Re: Do reporters have special rights the rest of us don't have?

[Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>]

>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.

Subsequent court rulings have left somewhat unclear the meaning of
"well-regulated militia".  At the present this appears to mean citizens, in
general.

>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.

I can't agree with "the security of a free State" aspect.  A higher
priority among the signers and states than "the security of a free State"
was freedom.  It was recognized, in the Declaration of Independance, that
it was the people's right to replace government (even through force of
arms) when they felt it had come to tyranny in order ot maintain freedom.

Unjustified to whom?  The State?  How can the state be the best judge of
what is in the best interests of the people in maintaining their freedom?
Seems the State has a conflict of interest and should recuse itself on this
issue.

--Ste5e