Posted on 11/24/2007 12:34:43 AM PST by gpapa
In recent decades, the Supreme Court has discovered any number of new rights not in the explicit text of the Constitution. Now it has the opportunity to validate a right that resides in plain sight--"the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. In March, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declared unconstitutional the District's near-total ban on handgun possession. That 2-1 ruling, written by Judge Laurence Silberman, found that when the Second Amendment spoke of the "right of the people," it meant the right of "individuals," and not some "collective right" held only by state governments or the National Guard.
That stirring conclusion was enough to prompt the D.C. government to declare Judge Silberman outside "the mainstream of American jurisprudence" in its petition to the Supreme Court. We've certainly come to an interesting legal place if asserting principles that appear nowhere in the Constitution is considered normal, but it's beyond the pale to interpret the words that are in the Constitution to mean what they say.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
What a dweeb question.Its not "OR".
The second amendment is BOTH an individual and a collective right.
Lets rephrase this liberal spin question to what it should be:
Is the Second Amendment an individual, and a collective, right?
Answer: YES!!!!!!
Funny how the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights undoubtedly refer to rights of an individual (though there are also collective aspects), yet these nitwits somehow see the 2nd amendment as being limited to a collective right. Idiots...
How is “the right to keep and bear arms” a collective right?
I have guns, but am not currently a member of a “well regulated militia.”
Am I nevertheless in compliance with the 2nd Amendment?
Most of the men at the time this was written were probably not in a militia either, but could be called up when needed. And I would imagine that you would be in compliance if you are able to maintain your guns in good condition and are proficient in their use and can hit what you aim for (”well regulated” in the 18th century vernacular).
What, pray tell, is “collective right?”
“The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood.” [Adolph Hitler, quoted in Hitler, A Study in Tyranny, by Alan Bullock (Harper Collins, NY)]
“It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man.” [Adolph Hitler, 1933]
There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between the State and the Individual; between the State which demands and the individual who attempts to evade such demands. Because the individual, left to himself, unless he be a saint or hero, always refuses to pay taxes, obey laws, or go to war. [Benito Mussolini]
Fascist ethics begin ... with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position. [Mario Palmieri, “The Philosophy of Fascism” 1936]
“Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all.” [Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party]
“All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all.” [Vladimir Lenin, as quoted in Not by Politics Alone]
“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.” [Hillary Clinton, 1993]
“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ...” [President Bill Clinton, ‘USA Today’ March 11, 1993: Page 2A]
“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” [Ayn Rand]
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
“How is “the right to keep and bear arms” a collective right?”
I guess that covers the crew-served weapons of the militia.
And I’m not really joking.
“I have guns, but am not currently a member of a “well regulated militia.””
According to federal law, you are. The law says that the militia consists of the organized militia (National Guard and Reserves) and the un-organized militia (all others capable of bearing arms.)
The entire Bill Of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is one, places limits and restrictions on government; it does not grant rights to the People, but rather it protects the rights the People inherently have. Thus, rights are an individual thing, and a collective can only possess powers, not rights. Thus, since the Bill Of Rights exists to protect the rights of the People, the Second Amendment must refer to an individual right and cannot be a “collective right” of the government to form a militia, as the government has no rights at all, only powers.
Yes, you are a member of a 'well regulated militia'-the American people!
As many here seem to want to pick apart the amendment, taken on the whole, it seems to me the amendment is both a Right AND a citizenry Responsibility.
Yes, we have a responsibility to be trained to be able to secure our free state. This position will totally set a modern liberal on his head when he fully realizes he holds a responsibility to defend the United States. The amendment virtually creates an unending 'draft' if you will of every capable citizen.
Which when one considers the frontier type environment of a newly formed nation, it makes perfect sense that every person be made capable. And every capable person used to help defend the new nation, the expansion, etc. It wasn't just a Right, there is an expectation that comes with it.
that is what sparked the American revolution, the Brits also thought that having weapons was a 'collective right'.
What is interesting about this discussion is that most people do view the 2nd Amendment as a individual right.
When some athletes were busted with weapons, even the liberal sports commentators were saying that they had a right to have those weapons under the 2nd amendment.
Response emailed to the above:
The idea that Americans would rush, Minuteman -
like, to the defense of their country only seems
quaint to people who disregard recent history.
Hurricane Andrew, the Rodney King riots, and the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina are vivid examples
of citizens defending themselves with firearms.
We can ignore concealed handgun laws, stand your
ground laws, and castle doctrine laws and still
see dramatic evidence of the need for people to be
able to defend themselves in dire circumstances.
In all three of the incidents I listed, people
did not form lines and attack invaders. They
stood guard over what was theirs, while
representative government totally failed. Agents of the
government in Louisiana contributed not to the
protection, but to the thefts.
It is not quaint to believe that citizens will
use firearms in their own, best defense. It is a
painful lesson of history.
“The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution.
And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all. I am not ready to take that risk. I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.” -—Ronald Reagan
I really don't understand why so many folks have such a hard time with this. What part of "...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." do they not understand?
The SCOTUS and the rest of the Federal gubmint is in for a very rude awakening if those in black robes rule any other way than reading the 2nd Amendment as the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. If the Supremes try to tie gun ownership solely to state regulated militias, there will be riots. I guarantee it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.