New at Reason

David Weigel | October 20, 2006

Ronald Bailey files his final dispatch from the ACLU conference, including encounters with John Dean and Katrina vanden Heuvel.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← October Not-Really-A-Surprise | Main | NFL A-OK; Dirty Bomb Threats a… →

See all 50 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|10.20.06 @ 10:42AM|#

Great going Ron. John Dean a real paragon of virtue right up there with Joe Wilson.

So Card carrying Ron, again, how come you never brought up the fact that the ACLU went to court to prevent the minutemen from exercising their right to free speech, right assemble and petition the government?
If the ACLU is so pro civil rights how come you didn't bring that up?
And a reminder, the second amendment. The ACLU lies when it says it is NOT an individual right.
How come you didn't bring that up?

About the reporter for NPR. Is it a violation for NPR to accept tax dollars when they clearly preach opinions that an overwhelming majority do not support?
How come you didn't ask that Ron?

Ron your a disgrace to journalism and a fucking coward as a human being.

|10.20.06 @ 10:56AM|#

Terry:

When did the "fact" that the ACLU went to court to stop the Minutemen occur? Isn't it more accurate to say that the ACLU monitored the Minutemen's patrolling activities? Doesn't that hurt your argument that the ACLU was preventing the Minutemen's right to assemble? It sounds more like you are pissed that the ACLU exercised its own right to assemble.

I think the ACLU is wrong on the 2nd Amendment as well, but unfortunately, it has Supreme Court precedent on its side. It isn't lying, it's just failing to do its duty on that critical issue.

Re: NPR. Is it a violation for right-wing churches to express their opinions when they get a free pass on taxes?

BTW: you should either be nicer, or learn how to spell.

|10.20.06 @ 12:42PM|#

Lamar wrote, "It isn't lying, it's just failing to do its duty on that critical issue."
BULLSHIT.
Anybody who can read knows the ACLU is lying.
The second amendment is an individual right.
Look it up.
The Supreme Court does not tell us what the US Constitution means. Anybody with a sixth grade education already knows what it means.
If the Supreme Court says the second amendment is not an individual right, and where do they if they do, THEY ARE WRONG.
I remember hearing on the radio that the ACLU went to court in Arizona to stop the minutemen from monitoring the border.
I look for it right now.
Oh, and by the fact that they were monitoring the minutemen proves they're full of shit when it comes to freedom of speech and other rights in general.

Jennifer|10.20.06 @ 12:56PM|#

Terry, I used to be a schoolteacher so I occasionally feel an odd sense of responsibility when I see people acting like you. Serious advice: if you are trying to convince people to see things your way, you'll need to do more than spew insults and profanity. In all of human history there has never been a debate like this:

RON BAILEY: (blah blah blah)

TERRY: Bullshit. You're full of shit. You're a disgrace to journalism and a fucking coward.

RON BAILEY: My God, you're right! I am going to completely change my worldview in response to your devastating rebuttal of what I had to say.

EVERYBODY ELSE: Yeah, Bailey is totally wrong and Terry is totally right! Why sisn't I see this before? His use of profanity only serves to underscore the essential truth of his viewpoints.

|10.20.06 @ 1:10PM|#

Lamar,
I didn't find any cases where the ACLU filed suits before the minutemen went to the border.
I thought I heard on the radio that they did and the case was dismissed.
Right now I don't have the time to do a more extensive search.
BUT I did find enough where the ACLU organized monitors and threatened the minutemen that they will be sued for the slightest indiscretion.
CLEARLY they tried to intimadate the minutemen from exercising their rights of free speech, assembly, and petition.
Thus making the ACLU and Ron Bailey a bunch of goddam hypocrites.
http://michellemalkin.com/immigration/2005/03/30/11:01.am

The Left Coaster: Comment on Open ThreadA spokesman for the ACLU told a local newspaper that a team of attorneys would be ready to file civil cases against project participants should any abuses ...

www.theleftcoaster.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=4246 - 20k -
SPLCenter.org: The WatcherIn early March, the ACLU announced that he was organizing teams of "legal observers" to follow, photograph, and videotape Minuteman volunteers, ...

BBC - BBC Scotland - Education - Modern Studies USA - Case Studies ...The ACLU in southern states such as Arizona , New Mexico and Texas monitor and observe the various Minutemen groups. The ACLU considers their activities to ...
www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/ms/usa/casestudies/immigration/index2.shtml - 31k -

|10.20.06 @ 1:43PM|#

"attorneys would be ready to file civil cases against project participants should any abuses ..."

so the potential of filing suit against those that would commit abuses is an intimidation of the potential abusers? am i intimidating a guy on the street if i tell him that i'll sue him if he punches me in the face?

a person or group is not being intimidated when told they will be held accountable for an activity they have no right to carry out in the first place.

further, i've never seen a michelle malkin link sway opinion around here any more than profanity and name calling.

|10.20.06 @ 1:49PM|#

Jennifer, you're absolutely right. It's all about audience awareness. What's most persuasive for your audience is usually quite different than what's most persuasive for you (otherwise, they wouldn't need convincing, would they?).

Terry don't call Ron a whore and then expect him to thank you for it. You're not some Zen master smacking his student into awareness.

|10.20.06 @ 2:12PM|#

Can we have Cavanaugh back, just for five minutes?

Someone needs to teach Terry some blog-commenting manners.

|10.20.06 @ 2:21PM|#

In defense of Terry, this is how our politics play out today. He hates the ACLU, and therefore, anything the ACLU does is bad. In direct contradiction to what Art says, this type of politics isn't about actions, but about actors. Merit and skill are just some stupid words for overeducated elites to worry about.

|10.20.06 @ 2:48PM|#

biologist,
Get your facts straight. Don't pull this childish horseshit.
It is NOT, "one private group watches another private group, both ready to report illegal activities."
The ACLU had one intention and one intention only and that was to stop the Minutemen, Americans, from exercising the rights of speech, assembly and petition.
If your too immature to participate in an adult conversation, please butt out.

|10.20.06 @ 2:58PM|#

to echo what I wrote to you yesterday, Terry, you probably ought not to commenting on the maturity level of others

by the way, since 6th graders can understand the constitution, let's poll 6th graders to see how many of them can explain the concept of habeus corpus

|10.20.06 @ 2:58PM|#

Terry - if that was the ACLU's intention, I don't think they did a very good job.

D.A. Ridgely|10.20.06 @ 3:06PM|#

If your too immature to participate in an adult conversation, please butt out.

Best. Unintended. Irony. All. Day.

|10.20.06 @ 3:18PM|#

"The ACLU had one intention and one intention only and that was to stop the Minutemen, Americans, from exercising the rights of speech, assembly and petition."

wait a minute - i thought they were watching their speech, assemblies & petitions in order to act on any potential abuses.

|10.20.06 @ 3:24PM|#

Jennifer et al.,

You've all made good points about what one should and shouldn't do in a debate, so it saddens me to remind you that you're engaged in a futile exercise. Unfortunately, there has never been an Internet "debate" like this:

ANGRY TROLL: Bullshit. You're a fucking coward and you know it. Stop trying to argue with adults.

JENNIFER (or whoever else): Perhaps you ought to try reasoned debating sans the foaming-at-the-mouth profanity. With your current attitude, you'll never convince anyone of your substantive arguments (and what is your substantive argument, anyway?).

ANGRY TROLL: This is the first time I've ever changed my mind about anything, but I like you're style! Thanks, guys, I'll take a different approach from this point forward. Geez, I feel like I've just been cured of rabies, and the sky already looks bluer.

|10.20.06 @ 3:35PM|#

"The ACLU had one intention and one intention only and that was to stop the Minutemen, Americans, from exercising the rights of speech, assembly and petition."

The ACLU had one intention: to make sure half-drunk, pissed-off gun nuts didn't sic their dogs on illegal immigrants or actually shoot illegal immigrants. Funny thing about announcing your intention to break the law: people like the ACLU take you seriously. I guess there is something to be said for sobriety. I suspect that the ACLU, more than anything, kept a lot of the Minutemen out of jail. Here comes the drunk patrol!!!

|10.20.06 @ 4:08PM|#

Lamar,
You fucking bigot. The Minutemen went out of their way to say they respect the law.
They did background checks on the volunteers.
The result. Not only were there no arrests of Minutemen, they were credited with saving some illegal immigrants from heat exhaustion and dehydration.
Amazing, no facts to refute my arguement. None, but then again its understandable.
I am right, and most of you, are wrong. The ones who aren't support my position.

Overall a big disappointment. I could've swore that the level of debate and intelligence, used to be higher.

|10.20.06 @ 4:23PM|#

biologist:

Whip out your handy copy of The Bill of Rights and take note of Amendments 1,2 and 4. They all refer to The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. For the phrase RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, as described in the 2nd Amendment, to be consistant with it's use, in context, in the 1st (the right to exercise free speech and to peacebly assemble) and 4th (the right to be secure in their persons) Amendments, it must mean the Right of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms. A Militia is an Army of civilians who own their own guns. If that isn't clear, tell me and I'll explain it differently.

Terry:

You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

|10.20.06 @ 4:27PM|#

downstater wrote, "wait a minute - i thought they were watching their speech, assemblies & petitions in order to act on any potential abuses."
Were you born a dipshit or did you have to work at it downstater?
Who do you think your fooling?
ACLU worked to stop, STOP, (do you know what that means?) Americans, who organized into a group called Minutemen, from exercising their rights.
Your smartass mouth is more approate for elementary school.

|10.20.06 @ 4:28PM|#

|10.20.06 @ 4:43PM|#

"ACLU worked to stop, STOP, (do you know what that means?) Americans, who organized into a group called Minutemen, from exercising their rights."

not according to your own citation T. it helps when they actually support your claim.

"Your smartass mouth is more approate [sic] for elementary school"

ZING! you're probably right. some of us just take longer buses than others.

"I could've swore that the level of debate and intelligence, used to be higher."

that i believe. when did you start posting?

anyway, i'm off to go donate a dollar to the aclu for every ad hominem here. Chris S is right. this is useless and ultimately boring.

|10.20.06 @ 5:02PM|#

downstater
Read up about it. If you did you would know that is what the ACLU tried to do.
Go ahead, stick your head up your ass and donate to the ACLU.
Goodbye and good riddance dipshit.

|10.20.06 @ 5:24PM|#

"The Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment is not an indiviual right".

Then the Supreme Court is wrong, again. For me to say it is clear is problematic for you, not for me, I can read. The text in the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments is written in clear, plain English, it's only strained and open to numerous interpretations for people interested in obfusacation and lawyerly mental gymnastics.

|10.20.06 @ 5:24PM|#

Lamar, is this a joke? The supreme court said no such thing.
Even if they did, they would be wrong.
The text is strained and the "grammar problems" are only problems to people who are illiterate.
No, there is only one group called Mintuemen.
And that is the one the ACLU tried to prevent from exercising their rights.
Seriously Lamar, are you an open, minded person pretending to be a narrow minded, dumb liberal?

|10.20.06 @ 6:21PM|#

Terry

Even if everything you say about the ACLU is true, we would appreciate arguments and reasons, not ad hominem.

I have had disputes with just about everyone on this thread, including Lamar, Jennifer and Pro Libertate. Sometimes they've convinced me and sometimes we simply don't agree. None of them have ever called me "narrow minded", "dumb", or "coward", all of which you have just used.

If you can't state a position without name calling and abuse, go away.

|10.20.06 @ 6:36PM|#

If your too immature to participate in an adult conversation, please butt out.

This is the first time I've ever changed my mind about anything, but I like you're style!

to be consistant with it's use

Who do you think your fooling?

in the process scares the crap out of "god" fearing people to live there lives.

OK, folks, please try to remember the distinction between your and you're, between its and it's, and between there, their and they're.

|10.20.06 @ 6:40PM|#

Seamus

Parse off. ;)

|10.20.06 @ 7:25PM|#

Buckshot:

granted, the 2nd amendment (via Cornell Law School) states:

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 infringed.

since the original reading and intent of the amendments (as I understand them, I could be wrong) was to restrain the central, national government, and not apply to the states, what are we to make of the phrase "well regulated militia"? who was to regulate said militia? it does not appear obvious to me that regulate here means "to make regular" as many on this forum have argued in regard to the constitution's granting of authority to congress "to regulate commerce...among the several states"

do (or did) the states have the authority to regulate militias? if so, do (or did) state governments have the authority to "infringe" on the right to keep and bear arms? if they did have that authority at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, do they still, in the post-14th amendment era, under the doctrine of incorporation.

Dan T.|10.20.06 @ 7:40PM|#

I'm with downstater. Terry, for every subsequent post you make in this thread, I'm donating $100 to the ACLU.

|10.20.06 @ 8:09PM|#

Seamus,

At least they didn't misspell accommodate. I can't abide that.

|10.21.06 @ 12:06PM|#

biologist:

I'm trying to follow your thinking, I hope this is right. Even if the militia is regulated by the state, and that looks right to me, "regulate" doesn't mean necessarily mean "disarm". If you disarm the militia, there isn't a militia to regulate anymore, it's just a collection of unarmed men ripe for the slaughter.

I keep returning to my interpretation that every reference to THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE in the Bill of Rights indicates (to me) the rights of INDIVIDUALS. Only individuals can be secure in their persons, only individuals can assemble, only individuals can keep arms. The SPIRIT of the Bill of Rights is one of protecting citizens from the power of the State.

I read the 14th Amendment, it's a long one and I can't seem to find it's relevence to our disscussion. Chalk it up to my poor education, it causes me problems from time to time, especially on H&R.

|10.21.06 @ 12:29PM|#

Terry,

"The First Amendment protects the rights of all to speak, gather and protest," said Furman [ACLU spokeman], emphasizing that the ACLU has often represented the interests of those with whom it strongly disagrees. "We have no intention of preventing the Minutemen or other protesters from engaging in constitutionally-protected first amendment activity. However, we are also concerned that protesters not engage in activity that violates the civil rights of others."

Toward this end, the ACLU has urged the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to take an active role in preventing such abuses. At the same time, Furman said that the legal observers will monitor Minuteman activity and note any abuses of migrants to determine if legal action is warranted to protect against civil rights abuses and other possible criminal violations.

Ray Ybarra, an ACLU Racial Justice Fellow working on border and migrant issues in Douglas, Arizona, added, "Our concerns are based on the past history of abusive behavior by those who believe that the migrants are coming to 'destroy our way of life.' We must emphasize that these individuals are not to be dismissed as evil racists. Rather, they are symbolic of the fear and misunderstanding that exists in our society."

Observers will also monitor law enforcement activity and note any infringements on the First Amendment-protected activities of all of the groups."

|10.21.06 @ 12:53PM|#

For those claiming that the meaning of the 2nd is clear, try reading the wikipedia entry... it is quite comprehensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I would argue that some of the state constitutions written before or around the same time as the US constitution explicitly mention the individual right to bear arms for individual defense, but the US constitution does not.

The original wording proposed:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

This is clearly about militia. But ambiguous about the individual right. All subsequent versions remain ambiguous regarding the individual right. If the state constitutions explicitly state the individual right, why didn't the Bill of Rights?

My guess is that it is because they were concerned with the nature and regulation of militia and conscription in the debate, not an individual's right to own a gun.

In the end, it is just a poorly worded.

If you want an individual right, move to NM

"New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."

Or North Dakota:
North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

|10.21.06 @ 1:06PM|#

I should have said,

"If you want a constitutionally protected individual right..."

Since this is about whether you have a constitutionally protected right, not whether you "have a right."

|10.21.06 @ 5:01PM|#

Mainstream Man:

The problem as I see it, after reading your fine explaination, is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't use the clear word "individual" but rather the ambiguous phrase, "the Right of the People". So the question hinges on the meaning of that phrase. Every time the Bill of Rights uses the phrase, Right of the People, it's listing rights that people have. People are persons, and they come one at a time, individually. Therefore, the People are the Individual People.

My Webster's Unabridged says, in brief, that in the USA, all males between 18 and 45 who are not in the regular armed services, both regular and reserve, are the Militia. That means they are a civilian branch of the armed forces, which means they get to keep their guns handy.(I'm over 45, but I'm not giving up my guns.)

Also, why would they Founding Fathers put in the Bill of Rights that the Army has the right to be armed? Doesn't that seem a little redundant?

If Americans have traditionally viewed the 2nd Amendment as the right for individuals to own guns, doesn't that add to the argument? Also, there's reality, who will protect me when the next Katrina style anarchy hits my town and all the mutants are running amok? In New Orleans the gun owners were safer from the predators than were the unarmed refugees, and the cops were GONE.

|10.21.06 @ 7:21PM|#

Buckshot,

Like I said before, your argument is coherent, but I am not sure it gets around the ambiguity in the wording (a version of your argument is included in the Wikipedia article). I would argue, for instance, that an individual can not assemble. Only groups of people can assemble, therefore there is not an individual right to assemble, but a collective right. The right manifests only in the context of a collective...

Parsing semantic distinction at this level will always lead disagreements. In the end, it doesn't matter whether the founders intended to enshrine an individual right to keep and bear arms for personal defense, or only as a collective right to maintain a militia (as opposed to a standing army)... in the end their wording is ambiguous enough that there is essentially no constitutional assurance of that individual right at the federal level.

The debate will continue.

|10.21.06 @ 8:58PM|#

"I would argue, for instance, that an individual cannot assemble".

That's fucking killer! You win on the 1st Amendment, I'm gonna go watch the World Series.

The debate will continue....

|10.21.06 @ 11:30PM|#

"I would argue, for instance, that an individual cannot assemble".

This would explain why I can never put something together so it looks like the picture on the box.

|10.22.06 @ 8:57AM|#

Mainstream Man:

I've slept on it, now I have an answer for you.
THE PEOPLE are individuals before they assemble. You say, "Only groups of people can assemble", I say, only individuals can assemble into groups. THE PEOPLE aren't a collective until after they assemble, they aren't given the right to HAVE assembled, that would be a collective right. "The right manifests only in the context of a collective." The right manifests in the context of indiviuals who want to become a collective, and the 1st Amendment gives them that right.

"Parsing semantic distinction at this level will always lead to disagreement." But arguing the point will sometime lead to a resolution, and it's so much fun.

|10.22.06 @ 11:49AM|#

"I say, only individuals can assemble into groups. "

Well, groups can assemble into larger groups. I don't think the fact that individual people are the constituents of assembled groups means that "THE PEOPLE" is foregrounding the individuals. I would say that when you talk about the freedom to assemble, you are foregrounding the collective when you speak of "THE PEOPLE."

Think in terms of the word "sand." You don't have "sand" unless you have lots of individual tiny rocks, but when you say "sand" you are referring to the collective of tiny rocks, not the individual rocks.

The result of the collective right to assemble in the 1st is that an individual has the right to freely associate with other individuals (to form collectives). The result of the collective right to form a well regulated armed militia may result in an individual having a right to keep and bear arms, but only in the context of the collective exercising the right to form a well regulated militia (to assemble into a certain kind of collective). This is the interpretation SCOTUS gave in Miller.

|10.22.06 @ 12:23PM|#

So we agree that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. Ahem..."The result of the collective right to form a well regulated armed militia MAY result in an INDIVIDUAL having the right to keep and bear arms, but only in the context of the collective excercising the right to form a well regulated militia...."
If I have the (collective?) right to keep & bear arms only because I'm a member of the militia, I still get to keep my guns while the militia is inactive. That's why it's called a militia, because it's an ARMED civilian branch of the reserve Armed Forces. If we civilians didn't have guns in our homes, we'd be a pretty lame militia. Even if the Right to Bear Arms is a collective right,(and I ain't convinced, yet) it's the collective right of all the individuals in the collective.

I'm glad we were able to difinitively settle this issue.

|10.22.06 @ 12:51PM|#

"I'm glad we were able to difinitively settle this issue."

I would say that the issue will never be settled. We certainly are not in equivalent positions.

"If I have the (collective?) right to keep & bear arms only because I'm a member of the militia, I still get to keep my guns while the militia is inactive."

Those who argue against gun control laws tend to use the argument that it is an individual right to bear arms for personal protection (they read it like NM's provision). That is not the interpretation that SCOTUS has come to on the 2nd. The SCOTUS position means that gun control laws are not prohibited by the constitution as long as they do not interfere with the collective right to form a miltia (which involves individual being able to "keep" arms). The right to bear arms can be interpreted to mean "use in a military capacity." This is clearly not what the NRA thinks the 2nd says.

If the debate is about whether the feds have the right to regulate gun ownership, the 2nd does not provide unambiguous guidance. In many states, the point is moot, since the state constitutions are (sometimes) clear about the individual right and its extent.

Like I said before, the debate is not about whether you "have a right" but about whether you have a constitutionally protected right at the federal level. My position remains that the 2nd is too ambiguous to provide that protection, particularly when it comes to protecting an individual's right to keep and use arms to protect his person, property, or family. Nothing in the 2nd says the state can't restrict gun ownership through regulatory processes like background checks, requiring open carry, restricting certain types of weapons in certain environments (no guns in bars, for instance). The debate around 2nd only matters in the context of these policy debates. And it is in those debates that the 2nd is too ambiguous to be useful.

This is why the ACLU stays neutral on the issue.
It is also, probably, why SCOTUS tends to stay away from the issue.

|10.22.06 @ 2:20PM|#

Of course I was kidding about the issue being settled.

I've read your last comment several times, it's a good one. The key for me is, "gun control laws are not prohibited by the constitution as long as they do not interfere with the collective right to form a militia". I don't know what the official opinion of the NRA is, I'm not a member, but I have no problem with that SCOTUS opinion. Since my being part of the militia allows me to keep my guns for personal protection (see my previous comments), I don't see where this SCOTUS ruling is a threat to my gun ownership.

"If the debate is about whether the feds have the right to regulate gun ownership, the 2nd does not provide unambiguous guidance". OK, I'll go along with that, but the 2nd does provide ambiguous guidance. The part where you are right and I was wrong is the clarity of the 2nd, I said it was clear, you've convinced me it's not.

"Nothing in the 2nd says the state can't restrict gun ownership through regulatory processes..." This is where the ambiguity of the 2nd becomes a complicated pain in the ass. The state will regulatorally process away all my rights if I don't have a good constitutional argument.

"In many states, the point is moot, since the state constitutions are (sometimes) clear about the individual right and it's extent." This is good to know, thank God for State Constitutions. (Aside - does my California state right to use Medical Marijuana protect me from the DEA?)

To make a full circle to my original position, I read the 2nd Amendment as protecting me from being disarmed by the government. My whole point to begin with was that I have the right to keep and bear arms.

You're right: The 2nd Amendment isn't crystal clear.

I'm right: It's clear enough that I have the right to own guns.

|10.22.06 @ 2:53PM|#

MSM: it might be useful to remember Miller decision was in the absence of any defense. Miller never showed. No defense was presented.
Contemprary writings of the Founders made what they thought about civil firearms ownership crystal clear: posession of firearms by the general citizenry was a GOOD THING.
Finally, to follow up on something I talked about w/ Buckshot quite awhile back- "Rights" posessed by humans arent anything granted, or won because you fought for them (tho you may certainly loose them if you dont fight) but simply because we are born human, can reason, & have empathy. Among those Rights is the right to defend yourself.
If firearms are allowed only in the context of a "well regulated militia" are the same People mentioned in that context permitted to assemble or speak or publish only in a "well regulated" context? Perhaps in Dobson's eyes. Not mine.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1221/guns.htm
Unfortunatly, the link that used to connect to a long article on what the Founder said re: firearms possession is no longer active. .....

|10.22.06 @ 3:05PM|#

MUTT,

The debate is not about where rights come from...just which ones are protected by the constitution...

As you know, the Bill of Rights is quite clear about the fact that it does not provide an exhaustive list (see the 9th..."The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.").

"If firearms are allowed only in the context of a "well regulated militia" are the same People mentioned in that context permitted to assemble or speak or publish only in a "well regulated" context?"

Firearms are not "allowed" or "disallowed" by the second. The 2nd regards what kinds of laws are prohibited in regards to arms (it "disallows" laws.... but what kind of laws is unclear, hence the debate).

The 1st is much clearer. There is no sense in which a well regulated context is implied from its wording.

|10.22.06 @ 3:58PM|#

Mainstream Man:

"The 2nd regards what kinds of LAWS are prohibited in regards to arms."
No, it doesn't say laws, it says infringement, which could mean regulations, laws, rules, whatever. It never specifically says laws. The 2nd doesn't allow or disallow firearms, true, it does disallow infringment on my right to keep and bear arms.

I would like to mention something about this debate. Whenever I disagree with a leftist/liberal on this or any other issue I feel passionate about, I'm invariably faced with the same reaction; my opponent attacks me, what kind of person I must be to hold this opinion. With this and other Hit & Run debates I've been involved in, my adversaries address the flaws in my thinking, not my person. Not, "Here's what's wrong with you", but "Here's what wrong with you opinion". This way, even if I'm wrong I win because I learn something. This is quite intellectually stimulating.

|10.22.06 @ 5:13PM|#

Buckshot,

Quite right. Infringement could be in the form of regulations or laws or policies. I misspoke (misstyped?).

As for the tone of this debate.

I agree it has been nice having the discussion. Last time I was involved in a lengthy debate on the issue it was not as pretty. That was here on H&R as well, so do not be surprised if you run into a less reasoned reaction on occasion. Of course, given that I am more likely to be the contrarian around here I am more likely to get the hostility directed my way.

I've also been known to be an arrogant bastard on occasion, which doesn't help ;~)

|10.22.06 @ 6:02PM|#

People are persons, and they come one at a time, individually.
Except that corporations are people, too.

|10.22.06 @ 8:12PM|#

Thanks for the link, Lamar, I've bookmarked it for after the game.

|10.23.06 @ 7:48AM|#

For good explication on the "right of the people" being an individual right, Randy Barnett is your man. The work of Stephen Halbrook and Joyce Lee Malcolm ( http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MALKEE.html ) make the case that Amendment 2 explicitly contemplated individual ownership of weapons, and that "well-regulated" meant "well-ordered", back in the day, not "bound by many government regulations."

What's really annoying is how a state like Wisconsin has adopted a constitutional amendment guaranteeing individual arms ownership, but the current governor and many D.A.s choose to misread it and won't rewrite regulations in light of the change in the basic law.

Kevin