• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A case for Individual Rights

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is for all of you that advance the "collective rights" theory regarding the 2nd amendment.

In the whole of the BoR's all of the amendments are generally believed to be talking about individual rights. And they are applied as such. From the 1st amendment to the 10th amendment, each one is applied as an individual right or in the case of the 10th amendment individual States Rights. Even laws that restrict certain of these rights are applied legally on an individual or individual state basis and not a collective basis.

With the exception of the 2nd Amendment.

So here is my question to you. Why, out of all the amendments in the BoR's, would those that wrote the BoR's write the 2nd Amendment as only being a collective right? And expect it to be applied as such?

To me it makes no sense that those that wrote the BoR's would include a collective right in a document that was designed to protect individuals from the government. Especially when you consider that the government IS the representitive of the collective and not the individual.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,344
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This is for all of you that advance the "collective rights" theory regarding the 2nd amendment.

In the whole of the BoR's all of the amendments are generally believed to be talking about individual rights. And they are applied as such. From the 1st amendment to the 10th amendment, each one is applied as an individual right or in the case of the 10th amendment individual States Rights. Even laws that restrict certain of these rights are applied legally on an individual or individual state basis and not a collective basis.

With the exception of the 2nd Amendment.

So here is my question to you. Why, out of all the amendments in the BoR's, would those that wrote the BoR's write the 2nd Amendment as only being a collective right? And expect it to be applied as such?

To me it makes no sense that those that wrote the BoR's would include a collective right in a document that was designed to protect individuals from the government. Especially when you consider that the government IS the representitive of the collective and not the individual.
You are a felon, so dont worry about it.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,344
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This thread has nothing to do with my status as a felon. Please stay on topic.

Why? You are going for the 2A "collective rights" argument. Its an individual right. Iam sure you will get around to the "well so and so has these rights, so should I". And being a felon, what difference does it make to you?
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,717
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
This is for all of you that advance the "collective rights" theory regarding the 2nd amendment.

In the whole of the BoR's all of the amendments are generally believed to be talking about individual rights. And they are applied as such. From the 1st amendment to the 10th amendment, each one is applied as an individual right or in the case of the 10th amendment individual States Rights. Even laws that restrict certain of these rights are applied legally on an individual or individual state basis and not a collective basis.

With the exception of the 2nd Amendment.

So here is my question to you. Why, out of all the amendments in the BoR's, would those that wrote the BoR's write the 2nd Amendment as only being a collective right? And expect it to be applied as such?

To me it makes no sense that those that wrote the BoR's would include a collective right in a document that was designed to protect individuals from the government. Especially when you consider that the government IS the representitive of the collective and not the individual.
The main problem is that the argument has been convoluted by agendists since at least the late 1800s. The BOR was specifically drafted to be direct prohibitions on specific rights by government, the fourteenth tied the BOR to the states. The founders well established that rights are not granted, and that they could only be infringed by government, therefore the government was to only intercede by law only should the rights of an individual be endangered and it was within an enumerated power granted it.

People who want to exceed the prohibitions have muddied the waters for over a century, to the point that the average citizen assumes that codified protections are the limit of rights, and of course, they will interpret those codifications as they see fit.
 

rjay

Rocket Surgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
2,982
Reaction score
2,039
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
You are a felon, so dont worry about it.

Is this guy a dink all of the time? I have never read anything from him that either advanced an argument or advanced a rebuttal.
 

sbrettt

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
783
Location
Prospect park, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Its true, he did a whole thread about him being a felon. Its called, Iam a felon.
So him talking about his gun rights is moot. He dont have any.
I saw that thread, and I do believe he said it may or may not have been hypothetical. You shouldn't beat up on him for advocating our rights. I was a felon as well until I got it ex-sponged. (assault battery, I was a minor at the time of conviction) Besides, I think if a felon goes 25+ years without getting in more trouble they should at the very least have the option to apply to get their 2nd A. right back.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,344
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I saw that thread, and I do believe he said it may or may not have been hypothetical. You shouldn't beat up on him for advocating our rights. I was a felon as well until I got it ex-sponged. (assault battery, I was a minor at the time of conviction) Besides, I think if a felon goes 25+ years without getting in more trouble they should at the very least have the option to apply to get their 2nd A. right back.

Sure, and he can. He just gave a BS excuse of no money saved up to do it in over 20 years. Well, should have worried about that BEFORE becoming a felon.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,783
Reaction score
52,042
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why? You are going for the 2A "collective rights" argument. Its an individual right. Iam sure you will get around to the "well so and so has these rights, so should I". And being a felon, what difference does it make to you?

No, actually I am not going for the 2A "collective rights" arguement. If I was then I would not be talking about individual rights. Until such time as I make the arguement that you assume I am going to make your question has no validity.

Frankly your assumption of what my arguement will be could be applied whether I argued for collective rights or individual rights. As such all that you are doing is making this thread about me as you would no doubt ask/state the same thing no matter what I posted. So, with that in mind please address the OP and not me. I will not respond to any further comments or questions designed to make this thread about me from you.
 

sbrettt

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
783
Location
Prospect park, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Sure, and he can. He just gave a BS excuse of no money saved up to do it in over 20 years. Well, should have worried about that BEFORE becoming a felon.

That's very true. I don't have to worry about it anymore because it's ex-sponged. ;) He could have given that reason for the sake of his hypothetical.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
This is for all of you that advance the "collective rights" theory regarding the 2nd amendment.

In the whole of the BoR's all of the amendments are generally believed to be talking about individual rights. And they are applied as such. From the 1st amendment to the 10th amendment, each one is applied as an individual right or in the case of the 10th amendment individual States Rights. Even laws that restrict certain of these rights are applied legally on an individual or individual state basis and not a collective basis.

With the exception of the 2nd Amendment.

So here is my question to you. Why, out of all the amendments in the BoR's, would those that wrote the BoR's write the 2nd Amendment as only being a collective right? And expect it to be applied as such?

To me it makes no sense that those that wrote the BoR's would include a collective right in a document that was designed to protect individuals from the government. Especially when you consider that the government IS the representitive of the collective and not the individual.

What makes you so sure it is not intended to be both an individual and a collective right? Not everything under the sun is one or the other. I could go into a more detailed description of why I think it was intended to be both, but I will just leave you this little nugget to chew on: A William & Mary Law review article did a survey of all the colonial era US probate cases that are available in the various databases. What they found was that something like 73% of male estates had firearms specifically listed in them (including George Washington whom I think devised his pistols to Lafayette IIRC).
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,344
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That's very true. I don't have to worry about it anymore because it's ex-sponged. ;) He could have given that reason for the sake of his hypothetical.

Yea, usually when people do the "hypothetical" on line. It means they are talking about themselves and he has yet to say he is not a felon.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,880
Reaction score
24,978
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Why? You are going for the 2A "collective rights" argument. Its an individual right. Iam sure you will get around to the "well so and so has these rights, so should I". And being a felon, what difference does it make to you?

A person does not lose their citizenship simply by being a felon. Once a citizen has fully paid for their crime by completing the punishment meted out by society they are just as deserving as you to obtain the return of all rights lost during such punishment.

While a citizen is under state control, either imprisonment or supervised release, it is the duty of the State to not only monitor him but also protect him from harm. Once he is freed from imprisonment and all supervision he regains the inherent right of self-defense and should rightly be allowed the same ability to defend himself as any other citizen has.

To state it is an "individual right," then claim it can be permanently denied a free citizen is absolute hypocrisy. The only way to permanently deny a citizen his "inherent" rights would be to either adopt laws making the ONLY punishment for criminality death, OR make the punishment for ALL crimes life imprisonment without any possibility of parole.
 

sbrettt

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
783
Location
Prospect park, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A person does not lose their citizenship simply by being a felon. Once a citizen has fully paid for their crime by completing the punishment meted out by society they are just as deserving as you to obtain the return of all rights lost during such punishment.

While a citizen is under state control, either imprisonment or supervised release, it is the duty of the State to not only monitor him but also protect him from harm. Once he is freed from imprisonment and all supervision he regains the inherent right of self-defense and should rightly be allowed the same ability to defend himself as any other citizen has.

To state it is an "individual right," then claim it can be permanently denied a free citizen is absolute hypocrisy. The only way to permanently deny a citizen his rights would be to either adopt laws making the ONLY punishment for criminality death, OR make the punishment for ALL crimes life imprisonment without any possibility of parole.
I'm pretty sure you were saying this, but I want to as well. They should also get their right to vote back in my opinion, but that's for another thread.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,717
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What makes you so sure it is not intended to be both an individual and a collective right?
The entire pre-amble for starters, and then the specific enumerations of power, THEN the prohibitions on government against actions in the BOR. In no way is that construed to mean "collective" rights.
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
19,345
Reaction score
9,339
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
The entire pre-amble for starters, and then the specific enumerations of power, THEN the prohibitions on government against actions in the BOR. In no way is that construed to mean "collective" rights.

I believe Fisher is right, it is both a collective right AND an individual right. It is an inalienable natural individual right, and it is a collective right in regards to states counties districts ect.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The entire pre-amble for starters, and then the specific enumerations of power, THEN the prohibitions on government against actions in the BOR. In no way is that construed to mean "collective" rights.

Sure it does because the Bill of Rights is a prohibition against the government, not a creation of rights. The whole purpose of the Constitution is to create a government and they chose to enumerate those limitations which they felt were necessary for a democratic nation to succeed. Democracy is an inherently collective endeavor no matter how you want to slice it. Likewise, an egalitarian society would require that everyone who participated in the democracy have equal standing which further imputes that the individual exercise of rights also had to be protected.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,880
Reaction score
24,978
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I believe Fisher is right, it is both a collective right AND an individual right. It is an inalienable natural individual right, and it is a collective right in regards to states counties districts ect.

I'd rather think that the right to bear arms along with free speech, freedom of religion, etc. are individual rights that can also be exercised collectively. For example, a person can set up a soap box and speak, and a group can gather and march in protest. A person can carry a weapon for self-defense; or a group can organize a militia for group defense.

In order for groups to do such things the right must already exist for each individual :)
 
Last edited:

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,981
Reaction score
33,901
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is for all of you that advance the "collective rights" theory regarding the 2nd amendment.

In the whole of the BoR's all of the amendments are generally believed to be talking about individual rights. And they are applied as such. From the 1st amendment to the 10th amendment, each one is applied as an individual right or in the case of the 10th amendment individual States Rights. Even laws that restrict certain of these rights are applied legally on an individual or individual state basis and not a collective basis.

With the exception of the 2nd Amendment.

So here is my question to you. Why, out of all the amendments in the BoR's, would those that wrote the BoR's write the 2nd Amendment as only being a collective right? And expect it to be applied as such?

To me it makes no sense that those that wrote the BoR's would include a collective right in a document that was designed to protect individuals from the government. Especially when you consider that the government IS the representitive of the collective and not the individual.

In the District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to bear arms.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What makes you so sure it is not intended to be both an individual and a collective right? Not everything under the sun is one or the other. I could go into a more detailed description of why I think it was intended to be both, but I will just leave you this little nugget to chew on: A William & Mary Law review article did a survey of all the colonial era US probate cases that are available in the various databases. What they found was that something like 73% of male estates had firearms specifically listed in them (including George Washington whom I think devised his pistols to Lafayette IIRC).

I shall explain:

our rights come from a higher power, they come to us because of our humanity.

every single citizen, when born has a vast amount of rights endowed to them.

the founders recognized this and they when creating a new government, sought to protect those endowed rights of every citizen from government, because they knew by reading history, that government power is something which must be kept under control, let it get out of control and become to big, it WILL violate the rights of the citizen.

they created a constitution first without a bill of rights, which was meant to be strictly limited, the federal government would have only enumerated powers, and all other powers not enumerated would be state power and reserved to the people.

some members of the constitutional convention did not believe the constitution was strong enough and would not stop the federal government from ceasing power and violating citizens rights.

so those anti-federalist as they were called demanded a bill of rights, or they would not sign on to the constitution and it being ratified.

Madison and Hamilton argued against a bill of rights, because they stated that if rights were listed, then it would in a sense limit rights to what is only written down, AND because both men stated that because the federal government was so limited by its enumerated powers, it could in no way violate the rights of the people, because none of the federal government powers have anything to do with the individual citizen.

however the anti-federalist were told if they would sign on and ratify the constitution... a bill of rights would be created, Madison agreed to this, and he kept his word, he wrote the bill of rights.

Madison wrote the bill of rights, however its name is confusing........ it is not a granting or giving of rights at all.

the preamble to the bill of rights says it ALL, the clauses of the bill of rights are prohibitions on government, that they shall not create any laws which shall infringe on the rights of citizens.

the clauses are declaratory and restrictive to the federal government.

the second(2ND) is a prohibition placed on the federal government ,that government will not create a law concerning the well regulated militia of a free state, AND the right of the people to keep and bare arms.

but today people are lead to believe government can make federal law or u.s. code and deny people their rights, because some individuals excise their rights in a way, ...government just does not like, even though that exercise is legal.

you have a right to contract.........denied by the minimum wage, affirmative action

right to association ......denied by discrimination laws.

and many other rights denied to you, because government has stepped outside its enumerated powers, and taken control from the states and the people, by instituting laws, which are not in article 1 section 8 of the constitution.
 
Last edited:

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
19,345
Reaction score
9,339
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I'd rather think that the right to bear arms along with free speech, freedom of religion, etc. are individual rights that can also be exercised collectively. For example, a person can set up a soap box and speak, and a group can gather and march in protest. A person can carry a weapon for self-defense; or a group can organize a militia for group defense. :)

That's what Fisher and I are saying. I refer you to Fishers post #20.
 

sawdust

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
3,177
Reaction score
1,533
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
This is for all of you that advance the "collective rights" theory regarding the 2nd amendment.

In the whole of the BoR's all of the amendments are generally believed to be talking about individual rights. And they are applied as such. From the 1st amendment to the 10th amendment, each one is applied as an individual right or in the case of the 10th amendment individual States Rights. Even laws that restrict certain of these rights are applied legally on an individual or individual state basis and not a collective basis.

With the exception of the 2nd Amendment.

So here is my question to you. Why, out of all the amendments in the BoR's, would those that wrote the BoR's write the 2nd Amendment as only being a collective right? And expect it to be applied as such?

To me it makes no sense that those that wrote the BoR's would include a collective right in a document that was designed to protect individuals from the government. Especially when you consider that the government IS the representitive of the collective and not the individual.

In logic you've made what is called a hasty generalization. The first ten amendments aren't so much about individual rights as they are restricting the power of the federal government over the individual. The first amendment restricts the government from creating a state religion. The second says the government can't abridge the rights of citizens to own weapons. The third says the government cannot force citizens to house soldiers in peacetime, and so on. These rights are not collective rights. Fact is, I have no clue what collective rights means. They are however negative rights, meaning there is no obligation on the individual to act on those rights to be protected by them. In that context, I don't understand your question.
 
Top Bottom