1997-06-15 - Re: Do reporters have special rights the rest of us don’t have?

Header Data

From: “William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@amaranth.com>
To: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Message Hash: 088a8f5ea2ccc12fb3b2d9827e7c3b5b78fc5c7ec7f1b3af4493cfc645d36a25
Message ID: <199706150643.BAA03179@mailhub.amaranth.com>
Reply To: <19970614230152.15019@bywater.songbird.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-15 06:55:45 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 14:55:45 +0800

Raw message

From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 14:55:45 +0800
To: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Subject: Re: Do reporters have special rights the rest of us don't have?
In-Reply-To: <19970614230152.15019@bywater.songbird.com>
Message-ID: <199706150643.BAA03179@mailhub.amaranth.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In <19970614230152.15019@bywater.songbird.com>, on 06/14/97 
   at 11:01 PM, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> said:

>On Sat, Jun 14, 1997 at 09:52:39AM -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>>Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> said:
>>>                            Amendment I
>>>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>>>prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>>>speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
>>>assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 
>>>                           Amendment II
>>>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>>>State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
>>Which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand Kent??  

>I understand that part almost perfectly, I daresay.  It's the rest of 
>the sentence that is subject to various interpretations.

>The wording of the second amendment is strange, and I have read several
>highly opinionated pieces about what it means.  I also read relevant
>sections of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers.

>First of all, consider what it does not say.  It does *not* say 
>"Congress shall make no law" -- meaning therefore that congress *can* 
>make laws, as long as the rest of the sentence is observed.

>It does *not* say "the right of an *individual* to keep and bear arms 
>shall not be infringed.  It says "the people", a collective term.  It 
>references a *well-regulated* militia.

>Furthermore, this amendment was derived from input from two states (I 
>don't have the documents handy, or I would tell you exactly). There are
>caveats in both of the documents, referring to such things  as "public
>safety".  The founding fathers were quite aware that it  isn't necessary
>to allow criminals to carry guns at all times.

>Therefore my interpretation is that according to the constitution, there
>is a broad right for the population to own guns, but that right is
>fundamentally justified through "the security of a free State".  Use of
>arms contrary to the security of the state is not justified through the
>second amendment, nor does the second amendment prohibit congress or the
>states from controlling such unjustified use of arms.

>Thus, the police can take guns away from common thiefs without fear of a
>constitutional challenge.  And states, cities, and other  governmental
>agencies can regulate arms for the public good, which may  mean that
>certain individuals can't own weapons, or that certain kinds  of weapons
>can be proscribed.

>Here's an analogy -- imagine a hypothetical addition to the Bill of 
>Rights, amendment -1:

>                           Amendment -1

>A healthy economy, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
>right of the people to engage in business, shall not be infringed.

>The key is the "engage in business" clause.  Engaging in business
>implicitly involves a set of rules of the game.  Inforcing those rules,
>or modifying them in light of new circumstances (eg invention of the
>telephone) is not the same as "infringing". 

Well Kent we must be reading from two different dictionaries:

infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of

encroach: to enter by gradual steps or by stelth into the possessions or
rights of another.

By the above definition this is exactly what the government has been doing
with it's ever increasing restictions on the possesions of guns by it's
citizens and what the founding fathers wished to posses. If they had
wanted the government to have the power to control and regulate the
ownership of guns then they would have said so.

The Bill of Rights were not added to the Constitution to give the
government more power but to restrict their power.

The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide a final check &
balance on the government. Our founding fathers were all too aware that it
was manditory that the population must be well armed inorder preserve
their freedom against an unjust government.

An unarmed people are just so much sheep waiting for the slaughter.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000