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
Federalist #46.
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
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.
Definitively for the individual; the Bill of Rights.
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 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.