"Society of Informers" Is Feared

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I just had an internet discussion about this with my friend. Here's what he offered up:

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/164311

In Webster's English
Stephen P. Halbrook

Halbrook, an attorney and research fellow at The Independent Institute,
Oakland, Calif., is author of "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of
the Right ...[text shortened]... .

I don't agree with this interpretation. "Well-regulated militia" doesn't mean aligned with any particular government; it just means that it's a militia that's civilised and not a band of thugs. For example, the Hell's Angels are not a well-regulated militia and the Founding Fathers wouldn't want them to have the right to own guns. I'm sure the Founding Fathers gave thought to possible unintended consequences of the 2nd amendment and didn't want any unruly band of thugs to be able to own guns legally.

The point of the 2nd amendment is that a "well-regulated militia" has the right to own guns irrespective of its political alignment with any particular government, but it needs to be lawful in the sense of not being a band of thugs. (Admittedly, a government needs to exist to enforce such a law, but the federal govt says that groups politically in opposition to it can own guns as long as they're lawfully regulated.)

Take out just two words -- "well-regulated" -- from the 2nd amendment and the meaning is no longer clear, but the presence of those two words makes it crystal clear that a militia needs to be well-regulated, i.e. lawful, but lawful in the sense of "not a band of thugs" rather than lawful with respect to political affiliation towards any particular govt. I agree with the article's definition of "people" = the common people, but that doesn't mean individuals.

I personally believe that individual law-abiding citizens should have an inalienable right to own guns, and I'd be happy for there to be federal laws to that effect. That is, as long as they apply only to law-abiding citizens and don't prevent states or other federal laws from requiring measures such as licensing, registration and background checks to make it harder for (violent or/and serious) criminals to obtain guns.

However, to interpret the 2nd amendment as giving individuals the right to own guns would be judicial activism. That's not what the Founding Fathers intended, and the Supreme Court have acknowledged as much in their past decisions.

Originally posted by karnachz
I don't agree with this interpretation. "Well-regulated militia" doesn't mean aligned with any particular government; it just means that it's a militia that's civilised and not a band of thugs. For example, the Hell's Angels are not a well-regulated militia and the Founding Fathers wouldn't want them to have the right to own guns. I'm sure the Founding Fath ...[text shortened]... and the Supreme Court have acknowledged as much in their past decisions.

What past decisions? Their has been only ONE Supreme court decision, and it was right in line with the second ammendment. We will see later this month what the court says about individual right. Are your refering to the 1939 Brown case? The Brown Caes was Not about individual right.

GRANNY.

Originally posted by smw6869
What past decisions? Their has been only ONE Supreme court decision, and it was right in line with the second ammendment. We will see later this month what the court says about individual right. Are your refering to the 1939 Brown case? The Brown Caes was Not about individual right.

GRANNY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

United States v Miller (1939): the Supreme Court found that Miller did not have a Constitutional right to own a sawn-off shotgun, because it's not the type of weapon that would be useful in belonging to a well-regulated militia. The offence was driving an unlicensed sawn-off shotgun across state lines.

Rather than getting into judicial activism and trying to claim that the Second Amendment already gives rights which it doesn't, the best way forward from here is bipartisan legislation that gives law-abiding citizens the right to own firearms but does not restrict the ability of states or other federal laws to impose measures like licensing, registration, background checks, etc. to make it harder for criminals to acquire guns. I'd be happy to support law-abiding citizens having the right to own any type of firearms, including assault weapons.

Originally posted by howardgee
Yes, it was important that the president illegally phone tap fellow citizens wasn't it.

Of course, only in a true dictatorship would such illegalities get swept under the carpet without punishment.

Who was that? All the ones who were tapped had a court order signed by a judge.

Originally posted by slimjim
Who was that? All the ones who were tapped had a court order signed by a judge.

Oh, really...not according to many sources:

"Reversing a position it defended for more than a year, the Bush administration announced Wednesday that it has begun getting court approval before eavesdropping "
"...that violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which set up a special court to review wiretap applications in intelligence cases."
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/17/domestic.spying/index.html

Probably Brian Ross and Richard Esposito were amongst those bugged by Shrub:
"Under Bush Administration guidelines, it is not considered illegal for the government to keep track of numbers dialed by phone customers"
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html

You must have known about all this Dim. Either you are a liar or you are a dimmer Jim than I thought you were (which I don't think is possible).