Was the right to bear arms originally meant to be an individual right or a collective right?

[Objective Voice]

Did our Founding Fathers intend for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to be an individual right or a collective right?

The courts moved back and forth on this issue until 2008.

Exhibit A: DC vs Heller, 6/26/2008

However, Alexander Hamilton had a completely different take on the matter.

Exhibit B: Federalist Paper #29

Which was it meant to be: Individual right or a collective right?

Discuss....

 

[haymarket]

It was a collective right in the context of militia service that the right wing hijacked and got a 5-4 narrow decision making it an individual right after a 20 plus year campaign in right wing legal circles to do just that.

 

[danielpalos]

Did our Founding Fathers intend for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to be an individual right or a collective right?

The courts moved back and forth on this issue until 2008.

Exhibit A: DC vs Heller", 6/26/2008

However, Alexander Hamilton had a completely different take on the matter.

Exhibit B: Federalist Paper #29

Which was it meant to be: Individual right or a collective right?

Discuss....

Self defense is a natural right. Simply being a gun lover does not make one, well regulated militia. The unorganized militia may be infringed, simply because they are not declared Necessary in our Second Amendment.

 

[Objective Voice]

Self defense is a natural right. Simply being a gun lover does not make one, well regulated militia. The unorganized militia may be infringed, simply because they are not declared Necessary in our Second Amendment.

But you can defend yourself in so many other ways without the use of a gun. Man did so quite well before the discovery of gun powder or the invention of the long barrel or the cannon.

 

[danielpalos]

But you can defend yourself in so many other ways without the use of a gun. Man did so quite well before the discovery of gun powder or the invention of the long barrel or the cannon.

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

But you can defend yourself in so many other ways without the use of a gun. Man did so quite well before the discovery of gun powder or the invention of the long barrel or the cannon.

No, man did not do quite well. The strong just took what they wanted from the weak. For better or worse a gun is an equalizer.

 

[LowDown]

Did our Founding Fathers intend for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to be an individual right or a collective right?

The courts moved back and forth on this issue until 2008.

Exhibit A: DC vs Heller, 6/26/2008

However, Alexander Hamilton had a completely different take on the matter.

Exhibit B: Federalist Paper #29

Which was it meant to be: Individual right or a collective right?

Discuss....

Either the Second Amendment is an individual right or it means nothing at all. No article of the Bill or Rights was needed to insure that militias are armed. The government pretty well takes care of that, and we can be assured that the government will arm their soldiers. The right that needed protection was the individual right to bear arms, and it's pretty silly to deny that.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No, man did not do quite well. The strong just took what they wanted from the weak. For better or worse a gun is an equalizer.

Yep.

 

[haymarket]

Yep.

One of my all time favorite moments from any film!!!! Love it.

I also like the like Jones says when he tells Marion that he just makes it all up as he goes along.

 

[Praxas]

But you can defend yourself in so many other ways without the use of a gun. Man did so quite well before the discovery of gun powder or the invention of the long barrel or the cannon.

Of course man did well before gun powder. Now ask the Indians, when they didn’t have guns, how they fared against those with guns.

The problem is going up against someone with a gun and you don’t have one. Ever heard the phrase, never bring a knife to a gunfight? Funny I’ve never heard the phrase, don’t bring a gun to a knife fight. I wonder why?

 

[lefty louie]

I voted individual but I think it's both.

 

[Harshaw]

Did our Founding Fathers intend for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to be an individual right or a collective right?

The courts moved back and forth on this issue until 2008.

Exhibit A: DC vs Heller, 6/26/2008

However, Alexander Hamilton had a completely different take on the matter.

Exhibit B: Federalist Paper #29

Which was it meant to be: Individual right or a collective right?

Discuss....

Glenn Harlan Reynolds's "A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment," part of the first serious scholarly volume addressing the question, tells you what you need to know.

A CRITICAL GUIDE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT

It was and is, without question, an individual right. Those who believe otherwise are misinformed or dishonest, as surely as if they were to say George Washington was not the first President.

 

[Objective Voice]

No, man did not do quite well. The strong just took what they wanted from the weak. For better or worse a gun is an equalizer.

That may be, but a weapon being an equalizer whether in personal struggle or in battle isn't the issue at-hand. I'm asking did our Founding Father intend for individuals to have the right to self-defense via arms or was possession of such meant strictly for those who were called to serve in a militia based on writings of the time?

 

[Fledermaus]

But you can defend yourself in so many other ways without the use of a gun. Man did so quite well before the discovery of gun powder or the invention of the long barrel or the cannon.

Bring a knife to a gunfight..... Normally doesn't turn out well.

 

[Fledermaus]

Of course man did well before gun powder. Now ask the Indians, when they didn’t have guns, how they fared against those with guns.

The problem is going up against someone with a gun and you don’t have one. Ever heard the phrase, never bring a knife to a gunfight? Funny I’ve never heard the phrase, don’t bring a gun to a knife fight. I wonder why?

Old saying. God made man. Samuel Colt made them equal.

 

[Lursa]

But you can defend yourself in so many other ways without the use of a gun. Man did so quite well before the discovery of gun powder or the invention of the long barrel or the cannon.

Except when the other guy has one.

That horse has left the barn.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Glenn Harlan Reynolds's "A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment," part of the first serious scholarly volume addressing the question, tells you what you need to know.

A CRITICAL GUIDE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT

It was and is, without question, an individual right. Those who believe otherwise are misinformed or dishonest, as surely as if they were to say George Washington was not the first President.

Thanks for your citation.

This is what I have been arguing all along in my advocacy for a correct understanding of the right to keep and bear arms in this Forum:

The picture that emerges from this scholarship is a coherent one, consistent with both the text of the Constitution and what we know about the Framers' understanding. The purpose of the right to bear arms is twofold: to allow individuals to protect themselves and their families, and to ensure a body of armed citizenry from which a militia could be drawn, whether that militia's role was to protect the nation, or to protect the people from a tyrannical government.

It is an individual right first and foremost, allowing an armed body of citizenry from which a militia may be drawn and trained at need.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is quite clear as to what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Of course man did well before gun powder. Now ask the Indians, when they didn’t have guns, how they fared against those with guns.

The problem is going up against someone with a gun and you don’t have one. Ever heard the phrase, never bring a knife to a gunfight? Funny I’ve never heard the phrase, don’t bring a gun to a knife fight. I wonder why?

Mythbusters proved that if he's within 15 to 20 feet, a knifeman will be carving you up before your gun clears the holster. Just to inject a little reality to this yuk yuk fest.

As for Indy. James Coburn's Chris character beats him hands down.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Thanks for your citation.

This is what I have been arguing all along in my advocacy for a correct understanding of the right to keep and bear arms in this Forum:



It is an individual right first and foremost, allowing an armed body of citizenry from which a militia may be drawn and trained at need.

It's a collective right providing a pool of men from which a militia may be drawn. Nowadays that militia is known as the National Guard.

 

[jimbo]

Did our Founding Fathers intend for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to be an individual right or a collective right?

The courts moved back and forth on this issue until 2008.

Exhibit A: DC vs Heller, 6/26/2008

However, Alexander Hamilton had a completely different take on the matter.

Exhibit B: Federalist Paper #29

Which was it meant to be: Individual right or a collective right?

Discuss....

Both. You can't have one without the other.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia.

 

[Perotista]

Did our Founding Fathers intend for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to be an individual right or a collective right?

The courts moved back and forth on this issue until 2008.

Exhibit A: DC vs Heller, 6/26/2008

However, Alexander Hamilton had a completely different take on the matter.

Exhibit B: Federalist Paper #29

Which was it meant to be: Individual right or a collective right?

Discuss....

If collectively, all of us has the right to keep and bear arms, then I as an individual have that right since all of us collectively do.

If as an individual, I have the right to keep and bear arms, then each individual has that same right.

either way, collectively as Americans we all have the right to keep and bear arms or individually, each individual citizen has that right, in the end it really doesn't matter.

 

[grip]

What applies to all should apply to the individual, if we're talking about justice.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Did our Founding Fathers intend for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to be an individual right or a collective right?

The courts moved back and forth on this issue until 2008.

Exhibit A: DC vs Heller, 6/26/2008

However, Alexander Hamilton had a completely different take on the matter.

Exhibit B: Federalist Paper #29

Which was it meant to be: Individual right or a collective right?

Discuss....

First one to vote unsure.

Mainly because I am not entirely convinced the original authors looked at the 2nd Amendment within the confines of an individual or collective right.

The Federalist Papers make a compelling argument to a point of view, it just was not the only argument at the time as to what the intention of the 2nd Amendment really was.

At the time, in a historical sense, it took a militia of individuals who owned their guns to secure freedom for the US in the first place... hence "the right of the People to keep and bear arms." The time period of the Constitution and Bill of Rights looked to an armed individual who owned their guns, who would also pool into militia, as a means to ensure a free State... hence "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State."

What I do not see from the period was an attitude that the Federal Government being solely responsible for the regulation of a militia over and above the people as a prerequisite for an Individual to own a gun, as that would mean the government would be regulating the very people who by militia (or collective) are the reason for a free State. The prevention of tyranny, which was a popular subject and frankly fear at the time. That concern did not stop with our Independence.

The idea of freedoms of speech, assembly, from religious persecution, the right to be armed, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures, etc. all suggested the people but none were with the intention of using a right to harm someone else's right.

In a sad way, the politics of our more modern fight about the 2nd Amendment forced the DC v Heller decision, and now we are stuck with the consequence until another case comes along perhaps forcing some other decision.