulate and monitor this right, and that it was only considered Constitution-level important within the context of a well-trained militia. Charles then does a great job showing all the different ways that gun rights movements slowly came about, most notably through the USRA and it's successor, the NRA in the early 1900s, reaching it's zenith in the 1960s and through today. My largest complaint is that I wish the author explored more of the modern consequences of the gun rights movement, though I understand that wasn't the intent of this book.
While I won't lie and say this is an easy read, it's also not a complete slog. It's just a little north of 100,000 words broken over 8 chapters, easy enough to break down into smaller bites and read over the course of a week or two. With that in mind, I highly recommend every one who cares about the issue to read this book. We now live in an age where gun violence is the #1 cause of death amongst children, and the rest of the civilized world toggles between amused bewilderment and disgusted shock at our weird, chaotic obsession with guns, rooted for many people in an ahistorical patriotism. I can only hope that with better access to correct information, our country can start to correct it's course of the past 60 years and return to our historical norm: common-sense gun regulation.
March 28, 2018
It is interesting and relevant though not easy reading. I was surprised to learn how far back laws went regulating the carrying of weapons in public places, as well as the information about discussions (during the time when the Constitution was being written) of bearing arms being specifically about militias, and what a "well-regulated" militia was. There was a ton of detailed information about all of it, though, so I often had to go back and re-read what I had just read because I had trouble keeping my mind focused on it. The good thing about so much detailed information, though, was that there were references for everything in the notes in the back (which make up a very large chunk of the book), so I know it is all documented.
I found the sections on more recent history less satisfying. While the sections on older history seemed pretty balanced, in the parts on more recent history the author seemed to give value judgments of people on both sides (and it seems pretty clear what side he would be on) more than before, rather than just stating facts about who did and said what. That makes it harder to have confidence in the facts he presents, because of course even facts can be used to promote one side or the other by selective use.
What I really would have been interested in would be a discussion of the statistics used by both sides to support their claims regarding the result of more restrictive gun control laws, one side claiming it reduces crime and the other side that it increases it. He alludes to the issue numerous times but does not go into it the basis for the arguments on each side.
I found the sections on more recent history less satisfying. While the sections on older history seemed pretty balanced, in the parts on more recent history the author seemed to give value judgments of people on both sides (and it seems pretty clear what side he would be on) more than before, rather than just stating facts about who did and said what. That makes it harder to have confidence in the facts he presents, because of course even facts can be used to promote one side or the other by selective use.
What I really would have been interested in would be a discussion of the statistics used by both sides to support their claims regarding the result of more restrictive gun control laws, one side claiming it reduces crime and the other side that it increases it. He alludes to the issue numerous times but does not go into it the basis for the arguments on each side.
April 8, 2020
His thesis is correct and well-supported: The Second Amendment was meant to prevent the federal government from creating a permanent military by starving out the militias. Over time it's meaning evolved into a truism that it was meant to prevent any regulations on firearms, thanks in part to an organized political movement.
While I think he makes a correct argument, the writing is inconsistent. The early chapters on English and colonial histories are the most interesting, but he spends too much time in polemical digressions before shifting back to a more lawyerly/academic prose. These polemics would've been better left for a concluding chapter. The rest of the book focuses heavily on the 1950s and 60s periods when the NRA transitioned from a sportsman's organization to a fully political lobby. There are some interesting tidbits here but it becomes redundant.
It's probably worth having on your shelf if you're interested in this sort of thing, but it won't have much appeal beyond that.
While I think he makes a correct argument, the writing is inconsistent. The early chapters on English and colonial histories are the most interesting, but he spends too much time in polemical digressions before shifting back to a more lawyerly/academic prose. These polemics would've been better left for a concluding chapter. The rest of the book focuses heavily on the 1950s and 60s periods when the NRA transitioned from a sportsman's organization to a fully political lobby. There are some interesting tidbits here but it becomes redundant.
It's probably worth having on your shelf if you're interested in this sort of thing, but it won't have much appeal beyond that.
March 1, 2019
Good book and well worth the trudge through all the history and law from before the US Constitution and the evolution of the NRA into the full out gun lobby they are today - although the book isn’t specifically about the NRA. I came away feeling that although the 2nd Amendment has evolved clearly in my view into something problematic. Nevertheless, in the end I believe Americans of all stripes want their guns and I see it as virtually impossible to change or even roll that back what we have today. In my view it won’t change, if ever, in the next 100 years without something drastic happening and I don’t see what could possibly look like. Anyway, I do see it as an excellent read and the author seems to organize his research and views well but doesn’t offer a solution. Ergo I came up with my own monitor and do nothing.
July 7, 2019
A great NRA-debunker that propagates individual interpretation of second amendment. NRA propaganda is flimsy and weak and it is politically motivated to keep the guns in the hands of few individuals.
The book narrated from pre revolutionary wars to present times. The evolution of NRA from 19th century marksmanship trainer to powerful political lobbyist is extraordinary. However it filled with the lies and self fulfilling prophecy.
The book narrated from pre revolutionary wars to present times. The evolution of NRA from 19th century marksmanship trainer to powerful political lobbyist is extraordinary. However it filled with the lies and self fulfilling prophecy.
June 26, 2022
This was an extremely thorough book. Charles said he took ten years researching the history of the Second Amendment and it shows. He makes a compelling argument for the Amendment's original meaning and explores how its interpretation changed and how special interests distorted its meaning over time. Anyone looking for a comprehensive history of the Second Amendment should read this exhaustive history.
June 21, 2018
A scrupuluously researched deep intricate examination of how the interpretation, by both the legal profession and society's few of Gun rights has drastically changed. Charles uncovers a web of lies, misinterpretation and outright fabrication that the Modern Gun Rights movement has engaged in.
Essential for anyone interested in the seemingly never-ending gun controversy.
Essential for anyone interested in the seemingly never-ending gun controversy.
December 13, 2019
Controversial topic. The author reaches into English Law, Common Law, and American Law to document the changes in American attitudes and use of the firearm.
The books thorough documentation allowed me to form an opinion independent of the author. I feel educated by the facts. Tough read, but it held my interest.
The books thorough documentation allowed me to form an opinion independent of the author. I feel educated by the facts. Tough read, but it held my interest.
December 27, 2024
Armed and dangerous, is a must read for anybody who wants to learn about the second amendment. This book offers numerous and copious amounts of citations and notes, digging in to the true history of the idea of keeping and bearing arms..
March 18, 2026
One of the best comprehensive works on the Second Amendment and the subsequent history of the gun rights movement.
Read
February 22, 2019344.73053 C476 2018
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews