Bainbridge - wussy dilettante

I am willing to bet some of you are tempted to disregard the rest of what I have to say because of the title. I don't blame you. Rest assured, I do not mean it, but I am trying to make a point.

The inspiration for this post title comes from Professor Bainbridge himself. He has weighed in concerning a court case and the right to bear arms, "At will employment: Should there be a public policy exception for gun fanciers nuts?" Unfortunately the original title to his post and cutesy fix when prompted by Eugene Volokh made it difficult to continue reading, though I tend to agree with him on the constitutional issue of property rights.

I believe in the right to keep and bear arms and the right to carry. While I disagree with employees who deny someone that right while on their property, I do believe they have the right to do so. Now, one can choose to carry anyway, for personal protection; but it is not their property and they need to be aware that there are repercussions, such as being fired. I suppose some could make the argument that personal protection is more important than property rights but I will leave that to Professor Bainbridge and others to debate.

However, it would be helpful if the good Professor would be mature enough not to smear gun owners in toto. If he doesn't care to own guns, fine. But please sir, don't detract from a worthy post with such a silly and uninformed generalization. Afterall, we do agree on a few things as I noticed earlier ;-)

Updated
Silly me, I forgot a related post:
Bainbridge wrong - this time

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions