"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"
My Photo
Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.

Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.
Choose your language: Francais/French Deutsch/German Italiano/Italian Portugues/Portuguese Espanol/Spanish 日本語/Japanese 한국어/Korean 中文(简体)/Chinese Simplified

Monday, June 13, 2005

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 ;-)

Silly me, I forgot a related post:
Bainbridge wrong - this time
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions
<< Home

Click for Latest Posts

Creative Commons License

As defined and limited by the license, any use of work from this blog, must be attributed to Mark K. Sprengel and include a link back to this blog.

Get updates by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Widgetize! Subscribe Social Bookmark Blogs that link here
My Technorati profile

Also, follow me on Twitter

Search this blog:

powered by Aditya

Recent Comments: