I see no reason for your claim of illegitimacy. Virtually every civilized society recognizes violent force used in self-defense as legitimate. Firearms are essentially the "power tools" of weaponry, which makes them particularly useful because they level the field between people of disparate size and strength -- and that makes them the most effective means of self defense. Rural or urban locale is irrelevant; arguably defensive tools are more necessary in urban areas where virtually everyone is a stranger.

If firearms were not legitimate tools of self-defense, then police would not carry guns.

Think on this: what if that robber 10 years ago had wanted more than your cash and cell phone? What could you have done? Your experience is a perfect example of the futility of gun control laws. Canada has very strict regulation of handguns... yet the robber had one anyway, and you were at his mercy.

As for the violence rates in America, they are comparable to Canada or Europe if you exclude gang and drug-infested inner-city areas. Canada and Europe don't have the same demographic diversity. The violence problem in America has nothing to do with the availability of guns (violence rates are worst in the areas where guns are most heavily regulated), it is primarily socioeconomic and cultural.

The founders' opinions are important because they inform us as to the meaning of the Constitution. And the Constitution is important because it defines the federal government. It has an amendment process that has been used 27 times, so it has been re-written to some degree.

For the most part, the Constitution is not ambiguous. For example, the famous controversies in interpretation of the 2nd amendment and the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment arose because certain people did not like the plain meaning of the text. The meanings were clear to the people who wrote and passed those sections. The intent can be unambiguously determined by examining the debates surrounding their passage. The 2nd amendment was intended to protect an individual right to own and carry military-grade weapons in public. The privileges or immunities clause was supposed to prevent states from violating rights enshrined in the Constitution. Both clauses have been twisted to entirely different and illogical meanings by judges who didn't like the original intent.

That is why the original meaning is important. The purpose of the document lies in semantics. If you don't respect the original intent, then you're changing the semantics and you might as well re-write the document. That's why there is an amendment process.

The Constitution is not perfect, but it is a very well thought-out document. There were several novel and ingenious aspects to the government it created. One particularly good idea was to enumerate all activities permitted to the government, rather than attempt to enumerate prohibitions. This was intended to preserve liberty by limiting the role of government. Unfortunately the narrow scope of enumerated powers has failed to limit the role of the federal government, but the failure was not necessarily in the Constitution itself; the boundaries have simply been ignored.

That is why some Americans seem to worship the Constitution. The government has steadily usurped powers that it was not supposed to have, and whittled away at all manner of guaranteed individual rights. If we did things the "right" way by strictly following the Constitution, American society would be very different and some people might prefer that. (There would also be drawbacks. I tend to like this idea, but some amendments would be necessary.)

Consider this: in the founders' time, there were no income taxes or professional police departments. The federal government was originally oriented toward matters of foreign policy, and revenue was provided by tariffs. The founders probably would have considered modern policing to be similar to the standing armies that they feared as instruments of oppression. And nobody would have thought the federal government could restrict the plants that people grow on their own land, the food they eat or sell locally, or the weapons they carry when traveling.

George Washington's cabinet had what, 4 members? Contrast that with modern times.

I can't help myself, I have to reply. My experience has been very similar. My son was diagnosed with autistic disorder at age 20 months Five months later and after 3 months of intensive ABA intervention with a talented teacher, he is just getting his first words. He has never once looked me in the eye and said "daddy." I'm still not sure if the two or three occasions when he's said "daddy" were intentional or not. I count myself lucky because he is affectionate. I know many autistic children do not like physical contact.

Receiving a diagnosis for your child is terrible, but it's not something an informed parent would avoid. As worried as I am now, I know that without the diagnosis my son's future would be much worse.

I can completely understand why parents might wish for a cancer diagnosis instead. With cancer, at least there is the potential for a cure, and ultimately there will be resolution. I can only describe the past year as a process of continual heartbreak, and I really don't see a light at the end of that tunnel.

Dealing with insurance has been a nightmare for us as well. For example, our medical group evaluated my son and recommended speech therapy; however they had no openings (only two therapists on staff for a major urban area, one working one day a week!), and the wait time was "indefinite." After filing a formal complaint we were given appointments with a therapist who was not experienced with young autistic children. The results were predictable.

Our insurance "problem" will soon resolve, as I will soon be unemployed and we won't be able to afford COBRA for long. Instead of relocating to stay with family, we plan to live off savings for as long as possible simply to keep our son in his ABA program.

As for the article: I'm a scientist, my wife is an engineer. But Baron-Cohen's theories of autism seem to be shot down every decade or so. There's a selection effect at work here, so I'm cautiously skeptical.

AC, I hope you get your "papa, up" soon. I'm still waiting for mine to smile at me and say "daddy" when I get home from work.

I'll take my liberty and pursuit of happiness, thank you very much. Not all of us want to be told how to live our lives.

Not really.

Again, no. Natural rights are essentially those things that you can do in a "state of nature" i.e. they do not depend on government or society. Clearly people are naturally capable of speaking and possessing property.

That conclusion does not follow from your arguments, and in fact it is not correct.

In fact, that is not what I said. Compensation has nothing to do with it! The issue is involuntary servitude. If you have a right to a service, then by definition you must be able to compel someone to provide you with that service. That is not a freedom, that is coercive. The fact that many people may be willing to provide that service (for compensation) does not matter.

Consider some scenarios:

A remote village has no hospital, and the local country doctor passes away. The city council is unable to attract a medical professional. Where, then, is the right to health care for the residents of the town? (Requiring long distance travel is a significant burden on the right.)

What if there were a perfect cure for cancers, but the cure cost $1 billion? If health care is a right, then everyone with cancer could sue the government for treatment.

In the same way that saying "voting is a right" is advocating slavery for poll workers, or saying "access to counsel in criminal cases is a right" (hello, Amendment VI) is advocating slavery for lawyers.

Finally, someone with a decent argument! Though hardly compelling, I think; poll workers are generally not federal employees. As for public defenders, as you point out they are constitutionally required, which makes them a special case not particularly relevant to this discussion. And if the government does not wish to provide representation, the DA always has the choice to not prosecute the case.

And you don't even need to look to the Commerce Clause on that one, as Congress has a much more specific express authority to use in that case, the Art. I, Sec. 8 power to "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia."

Article I Section 8 is not relevant here, I'm not talking about a requirement that all militia members buy a gun every year. I believe the unorganized militia is currently defined as all able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45. That is not "everyone."

Perhaps I should have asked, do you think it would be reasonable for the government to force you to buy a new car every year?

The militia act of 1792 did not mandate a purchase, out merely required that members be suitably equipped. This is an enumerated power of the federal government.

No. Do not say "human right" when you mean "entitlement." I'm perfectly willing to accept access to health care as a right (essentially part of the right to contract), but the care itself is a product -- a good and/or service -- and that cannot possibly be a right.

Really, think about this. What would it mean if one had a right to some service? Someone has to provide that service. You are claiming a right of entitlement to someone else's labor. That is not only unjust, it is morally wrong, and it is specifically prohibited by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

Rights are freedoms. Something cannot be a right if it requires denying freedom to someone else.

You need to check your facts more carefully.

Healthcare is not a guaranteed right. Hospitals can and do refuse to treat people, every day. They are required to perform certain emergency services, but that requirement is relatively limited.

As for (B) and (C): You're arguing for an essentially unlimited expansion in federal regulatory powers. I'm just pointing out the logical conclusion of your argument. Defense is a legitimate government interest. While I do not expect such a law to be passed, you are advocating that the government should be able to make and enforce such laws.

You missed the point. The issue is that you are advocating that the government have the power to enact such laws. If the health care bill is constitutional, then a law requiring you to buy a gun every year would also be constitutional. Whether or not you need it is irrelevant.

Health care cannot be a right, and I honestly cannot conceive of the twisted thinking that gives rise to such an idea. If health care is a guaranteed right, then you are essentially advocating slavery for health care providers.

And, for all those democrats who think this is a bad decision, let's turn this around: do you think it would be reasonable for the government to force you to buy a gun every year? It's the exact same thing.

The War on Drugs is a result of Wickard v Fillburn and more recently Gonzales v Raich. Both decisions were horrible. They allow the government to regulate almost any conduct which affects any interstate market -- including conduct that is purely local. But government regulation (setting rules for a market) is not the same as a mandate which forces people to engage in commerce. The health care bill is distinguished because it requires people to buy something.

Laws must be passed by both the House and Senate, then they go to the President's desk for his signature (or veto).

Many of the laws that have been passed are illegal. The federal government is chartered by the U.S. Constitution, which is a document specifically listing the things that the federal government is allowed to do. Nothing prevents Congress from passing laws which violate the Constitution. This happens all the time, and the only possible remedy is to challenge the law in court. Unfortunately, the courts are statist and they tend to strike down only the most egregious violations (and sometimes not even then).

This was a very good decision, and I commend the judge. The Interstate Commerce clause has been horrifically abused by the federal government.