Why Corporations Should Have the Right to Bear Arms

It is a melancholy object to those who shop in this great country that while in some states patrons may carry small arms into big-box stores to protect themselves when purchasing batteries or earbuds, the stores themselves have been tyrannically deprived of the same right.

Their cashiers and assistant managers, whilst working for their honest livelihood, are forced to rotate stock or request price checks while lacking the security of an AR15 strapped across their backs. Even the security guards themselves, while not actually employed by the stores but by other oppressed corporations, are in most states not allowed to bear any arms more powerful than pepper spray, even though retail security guards are in all cases well trained and fairly compensated.

After the Supreme Court of the United States has sagely decided that corporations are people and thus can exercise the same First Amendment rights as corporeal people, such as spending millions on political campaigns (which of course lots of average folks do) or making religion-based decisions that affect employees regardless of the employees’ religious beliefs, I think it only natural to consider other rights that corporations should be allowed to exercise, such as the Second Amendment.

Yes, I believe that corporations should have—nay, do have—the right to bear arms. Imagine the peace and comfort of shopping for a bath rug or flipflops without having to leave your weapon at home, or worse, alone in a hot car; imagine the peace and comfort of seeing Walmart associates similarly armed. For, like most Americans, I believe that nothing improves the shopping experience more than seeing happy workers and patrons bristling with weaponry.

It would be un-American, however, to limit the right of large corporations to bear arms; for small businesses, that is companies with fifty or fewer weapons, remain a crucial component of economic growth in America. It would also be foolish to believe that extending the Second Amendment to corporations, however logical, would not create its own conundrums. Imagine a Starbucks opening down the street from a locally owned coffee shop. It is reasonable to predict that the former, with its greater resources, can easily drive the latter to the poorhouse—and to see how in the process armed barristas may resort to internecine violence.

Indeed, in Florida, we might expect coffee shops to attempt war with each other, given the vagaries of the Stand Your Grounds law. It would be equally un-American to limit the extension of this basic human right to an incorporeal entity created solely for the purposes of producing a profit. We must also extend this right to non-profits, even when their purposes may in fact be un-American, such as helping the poor or murdering helpless tiny babies that want only to share their love.

I profess, with deep sincerity, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote the rights of corporations to bear arms, having no other motive than the public good of my country, by advancing our retail trade, helping our beleaguered gun manufacturers, and teaching our children, the younger the better, the joys of small arms.

I own no means by which I may personally profit from a healthy increase in gun ownership in America, whether by humans or corporations, as all our Smith and Wesson stocks are in my wife’s name.