Dana succeeds in putting the emphasis where it belongs, not upon particular weapons or their accessories, but upon the reason for which the 2nd Amendment was written - the Individual Right and ability to defend your and your family's lives, and the liberty we should all expect to enjoy. This is a solid book through and through, and I'll make particular note of the following highlights:
Chp. 2 'Obama's War on Guns', traces the views of Barack Obama from his early years, when in answering a questionnaire on whether he
"...supported a law to "ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns."...Barack Obama simply answered,
"Yes."", to his later political responses that
"a complete ban of handguns is not politically practicable."- let the implications of that answer sink in - to his administration's support for the U.N.'s 'Arms Trade Treaty' that would establish and maintain a national control system, with lists provided to the U.N.'s Secretariat. From that and much more, it is clear that the progressive left in general, and this administration in particular, would like to end the protections provided by the 2nd Amendment as we know it, and that we must oppose them by informing ourselves and speaking up.
Chp. 7 'The Left-Wing Lynching', emphasizes that especially for minorities and the physically or politically weak, the Individual Right which the 2nd Amendment protects is critical to the substance of Individual Rights as such, and that the modern progressive left is flat out opposed to it. Loesch notes that in the infamous Supreme Court decision in "Dred Scott v. Sandford", one of the reasons which Justice Taney (Democrat appt, BTW) cited for the judgment that blacks could be owned as property and Never be considered citizens, was that recognizing blacks as citizens
"would give them the full liberty... and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.". The fact is, that to deprive persons of the right to defend their lives, deprives them not only of a central tenet of citizenship, but of personhood - and we all have reason to fear a govt that would view you as neither; a view which is every bit as compatible today, as it was in 1860, with the 'progressive' aims of the Left.
Chp. 8 'Founding Firearms', traces the development of the 'right to bear arms' in English law, and how the limitations which it observed, in deference to a Ruler, were rejected by our Founders. The media matters hit piece plagiarized in several of the 1 star reviews in Amazon's customer reviews (which, BTW, are hugely outnumbered by 4 & 5 star reviews - and the book is listing at '#1 Best Seller in Law Enforcement' as of this moment!), illustrate just how frightened and intellectually disarmed the rabid left is by Dana Loesch!
First off, she makes very clear that she is selecting quotations provided by the 'Buckeye Firearms Association' which she noted had
"...compiled a list of quotes attributed to various Founders that demolished beyond any shadow of a doubt "what was understood by them, and intended with, the 2nd Amendment. Despite MMFA's over the top accusations, Dana isn't the one who edited the quotations for brevity (and the edits do not alter their meaning whatsoever), she's simply reproducing what they've published.
Secondly, not only do the few quotations which MMFA felt they could parse into taking issue with, fully comport with why they were chosen, it is only the Left's feeble understanding of our Founders, their era, of Individual Rights and the meaning of a Militia, that enabled them to make their charges with a straight face. The least bit of understanding of such meaningful matters, shows that they mean exactly what their quote conveys!
The Supreme Court provides further back up for that point in the recent case, 'DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER', where after reviewing the history, the court judged that:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2-53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22."
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms."It even goes on to quote a favorite reference of mine, with
"...In 1825, William Rawle, a prominent lawyer who had been a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly that ratified the Bill of Rights, published an influential treatise, which analyzed the Second Amendment as follows:On top of all that, maybe the most glaring problem with the quotations that 'media matters' so desperately parsed, is how many others were cited which not even their indomitable ignorance could find an issue with!
"The first [principle] is a declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. . . .
"The corollary, from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." Rawle 121-122.20
Chp. 10 'Reclaiming the Language', Stresses the importance of taking back the language and that in talking about the 2nd Amdt we are talking about our lives and our right to them,
"This is a liberty inherent to American citizens that was not formed by the state, or granted, given, or gifted to the citizen. It is a liberty with which they are born, the privilege of free citizens belonging to a free state."
, and we should not allow such important matters to be reduced to emotional appeals and fears over the 'shootier' appearances of particular guns, which the left is so desperate to focus upon.
Dana also skewers a favorite bugaboo of mine, of how the 'Yelling fire in a crowded theater' is continually misused to justify infringing on our liberties:
"I hear this argument ad nauseum from the uninformed as a way to negate the liberties of a law-abiding American. Never accept this phrase even in passing. It's simply historically ignorant to use in this context."If you've ever been caught unsure of how to respond to that, then these few paragraphs alone are worth the price of the book! In 'Schenk v. United States' Justice Holmes specifically states that
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439 , 31 S. Sup. Ct. 492, 55 L. ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."IOW 'falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic' would not be allowed, emphasis on FALSELY. Just as you have no right to falsely slander someone, you have no right to falsely incite a panic, but neither is a limitation upon your freedom of speech. I'm no fan of Justice Holmes (or J.S. Mill which the quote ultimately goes back to), but while Context matters, in all things, the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' should never be tolerated as an excuse for abridging our rights and liberties.
Chp. 11 'The Fourteen Biggest Anti-Gun Lies, Debunked', Read it - it will strengthen you and infuriate the Left!
Perhaps most surprising of all is Chp. 12 'Victory', and how optimistic Dana Loesch is about the 2nd Amendment not only surviving the current attacks of the progressive leftist (who are Pro-Regressive through and through), but about the future of our society, an optimism which is unusual these days and a very welcome point of view!
Buy this book, read it, discuss it, change the world!