A case for Individual Rights

[Master PO]

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.

collective rights come from a democracy, the people come together and determine what rights are going to be.

rights are not endowed, they are man created, and not unalienable meaning they can be changed at any time, by majority rule.

the founders hated ALL forms of democracy.

 

[sawdust]

collective rights come from a democracy, the people come together and determine what rights are going to be.

rights are not endowed, they are man created, and not unalienable meaning they can be changed at any time, by majority rule.

the founders hated ALL forms of democracy.

I don't understand what the distinction is. All rights in a democracy are collective. There are positive rights and negative rights in political wonk speech but there is no difference in collective rights and rights.

 

[Fisher]

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 creasing 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.

No. They first created the Articles of Association, then they created the Declaration of Independence, then they created the Articles of Confederation, and then they created the Constitution, and then they created the Bill of rights, and then it took the Supreme Court what--like 230 years--to decide it is an individual right but that it is not absolute.

 

[SMTA]

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?

Beats being a whining moron.....

 

[Master PO]

I don't understand what the distinction is. All rights in a democracy are collective. There are positive rights and negative rights in political wonk speech but there is no difference in collective rights and rights.

I am sure you have seen many in the u.s. that are in great favor of democracy.

because they proclaim man creates his own rights, and because of that, rights are created by the collective majority.

if enough people come together in a democracy, any right can be abolished, new rights created for a few, this is why you hear of gay rights, blacks rights, rights of the poor, the idea that people have a right to material goods and services,which have been promoted

because people wish to confuse the population, and make them believe rights are not endowed, not unalienable, and wish to use the power of the collective people to get rid of the constitution and replace it with one, created by those of special interest.

in our constitution of the founders, the people were not given but only 1/2 of all direct power, and 100% indirect power........this was to prevent majority rule or democracy.

 

[Master PO]

No. They first created the Articles of Association, then they created the Declaration of Independence, then they created the Articles of Confederation, and then they created the Constitution, and then they created the Bill of rights, and then it took the Supreme Court what--like 230 years--to decide it is an individual right but that it is not absolute.

the DOI..........is the founding principles of our nation.

the articles of confederation , was a confederation of states, where states had total authority, and failed because to change the articles took a 100 % vote.

and because of problems with inflation and trade wars and barriers.........however the same rights which are listed in the bill of rights, are the same one listed in constitutions of states before the federal constitution, you can look that up, and see I am correct.

rights for "we the people are an absolute", rights for a individual citizen are not an absolute, if you commit a crime, or do something which could infringe on someone's rights.

Madison talking about rights of the people in 1800-- "We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them when so ever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs24.html

 

[Guy Incognito]

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 bill of rights is not entirely about individual rights. Just look at the tenth amendment.

Anyway, in answer to your question, the reason the second amendment was originally designed to protect the right of the States to maintain militias is because of the attitudes towards standing armies at the time. In the eighteenth century, standing armies were viewed with deep suspicion. The States' militias were considered to be a critical check on any federal army.

 

[TurtleDude]

You are wrong, the bill of rights is not entirely about individual rights. Just look at the tenth amendment.

Anyway, in answer to your question, the reason the second amendment was originally designed to protect the right of the States to maintain militias is because of the attitudes towards standing armies at the time. In the eighteenth century, standing armies were viewed with deep suspicion. The States' militias were considered to be a critical check on any federal army.

horsecrap. its an individual right

that is why the founders-who understood the difference between individuals (the people) and the states-see the tenth amendment said the right of the people to keep and bear arms-not the states have a right to KBA or that the state militias have such a right

 

[TurtleDude]

You are a felon, so dont worry about it.

that's really lame. HE might have his rights restored as well

 

[CRUE CAB]

Beats being a whining moron.....

But still not a felon.

 

[CRUE CAB]

that's really lame. HE might have his rights restored as well

Then go do it, dont whine about it. Dont think he should be just "given his rights back" just because. He lost them for a reason. That reason has not changed.

 

[calamity]

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.

I think the collective Right thing is a reach. The 2nd is making clear that we all have a right to bear arms, plan and simple.

 

[TurtleDude]

Then go do it, dont whine about it. Dont think he should be just "given his rights back" just because. He lost them for a reason. That reason has not changed.

and many of us believe that those reasons are bogus. If you are blindly obedient to laws even ones that are most likely in violation of the constitution, that means you will support a law that bans your guns

 

[TurtleDude]

I think the collective Right thing is a reach. The 2nd is making clear that we all have a right to bear arms, plan and simple.

excellent-but what infringements do you support

 

[CRUE CAB]

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.

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.

So when those that like to kill get out of jail, and my do. You are all for just sticking another gun in their hand?

 

[CRUE CAB]

and many of us believe that those reasons are bogus. If you are blindly obedient to laws even ones that are most likely in violation of the constitution, that means you will support a law that bans your guns

Bull****. Felons have proven themselves to be a menace to society. They prey on you and me, and just because they spent whatever time in jail they were given. Dosent mean they deserve to own a gun.
And show me in the BoR the right to citizenship.

 

[TurtleDude]

Bull****. Felons have proven themselves to be a menace to society. They prey on you and me, and just because they spent whatever time in jail they were given. Dosent mean they deserve to own a gun.

That's just plain moronic. Tax cheats are felons-they aren't a menace to society. Someone who makes a machine gun is a felon even if he has no intent to use it-He's not a menace to society. At one time, smoking dope got one a felony, one would have to be stoned to claim such a person is a Menace to society. Same with not registering with the draft at one time

Lots of felons prey on NO ONE

 

[CRUE CAB]

That's just plain moronic. Tax cheats are felons-they aren't a menace to society. Someone who makes a machine gun is a felon even if he has no intent to use it-He's not a menace to society. At one time, smoking dope got one a felony, one would have to be stoned to claim such a person is a Menace to society. Same with not registering with the draft at one time

Lots of felons prey on NO ONE

And many do. More than not, come on. You know what the recidivism is for many felons. They get out and do the same crimes over and over, and you and others here are willing to arm them.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Then go do it, dont whine about it. Dont think he should be just "given his rights back" just because. He lost them for a reason. That reason has not changed.

It's not "just because." It is because he has completed paying for his crime. For some reason many members of our society think a person can never pay for their crimes, and need to be punished for as long as they live.

If you treat people badly because you expect them to be bad then they will live down to your expectations. You merely create a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is the primary cause of criminal recidivism.

 

[TurtleDude]

And many do. More than not, come on. You know what the recidivism is for many felons. They get out and do the same crimes over and over, and you and others here are willing to arm them.

sorry I just don't get a real burr up my ass for someone who did a non violent felony and paid a price with prison years ago. I don't believe in the mark of caine unless its killing Able etc

 

[CRUE CAB]

It's not "just because." It is because he has completed paying for his crime. For some reason many members of our society think a person can never pay for their crimes, and need to be punished for as long as they live.

If you treat people badly because you expect them to be bad then they will live down to your expectations. You merely create a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is the primary cause of criminal recidivism.

Tell ya what skippy, you have your home broken into while your wife is home alone. Come home to a house full of cops telling you why the bathroom window is kicked in and a wife sitting on the bed shaking like a dog ****ting razor blades.
Then talk to me about what rights felons should have.

 

[CRUE CAB]

sorry I just don't get a real burr up my ass for someone who did a non violent felony and paid a price with prison years ago. I don't believe in the mark of caine unless its killing Able etc

Live it, then get with me. Pull a tour at your local state prison. Worry that your name and address may get out to those scumbag bastards. Then let me know what you think. Spend some time in uniform and watch the dregs of society laugh in your face as they get released only to come back after they have done worse next time.

 

[Captain Adverse]

So when those that like to kill get out of jail, and my do. You are all for just sticking another gun in their hand?

Those that "like" to kill get either life or death sentences. I am not aware of a single American convicted as a serial killer who has been released back into the public, are you?

 

[TurtleDude]

Tell ya what skippy, you have your home broken into while your wife is home alone. Come home to a house full of cops telling you why the bathroom window is kicked in and a wife sitting on the bed shaking like a dog ****ting razor blades.
Then talk to me about what rights felons should have.

ah OK, you are projecting what happened to you to every felon

a couple weeks ago, right under our window at a hotel that was supposed to be in a guarded parking lot with surveillance, some assholes smashed our windows, stole two expensive scopes and prevented us from attending a tournament we all were favored to win. Yeah If I had the choice I would have wanted to disembowel the schmucks who did it and then feed their guts to the coyotes and make them watch it but that's why I couldnt be on a jury if they catch the turds

and you projecting this trauma on a guy who might have done a minor B&E is silly.

 

[Master PO]

Those that "like" to kill get either life or death sentences. I am not aware of a single American convicted as a serial killer who has been released back into the public, are you?

I heard of a case where a man had killed 4 women over years, and was only 20 years in prison and set to be released, however, the media and many people got wind of it and stopped it.. now I cannot say why he was to be released, but I did heard of this about 4 to 5 years ago