6 thoughts on “A Right To Bear Arms”

  1. The only logic that makes sense to me is that if we have a right to bear arms for self defense, than that right cannot be fixed to a location. My life is just a important to me at the office or on campus as it is in my own home.

    After all, I don’t think the Supreme Court found this fundamental right solely so I can defend my televsion from being taken by burglars. It’s my right to “life”, as in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, that’s the critical right here.

    Of course, if the Supreme Court had restricted the 2nd Amendment merely to keeping arms for the purpose of being in the militia, then a lot more restrictions could reasonably follow. But they did not do that.

  2. So let’s invoke the Commerce clause and mandate firearm possession. Everyone needs a policeman at some point in their life.

  4. Of course, it would then be illegal to purchase a firearm outside your home or transport it to your home. You’d also need a license to manufacture it in your home. So you do have the right to bear arms as long as you live in a gun plant.

    Good link Titus except for its implications. Those in government know the will of the people really doesn’t matter.

  5. For some reason I have the suspicion that the writer of the militia article is anti-gun. I guess I’m just cynical.

  6. What a creatively silly argument in your link, TQ. As if the means are utterly divorced from the ends. The argument is not that Congress cannot make people buy stuff if that serves a legitimate constitutional end, such as national defense, but whether Congress can make people buy stuff as an end in itself, of dubious constitutionality, as in the case of making people buy health insurance (and not just any health insurance, but a product specified by the government, of no proven utility for its alleged purposes — saving money, bending the cost curve, curing male pattern baldness and Democratic electoral erectile dysfunction).

    I’m vaguely reminded of what ultimately dismays me about most conversations between lawyers I witness: there is such a fascination with the power of analogy and argument that they are quite capable of lofting delicately off into utter nonsense, cloud cuckoo land, losing all contact with reality. Probably some hallucinogen they put in the law school water fountains.

Comments are closed.