On March 11, 2024, Dr. John Lott debated the eminent law professor Sanford Levinson on the subject: Was the Second Amendment a Mistake? The debate lasted about an hour. It was held at the University of Wisconsin and started at 6:30 p.m. The debate was sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). The moderator was Professor Ryan Owens.
Unlike much of what we see in politics, the debate was cordial and civilized. There was no student protest to prevent Dr. Lott from being able to debate Professor Levinson. Dr. Lott is an eminent scholar on gun control issues. Dr. Levison is credited with doing much to give credibility to the scholarly examination of the Second Amendment with his article entitled “The Embarrassing Second Amendment,” published in the Yale Law Journal in 1989.
The format of the debate was: Introductions, 10 minutes to Dr. Lott, 10 minutes to Professor Levinson, 2 minutes to Dr. Lott for rebuttal, 2 minutes for Dr. Levinson for rebuttal; then a question and answer period with questions from the moderator and the audience. Because of time constraints, the Q & A period was merged with concluding remarks, first by Professor Levinson, with Dr. Lott speaking last.
Both men are obviously gifted and well-practiced public speakers. They showed how a civilized debate can be held without shouting and histrionics. As often happens in debates, they answered the question from significantly different points of view.
Dr. Lott’s position was that of an empiricist, appropriate for his training and profession as an economist. His position was the Second Amendment was not a mistake because more guns means more protection for the vulnerable in society.
Professor Levinson’s position was a classic position of Progressives. It consisted of two basic points. First, that was then; this is now. Things have changed. Policies have to change with circumstances. The Second Amendment keeps the government from making changes. Second, restrictions on government are bad. Government is good.
It appeared to this correspondent Dr. Lott’s empirical approach was more persuasive. Professor Levison suggested, at one point, that given Dr. Lott’s position, the government should subsidize the purchase of guns by lower-income people. Dr. Lott responded by saying he would be happy if the government would simply stop making it harder for poor people to purchase and carry guns.
Professor Levison burnished his academic reputation by stating one of the best supports for the U.S. v Heller decision was the Dred Scott decision, decided in 1857. He gave an accurate portrayal of Chief Justice Taney’s explanation of why black people could not be considered citizens. Black people would then be able to carry guns with them wherever they would go. This academic exercise seemed to support Dr. Lott’s position more than Professor Levinson’s.
Student questions in the Q&A were less informed. It is to be expected. Perhaps they were sophomores. Responses to the questions were thoughtful and well-reasoned.
The debate is worth watching. It shows how a civilized debate should be held. Dr. Lott starts with a technique I have used: praising your opponent. It becomes harder for them to use ad hominem attacks, and it sets the tone for a fact-based contest.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
I have had enough of the idiots who claim the world has changed, so the Constitution must change. Nonsense. The Constitution was essentially about dealing with human nature, not technological changes. Human nature does not change. The Constitution could have been written 1000 years before and still be valid now, with very little change. The Constitution was intended to protect us from the slimeballs who want their power and greed to trump our rights (see Democrats as a good example). These slimeballs transcend the decades and centuries. They existed then, they exist now, and they will exist in the future.… Read more »
Progressive means Communist. They want us disarmed so they can do to us what Cimnunusts have done 100% of the time. Sorry Levinson, you can keep your Communism. We’ll keep our Constitution. If you don’t like my guns, come and take them.
this was a good debate, something you don’t see much of these days. the Constitution and Bill of Rights is about the individual, that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness thing. it puts limits on the government’s use of power against the individual. therefore all the Amendments in the Bill of Rights is designed to empower the individual (citizen) and not the government. the progs could call for another Constitutional convention to amend the Constitution, let them try. newsome is calling for one. john definitely won, stanley was just whining about the government (judges) having too much power. but isn’t… Read more »
Dean,
Thanks for posting the Youtube video. I’ve read several of Dr. Lott’s books. However, I hadn’t heard about this debate. I’m looking forward to a hearing their very interesting conversation. Dr. Lott’s excellent data analysis is extremely powerful. FWIW, Professor Levison’s argument that the Dread Scott Decision is support for modifying, or perhaps even abolishing the Second Amendment “because times are ‘a changing'” makes him appear to be a modern racist seeking to reverse the gains of the past 160 years.
The 2nd amendment was not a mistake. It’s intended purpose was to remind what once was our government that we have a right to protect ourselves with firearms and that right shall not be infringed. They made that clear for one reason. That America will never be ruled by a monarchy but ran by We the People which was our own designed government. I choose the word WAS because it has turned into that which they feared would happen.
Benjamin Franklin: A free republic if you can keep it.
Oregoneistan
There are those who feel that the entire American Revolution, and much of what came after, were a series of mistakes that proper British gentlemen would not have made and a pretty convincing demonstration of why the rabble must not be allowed to rule.
I tend not to agree with them. But what else would you expect from one of the bitter clinging deplorable class?