Baloney. The "freedom of assembly" is a collective right. I can even argue that the "freedom of the press" and the "freedom of religion" is a collective right -- can I form the individual Church of Robertpaulsen and not pay taxes?
"Rights" secured by what entity? The individual state? If so, then I agree. I have no qualms with rights secured by the individual states being individual rights.
The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution (which Madison didn't even think was necessary and added it later under pressure), as written, only applied to the newly formed federal government. All it said was that the federal government could not infringe on these rights. So, the second amendment, whatever it protects, protects only from federal infringement. The state were, and still are, guided solely by their state constitutions when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.
As you are aware, the model for the U.S. Constitution was the Articles of Confederation (ratified in 1781). That document did mention a Militia, but did not mention a right to bear arms -- meaning any such protections would have had to come from state law. From the Articles of Confederation:
"No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."
In my opinion, the second amendment was more about the argument against a standing army than one of an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers were in favor of the federal government "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". The second amendment was to secure the right of the state to form and maintain a state militia, however they saw fit to do so.
All of the lower federal circuit courts (save one, in one case) have interpreted the second amendment as protecting the rights of the people, collectively, to keep and bear arms as part of a Militia. Don't shoot the messenger here.
Do you really want the federal government protecting your RKBA? Do you really want five liberal justices on some future U.S. Supreme Court interpreting the second amendment -- defining "arms"? Defining "keep and bear"? Then applying those interpretations to all fifty states?
Or do you trust your state to protect your gun rights?
The Freedom of individuals to come together in groups? That's your example of a "collective" right? Your first example is pure spin.
And no, Rights secured by compact with government. In this case, by the US Constitution whereby the individual States ceded authority, and submitted themselves to the authority, of the FedGov in specifically defined areas.
You are so off base with regards to the purpose of the Second Amendment it isn't even ridiculous any more. All those past quotations from the various Founders purporting the individual Right, even going as far as calling it a Duty, to keep and bear arms and you STILL think it only applies to the FedGov and that the States can just strip us of that Right by simple law...
The second amendment was to secure the right of the state to form and maintain a state militia, however they saw fit to do so.
Ah... the Brady Logic for supporting gun control. "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms" is what they explicitly meant though and not your twisted 20th Century legal fiction.
Ask the folks in California, Illinois, Maryland, ect... how their "unalienable" Right to keep and bear arms is doing. You are WRONG there are well. No State may exercise a power given explicitly to the Federal Government as they ceded that authority via ratification of the Constitution. They are also bound by every other prohibition and limitation therein. Including the Rights so protected by the BoR.
Look, I know you want to retain the twisted legal reasoning that will allow you and your pals in the Brady Bunch to strip us of our Rights. But I gotta tell you, countries have fought wars over less.
"Baloney. The "freedom of assembly" is a collective right."
The "freedom of assembly" is a collective right? Baloney!
Baloney. The "freedom of assembly" is a collective right. I can even argue that the "freedom of the press" and the "freedom of religion" is a collective right -- can I form the individual Church of Robertpaulsen and not pay taxes?
What is a collective right? Your argument here is that a group can do something, but an individual can't. So, in order to dispose of this right, the government need only argue that you, individually, were not part of the group. For that matter, your argument means that the group has a right that none of its members posses.
How is that possible? It is pointless to argue that there is a collective right for the National Rifle Association to hold an annual meeting, but the individual members have no right to attend it.
"Rights" secured by what entity? The individual state? If so, then I agree. I have no qualms with rights secured by the individual states being individual rights.
The Congress is restricted by the language of the first amendment. The second makes no mention of who may not infringe the right to keep and bear arms. They could have written, "shall not be infringed by the Congress," or, "shall not be infringed by the several states," and they did not. The meaning of shall not be infringed has not changed in the last two hundred and some years.
The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution (which Madison didn't even think was necessary and added it later under pressure), as written, only applied to the newly formed federal government. All it said was that the federal government could not infringe on these rights.
So, the second amendment, whatever it protects, protects only from federal infringement. The state were, and still are, guided solely by their state constitutions when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.
No rational interpretation of the second amendment can reach this conclusion, and what difference does it make how the amendments were added? Read article one of the US Constitution, which delegates powers to the federal government and to the states.
As you are aware, the model for the U.S. Constitution was the Articles of Confederation (ratified in 1781). That document did mention a Militia, but did not mention a right to bear arms -- meaning any such protections would have had to come from state law.
The Articles of Confederation were a failure, and everybody knew it.
From the Articles of Confederation:
"No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."
The articles were abandoned for the constitution. Their language means nothing in the light of the fact that a new law was written and adopted. This argument makes the case that alcohol is still illegal, since the 18th amendment once existed.
In my opinion, the second amendment was more about the argument against a standing army than one of an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers were in favor of the federal government "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". The second amendment was to secure the right of the state to form and maintain a state militia, however they saw fit to do so.
You should base your opinion on the following facts: The constitution states, in Article I, Section 8, that congress has the power:
"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
This is where the militia gets their arms. Note that congress has the power to arm the militia, but no obligation to do so.
After Shay's Rebellion, and other incidents, the attitude towards a standing army changed, and the powers that be put the right to maintain an army in Article I, right after the part about declaring war:
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
Do I trust the supreme court to protect my rights? Not absolutely. I also grew up in New Jersey, and I don't trust New Jersey, or Massachusetts, or Illinois, or California, or Hawaii to protect my rights, either.