The law school hosted a debate today between Alan Gura and Carl Bogus. Gura left out many questions and Bogus was generally disappointing. If only Bogus could actually debate instead of resorting to childish tactics during the Q&A...

What's funny about Alan Gura is that he delivered a 10 minute speech, but he didn't say much about what position he was taking on the 2nd Amendment. He cited historical context to say that yes, the Amendment was indeed intended for the state militia to do their duty with their own arms in times of need. But Gura made an ambiguous and undoubtedly shifty claim that that is only a purpose of the 2nd Amendment, not an exclusive reason. Gura says that this should not restrict the exercise of the right, but he never explained why. Why shouldn't the one clear purpose the 2nd Amendment serves restrict or guide how we exercise that right? And if there are other purposes for the 2nd Amendment, as Gura claims, what would they be and who has the authority to say what they are?

Unfortunately, Carl Bogus didn't use this loose end in Gura's speech. He completely missed the mark and read his script when he could've answered what Gura actually said just seconds before him. In fact, Bogus seemed to think he was teaching another history lesson. He narrated so much and seemed to forget that explaining and analyzing is more likely to convince people than a drawn-out account of the Virginia constitutional convention debate. On this point, I am convinced that he got lost in his own words when he couldn't even clarify why he began the narrative in the first place.

Still, we can piece together what Bogus might have been trying to say. In citing Madison, he was probably trying to prove that the amendment wasn't for ordinary citizens to carry guns for private use, but strictly for militias. In his rebuttal, Gura answered that although the 2nd Amendment refers to militias, that portion of the Amendment was struck down by Supreme Courts and the Civil War marked the end of secession or any kind of state rebellion against the federal government. But Gura's explanation smells fishy. If Gura is correct, then all we're left with is the right to bear arms, now without any context to guide us. Gura did refer to how Congress redefined the purpose of the right to bear arms to be self-defense, but how is that in anyway constitutional? How is that not misconstruing or reading a new context into the Amendment?

During the Q&A following the three speeches, Bogus finally started becoming relevant to the debate. He was actually answering questions and whatever issue Gura raised. But Bogus kept interrupting and taunting Gura during his answers, never letting him finish. At the end of the day, I have to like Gura more than Bogus. At least Gura tried to remain civil when Bogus turned the Q&A into a childish spat.