UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, a self-proclaimed gun control advocate who’s long masqueraded as a balanced voice on the Second Amendment, just published an op-ed that’s less a scholarly takedown and more a masterclass in intellectual self-sabotage. Titled something along the lines of a plea for common-sense restrictions, Winkler’s piece argues that the Supreme Court’s recent Bruen decision— which demands gun laws align with historical traditions— is some kind of judicial overreach ripe for reversal. But here’s where he steps squarely in it: Winkler cherry-picks historical analogs like 19th-century knife bans and colonial beer regulations to claim modern AR-15s have no place in sensitive places like schools or stadiums. Never mind that Bruen explicitly rejected such interest-balancing gymnastics, or that his examples crumble under scrutiny— knives were regulated for their concealability, not assaultiveness, and beer laws? That’s just laughable historical fanfic to prop up feel-good restrictions.
The flaws don’t stop at sloppy history; Winkler’s op-ed reeks of the academic elitism that plagues anti-gun rhetoric. He dismisses armed self-defense as a rare fantasy while ignoring FBI data showing defensive gun uses outnumber criminal ones by orders of magnitude— estimates from researchers like Gary Kleck put it at 2.5 million annually. This isn’t just bad analysis; it’s a deliberate blind spot that reveals the true agenda: not safety, but disarmament. For the 2A community, this is gold. Winkler’s missteps highlight how post-Bruen, gun controllers are scrambling, reduced to grasping at straws that even sympathetic outlets like the LA Times might hesitate to fully endorse. His piece inadvertently bolsters cases like those challenging California’s assault weapon bans, where historical fidelity is now the gold standard.
The implications ripple far beyond one professor’s embarrassment. As states like New York and Illinois face Bruen-mandated purges of unconstitutional laws, pieces like Winkler’s fuel the backlash narrative but ultimately weaken it by exposing the intellectual bankruptcy. 2A advocates should curate and critique these aggressively— share the op-ed, dissect it thread by thread on X, and remind everyone that the right to keep and bear arms isn’t up for historical negotiation by ivory-tower types. Winkler’s flop is a win for us: it proves the antis can’t win on facts, so they pivot to emotion. Stay vigilant, arm yourselves with knowledge, and keep pushing back— the Second Amendment endures because history, not hysteria, is on our side.
