Would America Be Safer Without the Second Amendment?

125 snips

Nov 25, 2025

Guest

Alan Dershowitz

Guest

Dana Loesch

Dana Loesch, a conservative radio host and former NRA spokesperson, passionately defends the Second Amendment as essential for self-defense, citing the McDonald case against gun bans. In contrast, Alan Dershowitz, a constitutional lawyer, argues that America would be safer without this amendment, linking gun availability to higher homicide rates. The discussion explores the Founding Fathers' intent, modern interpretations, and the impact of gun culture compared to countries with stricter regulations. Amid ongoing violence, they debate potential solutions and the balance between liberty and safety.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Books

Transcript

Episode notes

INSIGHT

Founders' Intent vs Modern Reality

The Second Amendment raises deep questions about founders' intent and modern applicability.
Bari Weiss frames the debate: liberty versus safety amid rampant gun ownership and violence.

ANECDOTE

Otis McDonald’s Civil-Rights Case

Dana Loesch recounts Otis McDonald's challenge to Chicago's handgun ban and its legal impact.
She uses his story to argue ordinary citizens were unjustly denied the ability to defend themselves.

INSIGHT

Rights Inherently Trade Safety For Liberty

Alan Dershowitz stresses rights trade-offs: Bill of Rights reduces safety by design.
He argues constitutional liberties intentionally prioritize liberty over temporary safety.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

Few lines in the Constitution have provoked as much passion—or confusion—as this one:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

What did the Founding Fathers mean by “well regulated”? What did they mean by “Militia”? And, do any of those definitions hold in 21st-century America?

Guns are one of the most divisive symbols in the country. At the same time, the idea of surrendering weapons and trusting the state feels dangerous, and to many, guns are not symbols of violence, but symbols of freedom.

Still, the question remains: freedom at what cost? With mass shootings now a fixture of American life, with countless families being wrecked by gun violence—what exactly are we protecting?

This debate is about what the Second Amendment really means, what its limits should be, what the root causes of our gun violence are. And how, if at all, we can address them.

We think about this subject a lot: Would America be safer without the Second Amendment?

To debate this topic we brought together Dana Loesch and Alan Dershowitz recently in Chicago—a city that has had more than its fair share of gun violence.

Alan argued yes, that America would be safer without the Second Amendment. Alan is a lawyer, a law professor for 50 years at Harvard, and the author of too many books to mention. He has litigated and won hundreds of cases in multiple countries, including his pro bono defense of dissidents such as Natan Sharansky, Václav Havel, and Julian Assange. And he is a fierce advocate for tighter gun control in the United States.

Dana Loesch argued no, that America would not be safer without the Second Amendment. Dana is one of the country’s top nationally syndicated talk radio hosts with The Dana Show, a television commentator, preeminent Second Amendment advocate, and author of several books, including the best-selling Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America. She is also a former spokesperson for the National Rifle Association.

It’s a critical debate you won’t want to miss.

The Free Press is honored to have partnered with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression to present this debate. Head to thefire.org to learn more about this indispensable organization.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices