David Kopel at Vox on the meaning of the Second Amendment: to guard against the tyranny of our own govenment.

The Second Amendment does not create a right of revolution against tyranny. That inherent right is universal. As stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, "[I]t is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law." The Universal Declaration was influenced by the Declaration of Independence, thanks in part to the US delegation led by Ambassador Eleanor Roosevelt (who carried her own handgun for protection).

Colorado Sheriff Brad Day on the meaning of the Second Amendment:

The purpose of the Second Amendment was, and still is, for Americans to be able to protect ourselves from inappropriate and extreme over-each by our own government, in a word, tyranny.

From the abstract of Agan and Starr's "Ban the Box, Criminal Records, and Statistical Discrimination: A Field Experiment".

...we find that the race gap in callbacks grows dramatically at the BTB-affected companies after the policy goes into effect. Before BTB, white applicants to BTB-affected employers received about 7% more callbacks than similar black applicants, but BTB increases this gap to 45%.

Harvard's Sendhil Mullainathan's Unintended Consequences in the New York Times: "Ban the Box? An Effort to Stop Discrimination May Actually Increase It"

Policies aimed at ending discrimination against people with criminal records may actually have the unintended consequence of increasing racial discrimination. That, at least, is the finding of a fascinating new study that focused on so-called ban the box regulations — rules that prohibit initial job applications from asking prospective employees to check a box indicating whether they have a criminal history.

Before the regulations took effect, candidates with criminal histories were far less likely to be called back, irrespective of race. After the regulations took effect, though, things changed. Lacking the ability to discern criminal history, employers became much less likely to call back any apparently black applicant. They seemed to treat all black applicants now as if they might have a criminal past. These were big and disheartening effects: Banning the box extended discrimination to virtually all black applicants.

I like his succinct definition of the unintended consequences:

This pernicious result is the economists’ law of unintended consequences. Policy makers can constrain only a few of the large spectrum of choices people make. If motives remain unchanged, there remain many unregulated ways of expressing them. For example, when landlords find that their properties have risen in value, they may want to raise the rent. If the government imposes rent control, landlords find other ways to increase revenue. This is also a challenge in fighting discrimination: When we try to curb certain behaviors, the underlying discriminatory impulse manifests itself elsewhere. If we prevent lenders from screening out African-Americans, they might avoid lending to whole neighborhoods.