Self-defense is a self-evident human right. Thankfully, a court finally has reaffirmed that the Constitution and common sense are in alignment on your right to defend yourself, using reasonable force (i.e. a handgun, but not a bazooka) within your own home.
Yeah, I wouldn't want to be forced to use a bazooka inside my home--it would not only make one hell of a mess of things, but to need one would indicate a dire situation indeed.
And not meaning to open the door on the right of Al Qaeda to carry live anthrax strains and suitcase nukes on board commercial airliners, but Dennis, it seems you're penning us in a bit tighter than the Framers intended. For instance, there was Tench Coxe, who said:
Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier...
That leads to the question of who has authority to declare such limits, and importantly, where do they derive it?
And then we have the Constitutional authority for Congress to enlist private individuals with Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which would make for very difficult operations if small arms are all we are "authorized" to keep.
It makes for an intriguing discussion--the dividing line between slippery slope and the Constitution not being "a suicide pact," a term I've often found that discourages thinking things through. I'd be interested in hearing your comments.
I have my own ideas and I'll weigh in tonight.
[Via HZ]