[goldstategop]

There been a controversy over whether the Second Amendment grants an individual right or whether it grants a collective one. The weight of American history and legal doctrine favor the former. Its hard to see how you can carve out an exception to the Second Amendment when every other amendment in the Bill Of Rights is clearly about individual rights.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[lakeman]

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

Seems they agree it is an individual right.

[B4Ranch]

Its hard to see how you can carve out an exception to the Second Amendment when every other amendment in the Bill Of Rights is clearly about individual rights.

That's how I see it also.

[rwfromkansas]

That is the strongest argument I think.

Yeah, I would admit when you read it, it does emphasize the militia part.

But, the fact of the matter is, it is a Bill of Rights. It makes no sense that it would not be an individual right regardless of whether one is in a militia or not.

[robertpaulsen]

"or whether it grants a collective one"

By a "collective" right, what do you mean? Do you mean an individual right that is exercised collectively, not individually?

[Abundy]

There been a controversy over whether the Second Amendment grants an individual right or whether it grants a collective one.

Remember, the Constitution doesn't grant anything to the individual. It delegates certain authority to the Federal Government.

The Bill of Rights was a declaratory document that specified certain rights that individuals and the States did not delegate to the Federal Government.

Don't let anyone tell you different.

Oh, and their aren't "individual rights that are exercised collectively" in terms of the BOR. We do, however, delegate certain powers to government. But when you are talking about the first eight amendments to the constitution, you are specifically talking about individual rights that are exercised individually.

Regardless of what some retards might claim.

[El Gato]

There been a controversy over whether the Second Amendment grants an individual right or whether it grants a collective one. The weight of American history and legal doctrine favor the former.

Not quite. The second amendment does not grant *ANYTHING*. It protect a preexisting individual right, a right of the people. It does not say, "the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms". No, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Rights are not granted by government. In fact, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, governments are created to secure, that is protect, rights.

[Regulator]

There been a controversy over whether the Second Amendment grants an individual right or whether it grants a collective one

Gee...I've been an American for well over half a century now, and....not once in the first 40 or so years of that did I ever hear anyone attempt to characterize the Second Amendment as a "collective right", whatever that might be. Oddly, I don't think the military (of any flavor) needed an amendment to the Constitution to give it the right to have its members keep or bear arms. Sorta seems redundant, you know?

One of the major mistakes that Americans make is actually bothering to give credence to ludicrous assertions like this, which is clearly a cheap attempt to fabricate a nullifying definition of the Second out of whole cloth. The split second you actually start debating nonsense like this, you have walked into the trap that people like lawyers set: accepting their contrived reality as being even a bit real.

There is nothing to debate in this ridiculous perversion of the history and intent of the Second Amendment. It was concocted as an ad hoc argument from some simple distortions of ordinary words. At best, it shows how language is imprecise, and therefore the source of difficulty in making laws that are unassailable, as Messrs. Madison and Jefferson were trying to do.

But the Steve Breyers of the world revel in this crap, because it allows them to twist the world to their liking. And in so doing, change - radically - the Constitution.

Such games should be off limits to malicious children like them.

[Mike-o-Matic]

  >> Its hard to see how you can carve out an exception to the Second Amendment
  >> when every other amendment in the Bill Of Rights is clearly about individual rights.

No problem. Possess flawed insights, leftist leanings, and a preexisting bias, and it's suddenly easy!

[longtermmemmory]

hence the fiction of the magic morphing language of the constitution. Words have meaning and if the left is able to change a definition to a word to the left wing view, the sentence will change accordingly.

(ala the end of 1984 when orwell explains that in his book under the newspeak language the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence could ONLY be expressed with the words “crime think”.)

That is why the left is creating civil unions which are marriage without marriage.

That is why the left created the fiction of “hate crime”.

that is why the left created growth managment or environmental impact laws.

[CDHart]

I never thought they'd rule the way they did on Kelo vs. New London.

Carolyn