I think we all know that interpretation of the second amendment is a pretty hot button issue right now. With that being the case, it's important for the individual to understand not only what the amendment says but also how it has been interpreted throughout history. This book does a great job of explaining that context. It takes us through the history of firearms in general and pre-American rules governing guns. All of this context informs how firearms were managed in the early days of our country. Each chapter takes us through a phase of history, at times focusing on a particular theme - race, economy, westward expansion. That specialized focus means we get a little bit of repetition but usually this includes new context so it's understandable. We learn how public perception of guns and gun control have changed over time and due to different influences. The content is clear enough to be understood by young teens but not so simplistic as to be condescending. The text on a whole has a bit of a pro gun control vibe but the arguments are clear and logic based.

Honestly, I think the most unfortunate thing about Hana Bajramovic's <em>Whose Right Is It? The Second Amendment and the Fight Over Gun Rights</em> is that a biased mind will not be able to read it without their biases taking over. In truth, I am not entirely immune to that fact, either. It's hard to look at facts of any kind and not want to make them work in favor of your beliefs. And, by virtue of even Bajramovic's own bias, certain pieces that were included are definitely left-leaning.

<b>Bias</b>

That said, this book is more factual than left leaning. Yes, the author has an opinion and expresses it, but that doesn’t make the facts and figures untrue. The majority of this book is literally just laying out the facts as they are. Occasionally, commentaries crop up, but most of are quotes from important public figures in the history of gun law. And with several quotes coming from the conversation of school shootings, it's hardly surprising that those favor common sense gun laws.

So, there's a bias to the book. I won't deny that. But I think it's important to recognize that right-leaning anger about that bias is stronger not because the book is not factual, but rather because certain quotes and pieces of gun history don't align with their desires. Quite frankly, however, certain pieces of gun history don't align with left desires, either.

It is unquestionable that any book about gun laws and rights is going to be subject to political bias. That is true in the simple fact that the history of gun laws involves <em>many</em> differing views. To fully report on such a subject, both views will have to be discussed. And in this book, they are. For the most part, that is done in fact-based reporting.

<b>The Author's Opinion</b>

Yes, the author's opinion comes up. In a book like this, it's hard to expect that it wouldn't. What I think is particularly telling about this is the fact that the author spends the majority of the book simply reporting on facts, quoting research and public figures. She gives facts and figures on court cases and on gun law history throughout the course of the entire book.

And, at the end, she includes her opinion. The last thing she leaves her readers with is where she thinks the gun right debate should go. It is here, I think, that she loses a lot of the right-leaning audience. In truth, I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, I agree with a lot of it. On the other, I don't know how useful that was. But, then again, it depends on who the author is trying to reach.

There's also a lot of emotion involved in the conversation of school shootings. It's difficult to have a right-leaning opinion that protects schools when the research is against you. Many would try to have us believe that putting more guns in schools would provide a safer environment, but I have yet to see any logical argument that holds up such claims.

In light of that alone, I'm wouldn't be surprised if the point is missed in favor of personal refusal to accept research that doesn't align with their views. It's unfortunate, but true.

<b>In Conclusion</b>

Overall, I'd say this was a well researched compilation of the history of gun rights and law. I genuinely do feel that I learned a lot from it. Occasionally, I found myself angry and frustrated. Sometimes I had to check my own opinions on the matter and change them based on the evidence presented.

I recognize fully that the author does have an opinion on the subject and she makes that clear after the facts have been presented. This will likely infuriate many right-leaning readers, which I understand. I hope any frustration stemming from the anger doesn't result in unresearched disavowing of what facts were presented.

It's one thing to read the book, recognize and acknowledge what information is straight factual data and still disagree with the final conclusion the author reaches in regards to gun rights and law. It's another thing entirely to condemn the whole book and the presented facts because you don't like that the author disagrees with you and included such in a very small portion of the book.

<b>Narration</b>

Suzie Althens did a fantastic job narrating the audiobook. I really enjoyed listening to the book, particularly when I was doing chores and housework. This is an incredibly heavy and deep topic. On several occasions I even found myself needing to rewind to ensure I understood everything.

I do feel that the audiobook does miss out on the graphs and pictorial data that is presented in the novel, though. I wish there were a way to account for that loss with the differing formats. Fortunately, I had the ability to cross check the two, but I don't think everyone else will.

<em>I was provided a free copy of this book via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.</em>

Whose Right Is It? is geared towards students to talk about the history of the second amendment. It is for older students (not children) as it gets very detailed into the history of gun legislation and the NRA. Those who are gun rights advocates will not like this book at all and those who support gun control will get even more frustrated with the NRA and the courts. But one of the nice things is that it really does layout the history of the second amendment and what courts have believed over the years.
So often parties on either side of contentious issues do not have the framework to start and this book gives that historical framework. We are told that this is an individual right but as Bajramovic lays out it was not until much more recently that this was the believe.
I do hope that people read this with an open mind to understand the history of these laws and don't pass this one by because they think it is a gun control book.

As you can probably guess from the title, this book argues against the expansive interpretation of the second amendment promoted by the NRA and many gun rights advocates. As such, you can expect a partisan review by most folks ... and I am probably not immune to that.

The book opens with a sensationalist listing of high school shootings, which unfortunately reveals an early bias that will immediately put many folks on the defensive. I probably would have put this at the end if the author really felt it was needed. It is a type of emotional appeal that doesn't really convince anybody of anything. After that, the author goes back into history to talk about the inspiration for the second amendment in the Protestant/Catholic conflict in England. The author makes a solid connection between the English Bill of Rights and the American Constitution here and sets the ground work for understanding what the founding fathers may have really intended when they wrote it. The author then walks through the historical context of gun regulations showing a fairly consistent interpretation of the law ... until ... the late 20th/early 21st century. Prior to that, the hypocrisy on this issue was simply astounding, but does kind of explain how we got here. Despite the slightly sarcastic tone, I thought the historical review to be well done (generally accurate with some commentary to remind you which side the author is on). I have not yet seen any dispute on the actual history as presented from either side.

The author also does a decent walk through the other Bill of Rights. A decent review, but I am not sure how such fits into the interpretation of the second amendment other than to outline any existing limits to said rights. For example, there actually are some limited to the right to free speech or free press.

I was given this free advance review copy (ARC) audiobook at my request and have voluntarily left this review.
#WhoseRightIsIt #NetGalley

This book should be titled The Argument for Gun Control. This is not an unbiased book to inform students regarding the second amendment. Evidently the author believes that they are above Supreme Court Justices. The author goes into detail regarding the Supreme Court Justices and the background of each (president that nominated and the party affiliation). And in conclusion suggest how the different branches of government could overrule a Supreme Court decision.

This audio is being targeted for students.

This book was provided by NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

At 47 min 4 seconds remaining (87.1% complete) there is some strange interruption to the audiobook; Did someone accidently enter the studio and it was missed in the edit?