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.
Good post.
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.