Ep. 49: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (with David Kopel)

David Kopel joins us this week for a discussion on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: the right to keep and bear firearms.

Aaron Powell and Trevor Burrus introduce the debate over gun rights in America today by asking questions: Why allow people to own guns at all? Aren’t we past that point as a civilization? Does having more guns around actually reduce crime? How many crimes each year are stopped by guns...and how many don't occur in the first place because criminals think their victims could have guns? Is it worth the risk to have guns in the home? Are public health concerns about gun ownership well-founded? Assault weapons—what are they and why do American gun control groups want to ban them in particular? And if the Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms, what's to stop an individual from owning something like a tank or a personal rocket launcher?

David B. Kopel is an associate policy analyst at the Cato Institute, research director at the Independence Institute, and adjunct professor of Advanced Constitutional Law at Denver University, Sturm College of Law. He is an expert on firearms policy, juvenile crime, drug policy, antitrust, constitutional law, criminal sentencing, and environmental law.

Show Notes and Further Reading

David B. Kopel, The Truth About Gun Control (book)

John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (book)

[blurglide]

The 2A isn't for home defense; it's to ensure the security of a free state.  The 2A should allow citizens to own typical infantry weapons, including full-auto rifles.

[jasonhacker]

 every single person i know owns many guns.

[crazysquirrel]

Where in the constitution does it give the right to keep and bears arms to the GOVERNMENT? It doesn't.
But the constitution DOES give that right to the PEOPLE.


Where in the constitution does it grant ANYONE the right to limit, revoke, scrutinize, etc to anyone, including the government?


About restoring gun rights. State pardon, and some states will let you get them restored if you only violate state law.
Federal law requires a presidential pardon of a court fully restoring your right.


Asking you to fill out a form 4473 is a presumption of GUILT.
It presumes you are guilty of some crime unless you prove otherwise (by the content of that form)
A clear violation of the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments.


There are NO negative personal rights in the constitution PERIOD.


We do not and should not need cops to come protect us. That is OUR responsibility. SCOTUS ruled that cops have no duty to protect you.


Once your feet hit the curb, all rights are supposed to be instantly restored without further ado. Includes guns, voting, same as everyone else's rights. As if they were never suspended or revoked.


Think someone is too dangerous to have a gun, then prove they are intending on committing a crime to prove they committed a crime FIRST.
Keep them locked up until they CAN be trusted again.
It is that simple.


So many problems with this video....


We have too many laws that are created just to revoke gun rights and too many elevated to revoke gun rights too.


Even EX criminals have the right to self defense.


What woman or disabled person or older person can fend off a young strong attacker? Or several attackers (like roving groups of teens as example)?
Almost none can.
And the ones who can least defend themselves, others, property (includes pets, cars, etc too) are the ones in most need of guns. And use in self defense with total impunity.

[crazysquirrel]

Nukes and chemical/biological arms are purely offensive arms.
Tanks and bazookas and rpg's are not.
Machine guns and 'assault rifles' are defensive weapons.

[EdwardFeenman]

Screw rifles, I want to keep and bear Predator drones, and and other nasty little tool of the state.
Think your .50 BMG will protect you from Hellfires?
All I want to know is who is developing the emp round for my rifle so I can defend myself from one of these remote controlled death hawks....
The state has advanced so far out in front I think someone needs to start thinking about what's next in terms of challenging authority of the state.
Gun advocates and hackers need to come together.
I bet they stop worrying about mag capacity when someone brings a radio wave jamming rifle to market. (I'm guessing here, someone knows better then I about dropping drones.)

All I know is that we are stuck trying to defend the basics while the whole idea is being made obsolete.

[emilefrenette]

Boring interview, the hosts sound more like moderates progressives than libertarians.