Gun Control and the Right to Arms after 9/11

Author(s):  
David B. Kopel ◽  
Paul Gallant ◽  
Joanne D. Eisen
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Vibeke Sofie Sandager Rønnedal

The discussion of the right to keep and bear arms has been a growing issue in American society during the past two decades. This article examines the origin of the right and whether it is still relevant in contemporary American society. It is found that the Second Amendment was written for two main reasons: to protect the people of the frontier from wildlife and foreign as well as native enemies, and to ensure the citizen militia being armed and ready to fight for a country with a deep-rooted mistrust of a standing army and a strongly centralized government. As neither of these reasons have applied to American society for at least the past century, it is concluded that American society has changed immensely since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, and that the original purpose of the right to keep and bear arms thus has been outdated long ago.


Author(s):  
Serena (Ai Nuo) Geng

This presentation will begin by looking at the concept of deep disagreements and how it relates to the current debate on gun-control in America. Deep disagreements occur when people do not share the same underlying assumptions as coined by  Fogelin (1985). Next, I will examine the issue of gun-control through the two main arguments of the pro-gun party: that guns make America a safer place and that the U.S. Constitution grants American citizens the right to bear arms. I will then offer anti-gun arguments against these claims as well as independent anti-gun claims in an attempt to rationally reconcile the two sides. Lastly, I will conclude with the assertion that the debate on gun-control is in fact rationally reconcilable.


2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 448-468
Author(s):  
Tatiana Borisova

Several days after a failed assassination attempt on the life of the Russian Tsar on 2 April 1879, a new regime of ‘permission to exercise the right to purchase and carry weapons’ was introduced in St. Petersburg. Despite the fact that the first attempt on Alexander II's life occurred in 1866 (also in St. Petersburg), it took 13 years to make a radical departure from the previously unrestricted regime of access to arms in the capital of the Russian Empire. In this article, I analyse archival materials documenting how this new regime of weapons ownership was implemented. In particular, I am interested in the dimensions of locality and temporality in the practices by which imperial legislation introduced gun control in St. Petersburg and Warsaw, the Russian Empire's most cosmopolitan cities. The archival documents that I rely on show that the gun control regulations that were intended to be a repressive act of the authorities in reality unfolded as a process of negotiations and merciful exclusions. The intermediaries of the imperial legal order reacted to the international challenges that were posed by emergent revolutionary movements, including the negotiation of the permissible restriction of subjects’ rights. As a result, new practices of ‘public safety’ were implemented as exceptional measures – both locally and temporally. This article sheds light on the imperial legal regime of gun control as a practice of ‘exception’.


Author(s):  
Hugh Lafollette

I summarize the most prominent arguments for a right to bear arms; then I evaluate them. Many ordinary citizens claim that this right is fundamental. They often cite the Second Amendment to the US Constitution to support their contention. I briefly discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling on the proper interpretation of this amendment. I show that even though it is thought to support pro-gun advocates, it is expressly compatible with a wide variety of gun control measures. It is also tangential to the moral issue. I then explore two philosophical arguments that the right to bear arms is fundamental I focus on the more common and most promising argument: private gun ownership is a vital means of self-defense. I evaluate these arguments. None are wholly convincing.


The Forum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan I. Abramowitz

Abstract Using the extensive battery of issue questions included in the 2020 ANES survey, I find that a single underlying liberal-conservative dimension largely explains the policy preferences of ordinary Americans across a wide range of issues including the size and scope of the welfare state, abortion, gay and transgender rights, race relations, immigration, gun control and climate change. I find that the distribution of preferences on this liberal-conservative issue scale is highly polarized with Democratic identifiers and leaners located overwhelmingly on the left, Republican identifiers and leaners located overwhelmingly on the right and little overlap between the two distributions. Finally, I show that ideological preferences strongly predict feelings toward the parties and presidential candidates. These findings indicate that polarization in the American public has a rational foundation. Hostility toward the opposing party reflects strong disagreement with the policies of the opposing party. As long as the parties remain on the opposite sides of almost all major issues, feelings of mistrust and animosity are unlikely to diminish regardless of Donald Trump’s future role in the Republican Party.


Author(s):  
Richard B. Collins ◽  
Dale A. Oesterle ◽  
Lawrence Friedman

This chapter explains Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, which establishes the right of home rule for cities and towns. Added in 1902, The article created the City and County of Denver, invested it with broad home rule powers and Colorado’s first initiative and veto referendum provisions, and authorized other cities to adopt home rule charters. A 1912 citizens’ initiative revised Section 6 to make home rule powers more specific and available to more municipalities. The 1970 addition of Section 16 authorized home rule for counties. Sections 10 through 13 were added in 1998 to establish the City and County of Broomfield. with powers and structure similar to Denver. The article’s terms leave much to judicial interpretation. Hotly contested issues have included oil and gas regulation, eminent domain powers, rent control, and gun control.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mugambi Jouet

Abstract The article provides a theoretical perspective on the symbolic meaning of the right to bear arms in modern America, especially among its conservative movement. Neglecting this issue, scholarship on gun symbolism has commonly focused on guns possessed by offenders in inner-cities, such as juveniles or gang members. Offering a multidisciplinary and comparative outlook, the article explains how guns have become symbols of a worldview under which armed patriots must stand ready to defend America from “tyranny,” “big government,” “socialism,” and other existential threats. In particular, the U.S. conservative movement does not merely perceive the right to bear arms as a means of self-defense against criminals, but as a safeguard against an oppressive government that “patriots” may have to overthrow by force. The article examines the hypothesis that guns foster a sense of belonging in this conception of nationhood. This worldview is not solely limited to politicians, elites, or activists, as it can encompass rank-and-file conservatives. Group identification can rest on sharing radical beliefs that enhance cohesion, including rallying against perceived threats. This mindset helps explain resistance to elementary reforms to regulate firearms. If one believes that an unbridled right to bear arms is not only key to protecting the United States, but also key to what it means to be an American, concessions on gun control become difficult to envision. While conservatives in other Western democracies tend to support significant gun control, a key dimension of American exceptionalism is the relative normalization of a conservative identity in which firearms have acquired a peculiar symbolic value.


2017 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 144
Author(s):  
Shannon Pritting

Gun Politics in America: Historical and Modern Documents in Context is an affordable two-volume set comprised of eight chapters ranging from the early eighteenth century to President Obama’s first term. Each chapter is made up of about fifteen primary source documents covering major periods in firearms and politics in the United States, with 134 sources total. In addition, each chapter has a roughly ten-page introduction that provides an overview of the social and cultural climate of the period covered by the chapter, with the focus on how the period connects with gun control and the politics surrounding firearms. The chapter introductions do an excellent job of connecting themes in gun control such as race relations, crime rates, organized crime, drugs, and other specific issues related to gun control such as the right to self-defense and concealed carrying of firearms.


Significance Although much of its docket remains to be filled, it has chosen to address some of the country’s most politically contentious topics. It has scheduled arguments on cases that will shape the right to abortion, affect aspects of gun control and free speech, and reconsider the separation of church and state. Impacts The justices will now be in the Supreme Court building rather than working remotely, but with altered rules for oral arguments. In addition to cases already accepted, the Court could choose to hear a case about race-based admissions at Harvard University. The Court’s new conservative majority makes it more probable that several long-standing legal precedents will be overruled. Justice Stephen Breyer, now aged 83, is continuing on the Court despite some calls for him to retire.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document