Reddit mentions of The Second Amendment

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X/

https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010/

https://www.amazon.com/Gunfight-Battle-Over-Right-America/dp/0393345831

https://www.amazon.com/Living-Guns-Liberals-Second-Amendment/dp/1610391691/

https://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Second-Amendment-Documentary-Commentaries/dp/0962366439

https://www.amazon.com/Armed-America-Remarkable-Became-American/dp/1595552847

https://www.amazon.com/Keep-Bear-Arms-Origins-Anglo-American/dp/0674893077

https://www.amazon.com/Targeting-Guns-Firearms-Control-Institutions/dp/0202305694

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/147674744X

If the 2nd amendment read 'The right to bear arms shall not be infringed' you'd be on solid ground. But that's not what it says. If you're interested in what the founders meant by the 2nd, how how the NRA began perverting that meaning in the second half of the 20th century, I recommend this book https://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Amendment-A-Biography/dp/147674744X.

Sure thing.

I first came across the discussion about the origin on this podcast:
http://www.decodedc.com/154-2/

I also highly recommend reading Joseph Ellis’s book, “The Quartet”, which gives an excellent discussion about the process of how the Constitution came to replace the Articles of Confederation.
https://www.amazon.com/Quartet-Orchestrating-American-Revolution-1783-1789/dp/080417248X

These two sources were the most impactful to me, and there’s been many other sources here and there that have helped fill in between the lines. I live in Richmond, VA, where numerous historical markers show just how big of a deal slave revolts were to the founding society.

I’m currently reading “The Second Ammedment: a Biography” by Michael Waldman.
https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/147674744X

>"absence of evidence"

No, no, my mistake. I wasn't clear, or making a particular ideological argument. I was making the point that your argument hinges on Madison's lack of commentary about the Second (e.g making inferences about language used in the first draft). And reading what I wrote now, it appears I didn't completely understand that we were talking about different points. It is not controversial that Madison did not expect the BOR to apply to anything but the Federal government.

>I may be misunderstanding your argument because the former is a common conservative/libertarian argument.

yeah, that is not what i was talking about. In 2A case law, broadly speaking, there are two completing theories of what the amendment means. This guy does a better job describing what I was talking about in this PDF:

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=4021&context=flr

Saul Cornel describes the debate in the first few pages of the PDF; if memory serves me correctly, he comes down pretty hard on the collective interpretation, or at least that gun ownership can be more forcefully regulated (which I also agree with), but it has been a few years since I've touched the subject. Anyway, if I'm wrong about where he comes down, I'm citing paper only as a primer on the debate.

Also, it is a pre-heller paper, so it is super dated. I read a book that relied heavily on Cornel about three years ago: https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/147674744X

It is worth the read. Its short and entertaining, especially the first few chapters.

If you want to read a credible unbiased book on the subject, maybe you should start here.

I won't pretend to have read all of it, but I've read the first half of it (the part that discusses the historical applications of the 2nd amendment in the USA).

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/12/16418524/us-gun-policy-nra

Of particular interest would be the book https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/147674744X which actually goes into the written notes of debate on the amendment which completely surrounded a militia and only a militia.

Michael Waldman's book on The Second Amendment would probably be an interesting read.

It covers the NRA's shift from the original purpose it was founded (a marksmanship group to train men in the safe usage of firearms since army officers were appalled at how garbo their soldiers were) and how it almost collapsed after the government pulled funding from it.

The most interesting shift would happen in the 1970s and it's interaction with the issues the Republican party was having. People were upset at the liberalism of the 60s and the ideals of libertarianism was taking hold. Through our history, we had some semblance of gun control, even through the Western frontier ("wild" West). That would get challenged in the 1970s. The Republican party up until that point was pro-gun control also but people started viewing them as not conservative enough and it was costing them elections and seats. Enter Harlan Carter and the Revolt at Cincinnati within the NRA along with Reagan taking a shift away from the Republican party's pro-gun control stance and writing an article for Guns n Ammo. Harlan Carter as a hardliner against gun control legislation and the Republican party's crisis would turn the NRA into a strong lobbying group with the Republican party being receptive.

It would culminate with Reagan's nomination to the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, under the guise of his "originalism" theory making the Supreme Court's first true ruling on the 2nd Amendment as a "personal liberty" statement and right, influenced by contemporary politics and general public sentiment rather than actual originalism.

> First, It specifically says "Shall not be infringed". The constitution doesn't give a shit what purpose people have for their firearms, only that the we are able to posses and use them.

Actually the purposes were for membership in a "well regulated Militia", which had a specific, technical meaning at the time that 2A was written. In modern terminology, it basically meant that if you were a member of the National Guard, you were to provide your own weapon, and the Feds could not prevent you from owning a firearms for said membership.

Similarly, "bear arms" also had a specific, technical meaning, and it was related to military members. Separating the two words into individual terms, like Scalia did in his decision, is incorrect if you're going to go with originalism meaning (as Scalia did); it is a compound two-word term.

The 2A, as originally written was a collective right, whereas starting in about 1965 (and especially after the 1970s, post Cincinnati revolt NRA) it started to be espoused as an individual right. This individual right was codified by Heller, but it is a novel idea.

A good book on the history is The Second Amendment: A Biography:

• https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/147674744X/
  
  If you want a more abbreviated version, this PDF law review article from 2000 (pre-Heller) goes over the literature:
  
  > [...] from the time law review articles first began to be indexed in 1887 until 1960, all law review articles dealing with the Second Amendment endorsed the collective right model.
  
  
• http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3286&context=cklawreview