http://www.cato.org/events/living-guns-liberals-case-second-amendment
Within the aftermath of the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, firearm regulation has understandably moved to the forefront of our nationwide political debate. Even earlier than Newtown, the tragic mass shootings in Arizona and Colorado, and the botched Operation Quick and Livid, had saved this situation within the information. However many now are indicating that this tragedy, its nature and the way it has surprised our nation, pushes the problem to a tipping level.
Whereas America has a practice of personal gun possession for self-defense and sport, what might be achieved concerning the rising battle between a person’s proper to personal weapons and the general public’s want to be protected from gun violence? The Second Modification has lengthy been some of the divisive points in American society. Whereas there have been few nationwide authorized developments for the reason that Supreme Court docket’s rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), states have been adjusting their legal guidelines — and public services altering their safety techniques — ever for the reason that Columbine college taking pictures in 1999, and litigation continues within the decrease courts.
Sadly, nationwide discussions of gun coverage usually devolve into sound bites, dueling headlines, lobbying campaigns, however accomplish little. Polarized, entrenched positions fail to constructively grapple with the elemental coverage query: How will we hold weapons away from violent criminals? Ought to we concentrate on psychological sickness, background checks, assault weapons, or one thing else? In Residing with Weapons, former New York Instances reporter and editor Craig Whitney re-examines the precise to bear arms, why it was enshrined within the Invoice of Rights, and the way it got here to be misunderstood. Whitney proposes pragmatic options to manage gun violence reasonably than weapons, and concepts to maintain them out of the palms of the individuals whom everybody agrees should not have them. Commenting on this well timed new e-book might be Alan Gura and Alan Morrison, who have been on reverse sides of the Heller case.
source
