Sure they do.

The Duke Center for Firearms Law is searching for a scholarly alternative to the politically charged national debate surrounding gun rights and regulation.

Joseph Blocher, Lanty L. Smith ’67 professor of law, and Darrell Miller, the Melvin G. Shimm professor of law, created the Center to advance non-partisan scholarship about the Second Amendment. The two co-directors are joined by Jake Charles, Law School ’13, as the Center’s executive director.

Blocher said there is a lack of reliable scholarship on the Second Amendment and the constitutional questions it raises. These legal questions are especially important after the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, in which the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms for individuals’ private purposes, including self-defense.

“I think that there’s not enough attention paid in the scholarly community to this really important and complex and interesting and nuanced set of questions,” he said.

Complex and nuanced.  Remember that.

Compared to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Blocher said, the Second Amendment is seriously lacking in scholarship.

[ … ]

“One primary focus of my career has been how to accommodate two sometimes conflicting American traditions—that of gun rights and that of gun regulation,” Blocher said.

After law school, Blocher worked under Walter Dellinger III, who led the District of Columbia’s arguments in D.C. v. Heller and is now the Douglas B. Maggs professor emeritus of law at Duke. Blocher assisted with the briefing in support of the constitutionality of D.C.’s gun regulation.

[ … ]

Firearms law scholarship may also help create a middle ground in the current gun debate that is dominated by polarizing political views and the scholarship put out by advocates on both sides of the issue. Blocher and Charles hope that Second Amendment scholarship may help policymakers reach compromises that are both effective and constitutionally sound.

“People too often think that it’s a question of either rights or regulation—that if you support gun rights, then you can’t support any regulation and vice versa,” Blocher said. “And that’s just a false choice.”

Remember that too.  In their opinion the second amendment is seriously lacking in scholarship.  Shall not be infringed isn’t clear enough.  Let’s turn to another article on this same announcement, shall we?

He and Miller agree that gun rights scholarship is, by and large, unbalanced, suffering from hyper-partisanship and lack of rigor, which often make it even harder to find reasonable solutions to problems of gun violence. For example, there’s still scholarly disagreement on when a weapon is “dangerous and unusual,” and therefore unprotected by the Constitution; or the full extent of gun regulation in states and municipalities prior to the 1930s. “This has real consequences for firearms law and policy,” said Miller, the Melvin G. Shimm Professor of Law.  “The paucity of solid, balanced, responsible, and reliable scholarship on firearms law is bad for the academy, bad for the judicial system, and bad for the public.”

Hear that?  They’re here to protect you, dammit.  We need reasonable solutions to the wickedness of mankind resulting from federal headship in Adam.

Conceived as a resource by Saul Cornell, the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University,  and created in partnership with researchers at Duke, Fordham University, and elsewhere, the repository contains more than 1,500 examples of American gun regulations as well as historical European regulations that informed U.S. lawmakers’ thoughts on the issue.

The Heller and McDonald opinions relied heavily on history to define the scope of the right to bear arms, said Miller. “In fact, Justice [Antonin] Scalia says in the Heller opinion that you understand the contours of the Second Amendment by reference to regulations that are longstanding.” Yet the repository reflects the first catalogue of historical regulations.

“Part of our goal, with the repository and with the center, is to correct the misconception that gun regulation is a brand-new phenomenon,” Blocher said. “The 1,500 examples in the repository are only a subset of the different ways guns have been regulated in the United States. Any legal or scholarly analysis of the Second Amiendment has to take into account this history of gun regulation.”

They intend to correct the notion that the constitution doesn’t really mean that lawmakers can’t pass gun regulation.  They’re going to prove it with examples of gun regulation.  Now, let’s fast forward to the end of this dreadful piece.

The Center for Firearms Law is supported by grants from the Katie McGrath & J. J. Abrams Family Foundation, Crankstart, Everytown for Gun Safety, the Joyce Foundation, Andrew Marks, Howard & Nancy Marks, and Arthur & Toni Rembe Rock.

Oh, okay then.  It all makes better sense now.  Everytown and the Joyce Foundation is at the root of this abortion.

No man can do only what God can do, which is bring peace among His people, and show men how to walk humbly before God and love his neighbor.  No law, no man, no regulation, no system of government, no ordinance, and no leader can accomplish what only the Almighty can do.  But they don’t really want to end polarization.  They just made that up.

Instead, this startup depends on money from Bloomberg and other money sources they didn’t earn and to which they have no right.  The intent is clearly to be a repository for gun control laws, as progressives continue to work towards control over every aspect of our lives.

The polarization to which they speak isn’t a result of guns, nor of leaders, nor of laws.  The polarization is a symptom of the larger issue of a society which is breaking apart because of disparate world views.

So here’s a suggestion for topic number 1 for the upstarts at this oh-so-scholarly center.  How many victims of mass shootings perished at the hands of state actors in the twentieth century?

Here’s another question for the “scholars.”  What does God have to say about gun control?