In asserting that the right to bear arms must be interpreted in the collectivist point-of-view, the author rationalized that "the more collectively the right is interpreted, the more broadly Congress can legislate to restrict the right to bear arms" (347). In effect, what made sense in Busch's analysis is that this particular right, as stated in the Constitution, must be interpreted in the proper context. Thus, Emerson's ownership of a gun for militia purposes, whether he has the intent to use this or not, is a threat to civil society; hence, the Court's decision to deny him his rights to bear arms is considered just, in the collectivist's point-of-view.

Spitzer (2003) argued against Busch's position regarding the interpretation of this right. For him, the right to bear arms is considered part of the individual's rights, thus, s/he has the right to practice this right -- an individualist's point-of-view of the...
[ View Full Essay]