Skip to comments.Is The Second Amendment a collective right or a personal right?
Posted on 01/18/2013 8:25:21 PM PST by Vendome
Just a thought game for us.
The callers had me laughing. One hapless fellow kept blabbing about how voting rights have removed for felons in 48 "out of 51 states".
Most callers understood the 2A to have at a minimum the right of the individual and several thought the 2A was both collective and individual. Wrong of course.
Still, another fellow went on about how he didn't need a gun, doesn't want one and believes everyone should be disarmed.
Apparently this Kwaii Chang merely keeps to himself and lets others be themselves. He feels this keeps him from being targeted.
Well, I'm sure he'll be wondering whut he dunn wong when crime does visit him personally.
Anyway, have fun with the thought game.
Freepers know the answer but, I look forward to reading your various answers.
Gotta run and take care of some honey-do. Be back in a bit.
I live near one of the very few areas where Air America can actually make a profit. The callers are all pre-screened liberals of course. Their statements are often laughable, but sometimes just foolish and begging for disaster. I still remember one saying “I don’t understand why conservatives are so afraid of big government”, and the host agreed completely. Hello? I get tired of hearing that old argument that only militias should be allowed to own guns. What is a militia anyway? It’s a civilian army. Hello again. But no one challenges what they say because no one is allowed to.
Rights inhere in individuals, but of course may be, and often are exercised or enjoyed collectively.
This is one thing the left cannot understand; the INDIVIDUAL. Me, a singular entity with inherit rights they cannot take away. My right to live, my right to defend at ALL costs my right to exist. I am an INDIVIDUAL with LIBERTY not granted by the government, but the original intent of the government existing because I exist as an INDIVIDUAL.
Well, I googled the declaration of independence, the consitution, and finally the bill of rights texts.
I pressed ctrl f and entered the word “collective” for each text, and that word prompted no result for any of the three texts.
I am going to go ahead and rule out the word “collective” as it relates to anything in this country other than the band of communists that collectively calls itself the democrat party.
Heck, I don’t even know what a “collective right” is.
Leftists can’t understand the difference between “Rights of Men” and “Rights of Man”. Men is collective and always results in murder of innocents by tyrants. The rights of Man leads to individual Freedom.
The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is a God-given right and therefore inaleinable.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not come from any government, and as such can be perceived as both collectivist and individual.
The “Father of the Constitution”, James Madison, makes
it clear to me what he thought about individual vs
collective rights regarding firearm ownership in The
There’s that great other thread running now that applies the often-overlooked preamble to the Bill of Rights to the 2nd Amendment (and the other militia-related clauses within the Constitution), with the conclusion that the right to bear arms is intended to ensure a free state by regulating the militia.
IOW, the “militia”, it’s ability to be activated/called out and Federalized (with the President as CinC), was itself seen as a threat that needed to be “regulated”. Regulated meaning “Controlled”.
Given that, there’s absolutely no way - zero - that firearms ownership can be a “collective” right. Because the “collective” application of the right would be the ... militia.
It would make no sense. In order to ensure a free state by having the militia act as a hedge against abuse by ... the militia? No way. The founders were experts at language, and pretty smart to boot. They wouldn’t incorporate a concept that outrageously ludicrous in their governing document(s).
As long as we’re having fun, how about: It’s a personnel right that can be exercised collectively. Me and my buddies can pool our funds and buy that .50 Barret and own it collectively.
The phrase “right the people” refers to individuals. Look for similar wording in the 1st and 4th and 10th amendments. Nobody wonders if free speech and right to be free from search without a warrant is a collective right.
And when they mean the states, they say “the states”. WHen they mean the Feds, they say the “united states”. And when they mean individuals,,they say “the people”.
The person advancing this theory is way out of the mainstream. Even as recently as a year ago in Heller, the supremes affirmed that right.
Collective right indeed. lol
It`s collective right when 2 guys are firing their AR15`s together at the same target
Are you mixing apples and peaches?... As free individuals in a Constitutional Republic, we have the right to defend our families and selves from criminal elements. As free sovereigns of the same Constitutional Republic we have the Constitutionally mandated right to keep and bear arms, uninfringed in that regard (including cannons ... private owners is where the citizen militia got the first ones for fighting the British), inorder to oust tyrants like little barry bastard boy commie and his democrips when they violate OUR CONSTITUTION and try to abort our sovereignty.
You just rested what I said.
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.
Ask yourself who makes the Militia regular? By the way, that is much closer to the meaning of regulate at the time the Bill of Rights was written. The answer is the people. Now ask yourself the question where were the Militias were based? At a national level or state level? It was at the state and/or local level. Read the Militia Act of 1792 for a better understanding. The notion of a free state is very important. It wasn't after reconstruction that people identified themselves as Americans. They were Pennsylvanians or Virginians. State militias were important to preserve state rights against a potentially tyrannical federal government. So it is a collective right at the state level, not the federal level.
It is also an individual right. It is clear as day in the words of the 2nd Amendment. Something to understand about Militias at that time, and the law at that time, individuals owned their own weapons used when serving in Militias. Yes, there were some weapons purchased by the Militias for those men that did not have weapons, meaning long guns, and also cannons. But as an individual you could own cannons, and privately owned merchant ships did have cannons.
The most important thing about the 2nd Amendment is that it is a check on the federal government.
Absolutely. The bill rights is some of our God given rights which we specifically prohibit the government from infringing in the performance of the duties which we have assigned to them.
Neither the constritution nor the government can "give" us rights.
Winnuh!!! and in only two posts.
Definitively for the individual; the Bill of Rights.
I’m going to put that in your “personnel” file. LOL
Umm, me and my buddies all work at the same place so we’re all “personnel” there. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
I actually considered the possibility of collective but, that wasn’t really the question for the radio host.
No one was able to articulate what might constitute a collective right but, it must start with the individual right.
There would be NO government if not for the Bill of Rights.
Libtards like O’numbnuts doesn’t get it.
Impeach his ass. If that doesn’t work, well....
"Collective" is for communists.
good idea/method for soliciting rhetoric and hopefully truth. ok i’ll play, a little.
def: a Right is the physical or spirtual state of a free being that if abrogated violates God’s law, thus putting the violator under His judgement. so. what God creates and legislates, let no man destroy or deny, under pain of spirtual death and separation.
so what kind of laws, has God enumerated? what entity or entities are these laws formulated for?
The ignorance and naivete of liberals can be, frankly, quite embarrassing. It’s often outright painful to watch them try so hard to come up with a coherent and rational argument to support their incoherent and irrational philosophies.
One of the weakest and most childish arguments liberals can come up with in support of gun control is their “militia” obsession. Invariably, they craft arguments which do nothing but demonstrate the frightful lack of legal and historical knowledge common among progressive liberals.
The first ten amendments to the constitution were adopted in December of 1791. Five months after adopting these amendments, this bill of rights, Congress decided to grant the President authority to call forth the militia (article 1, section 8 of the constitution granted this authority to Congress).
As with any good piece of legislation, the First Militia Act defined key operative terms rather than relying on shifting dictionary or popular definitions - you see, many of the same men that drafted and voted to adopt the second amendment agreed on the legal definition of “militia” set out in the First Militia Act.
So, what did the writers of the second amendment think they meant when they wrote “militia”? What did the same men think the word “militia” meant when they delegated their constitutional authority to call said militia forth? Well, their definition is still a part of federal law. Later acts, such as the National Guard Act and the Selective Service Act merely modified and added language to the definition set down in the United States Code by the Militia Acts. You can read the legal definition of “militia” by checking Title 10 Section 311 of the U.S.C.:
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
Assuming a person would want the strictest possible interpretation of the second amendment, and conveniently ignored the phrase “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, the language of the amendment would still recognize the right of all men of military age to keep and bear arms.
Consequently, when a liberal argues that the second amendment only applies to the “militia”, what they’re really arguing is that only male U.S. citizens between the ages of 17 and 45 have the right to keep and bear arms (and women who are part of the national guard).
As an aside, the SECOND Militia Act, passed shortly after the first such act, REQUIRED all able-bodied men of military age to acquire at their own cost and keep ready the infantry long-arm of the day and keep it, along with suitable ammunition to fight a battle, ready at all times. That is the definition of the militia, every able-bodied man in a nation keeping ready military arms - an armed body politic meant as both a check against foreign aggression and a guarantee against tyrannical government at home.
When liberals argue for a “collective” right interpretation, they’re arguing that only male citizens should have guns. We here on the conservative right also happen to respect the rights of our wives, daughters, sisters and mothers to protect themselves and participate as equal members of society, so we argue that they have the right to keep and bear arms as well.
There is no such animal. It’s a fiction the Left invokes when trying to crush individual liberty.
Well said, Sandrat...well said, indeed.
Ah, thanks. I was successful then!
You need to spend a few hours at http://www.usavsus.info/ to learn what a freeman is.
A “collective right” is what allows others to take what belongs to you, on their behalf, or behalf of others.
You can pimp your link elsewhere.
Tuh duh!!!! Another winner!
And BTW, anyone positing a Kennedy quote should be suspect, no matter their sign up date. That family is sin upon this Republic.
The right to remain silent is individual right. If someone is being questioned, the person can assert this right, and does not need to have someone else assert it on his behalf. The right to keep and bear firearms is also an individual right, and the individual need not ask others to assert that right for him. The Bill of Rights protects the people, and it is THEIR rights, and the Government is duty sworn to uphold each and every one of them. I wish to God that the Federal Courts would defend the 2nd Amendment as fiercely as they defend the 1st Amendment, and the 4th and 5th Amendments.
The government would NEVER turn their weapons on the COLLECTIVE.
Ask everyone at Kent State.
Is the right of free exercise of religion only allowed when one congregates with others in a church, or can an individual exercise that right in a solitary manner?
Is the right against abridging freedom of the press only allowed for people accredited as journalists or is it a right of the people to a free press?
Is the right of the people to peacably assemble only allowed when the collective allows it or can individuals assemble and move of their own choice?
Before someone relieved me of 2/3 of them I used to collect WW2 training "rifles".
The US versions were merely '03 Springfield lookalikes, mostly wood, stamped sights, with about 4 inches of hollow steel out front to simulate a Barrel bl, no mehanism at all. They were light enough for me to have purchased my first as war surplus as a ten year old kid. They were good for teaching Joe Average how to march and do manual of arms. Only.
The British version was a SMLE facsimile with a pronged fork that popped out of the front and punched a hole in a framed paper target that could be hung off the front of the "rifle". It was serialized, nearly as heavy as the real thing and came in a nicely made & very official GI type wood box.
Always seemed to me that the difference between "how to march" and "how to aim and shoot" explained why we have a second amendment and the result of our cousins not having it. (Despite the amendment's having grown from an English law requiring long bows and archery practice.)
IIRC, it is also the basis for the USA sending tons of donated firearms to the Brits very early in (their) WW2.
There’s no such thing as a collective right.
The right is not constitutionally mandated. Recognized by the Constitution, yes. That it is not to be infringed upon is mandated. The right itself comes from elsewhere.
Nope, the founders wouldn’t do a 180 from wording the 1st Amendment as an individual right to wording the 2nd Amendment as a “collective right” (whatever that is). The scumbag lefties will say anything to try to confuse the ignorant chattering class.
What are you doing listening to those simple mice, anyway?
Havana? Venezuela? San Fransicko?
“A collective right or an individual right?” You ask this question seriously today?
Seems to me like some people responding to this post would do well to read the SCOTUS opinions from the Heller and the McDonald cases. While you’re at it, the recent opinion from the 7th Circuit, Moore v Madigan, warrants a bit of your reading time, too.
Once you do that, any doubts you have that the 2A being an INDIVIDUAL right will be put to rest.
The Second does two things ~ it recognizes that the entire class of people are noblemen. Secondly, it prohibits the federal government from abridging their rights ~ as noblemen.
Remember, power flows up from the bottom in America. Everyone is a nobleman. They all live in states. The state's exercise the sovereign powers of states as they are identified in the Peace of Westphalia (and as ratified in the Treaty of Paris 1783). The states act through an agent called the Federal government to effectuate foreign affairs, and interstate commerce.
Which means that ALL rights are collective rights and individual rights ~ but the Federal government has only limited powers or rights and they are enumerated!
They would have never built crew served weapons if they didn’t understand collective use of individual liberties.
It applies to EVERY INDIVIDUAL...
and COLLECTIVELY to ALL INDIVIDUALS.
Sure, I ask this question today.
I was aghast at the idiocy on whatever left wing radio I was listening to.
I was driving along with my month open, in stunned admiration for their little minds attempting to think this through.
Sort of like mental sysiphus and they just don’t get anywhere.
And again Freepers validate why Jim Robville is the best place to get an education or prove the truth.