I am curious is there anyway that the DC v. Heller decision could be extended to Universal Health care?
I mean if it's my right to own a firearm for self-defence even though that term is never mentioned in any version of the text of the Second Amendment, isn't there a way that my right to health care can be protected by the Constitution? In fact, the common law doctrine of self-defence said that one should use only enough force reasonable to stop the attack and that excessive force could turn a defender into an aggressor to paraphrase Blackstone. That puts paid to self-defence and gun ownership since deadly force is last recourse, not the first.
On the other hand, I believe that the health and well being of a nation's citizens are of utmost importance. Health care must be a right if owning a firearm is a right.
Don't forget that the Ninth Amendment says that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people "
Now, doesn't that mean that I have the right to health care? Isn't my good health a fundamental right and of interest to society? I believe I have the right to health care. I'm sure the founding fathers would agree with me as well since they said something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. Not to mention we have the technology to ensure good health care for all.
That is the ultimate fundamental right. In fact, I don't want to live in a country where the right to use deadly force is more important than people's health.
In fact, couldn't we also extend my rights to say that I have a right to a home, no matter how humble that home may be.
Why should deadly force be a right but not health care and the right to a home?
Why would the founding fathers believe in a right to a firearm, which cost a significant portion of personal income, yet deny us healthcare or a home?
It is my Ninth Amendment right to health care and a house.
How do we remedy this wrong?