Very long and broken up up several posts so I'm just going to provide a link to it which is at the DFA forum.

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/forums/...opic.php?t=2415

I feel, and felt that the first section was an interesting overview of the debate, that might have its greatest value as a vehicle for self-analysis. However it seems that with the author's attempt to distance himself from the debate he has neutered it, and left is quite bland. Basically it would have been more effective with a quick overview, and an analysis of points and counterpoints on any applicable issues. Furthermore the only time he really does an analysis is when covering the issue of armed rebellion and tyrannical government, and on this he takes a decidedly anti-gun and one sided stance, not mentioning that he downplays, to say the least, the influence of the current political system on his analysis. In fact it seems almost like he is skirting around, without acutally tackling, the political environment that produces the conditions and issues that are discussed, almost to excess considering what value one may take from the piece. I must, of course, concede that i did not very well see the legal perspective discussed in section III very well, although i will still assert that he takes an anti-gun stand throughout the paper, as well as the assumption that there is no rational basis for discussion or compromise on this issue. Very specifically i personally have qualms with his repeated assertion that ones views on gun control are set in stone and dependent on factors he does not really seems to discuss in a concrete or scientific manner. At one time i was very much in favor of gun control, although i believed that the second amendment was an essential liberty that provided security from tyranny that may come from all avenues. There is something to be said when speaking of bombers and whatnot but if this country were invaded, or our government became tyrannical or corrupt beyond repair through peaceful means than an effective resitance could be mounted barring drastic steps taken by the occoupying power.

Panel (if it could be called that) I still seems to favor an interpretation that is deeply flawed, namely that of the right to bear arms only as a collective right, even though a more balanced interpretation could be gleaned from the quotations and antic dotes presented. The flawed logic is quite evident in the paragraph where it is, in conclusion, asserted that: "bearing arms was a form of taxation" than going on to write: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves". Than we get the paradoxical: "The Pennsylvania Constitution also declared that the right to bear arms existed as a means for the people to act in "defence of themselves and the state." n72 Modern gun rights scholarship has consistently misread this phrase as stating an individual, private right of self-defense. n73 The Pennsylvania Constitution did not assert a right of each person to bear arms in defense of himself and the state". Than, in the same paragraph comes: "The militia existed to deal with internal dangers such as riot or insurrection" which makes me wonder how much history this guy actually knows (think shay's rebellion and the whiskey rebellion). Than we have the idea, that the writer almost pullet out of his rear, that there is no right to self defense, which further makes me question his historical knowledge considering the repeated conflicts and skirmishes with indians which in no way involved the militia (i am of course excluding the imperialist indian war of the late 18th century, but if included it does nothing to tarnish my point). The criticism of Amar's theories concering RKBA is interesting as it applies very much to the arguments being made by the author in this case and others throughout his sections, surmised well in this quote: "... from a model of consensus history that simply does not reflect the complexity of the historical record.". I would still assert that there is a very much anti-gun stance in the guise of objectivity(although there was some hint as to the cynical nature of its writers in the introduction) taken a proper reading of this document would require a significant amount of background knowledge, as was true with the introduction.

All in all i would say the first two chapters are a thinly veiled attempt at putting forth an analysis for purposes unknown, which ends up being a sort of wink-wink, nod-nod piece for the anti-gun position. Ill finish my analysis when i have more time (i might do four+ sections tonight).