• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A Question for any 'Collective Rights' Believers among us

T

TheEggman

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
174
Location
, Virginia, USA
imported post

Here's a hypothetical ...

Assume you believe that the 2nd Amendment ONLY Guarantees the unrestricted right to arms to those who are a member of 'An Official Militia.'

The VA Constitution states ...
"XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power."
​
When this was written, the phrase 'well regulated' meant 'well operating' NOT Government Controlled.

I am a person, living in VA, therefore, I am among 'the body of the people.'

I am 'trained to arms' meaning I both own firearms and am skilled in using them.

IOW, myself and most all firearms owners in the Commonwealth and other states with similar clauses ARE a Constitutionally Recognised 'official' Militia.

In light of the above, AND

Since the Commonwealth recognises my status as a Militia Member, why should I not be permitted ANY KIND OF MILITARY WEAPON I CHOOSE - and yes, that means a fully armed Tank if I could afford one.

I'm just curious as to your thinking. Can you have it both ways?

Egg
 
vt357

vt357

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
490
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

IF I believed in the collective rights theory (which I obviously don't), I would argue that yes you have the right to OWN any military arm that you want. But since you may only own the firearms for militia purposes, they may only be used for militia purposes. I would insist that you must STORE your arms at a designated militia armory. They are yours, you own them, but you can only use them for practice at the militia shooting range (same location as armory). They may not leave the armory range unless the militia is called upon by the government unless being directly transported to another armory, shooting range, or gunsmith. You could not keep them at home. This setup would be similar to French firearm ownership where the gun must be kept at a "gun club."
 
Flintlock

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
imported post

vt357 wrote:
IF I believed in the collective rights theory (which I obviously don't), I would argue that yes you have the right to OWN any military arm that you want. But since you may only own the firearms for militia purposes, they may only be used for militia purposes. I would insist that you must STORE your arms at a designated militia armory. They are yours, you own them, but you can only use them for practice at the militia shooting range (same location as armory). They may not leave the armory range unless the militia is called upon by the government unless being directly transported to another armory, shooting range, or gunsmith. You could not keep them at home. This setup would be similar to French firearm ownership where the gun must be kept at a "gun club."
Click to expand...
I see your point, but even if the 2nd amendment was a collective right, it still says to keep. To me, it appears that having "to keep" them somewhere else besides with youdoesn't hold any water. Particularly, because a significant portion of the militias used privately owned arms.
 
T Dubya

T Dubya

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
914
Location
Richmond, Va, ,
imported post

Defeating the "collective rights theory" is very simple.

The Bill of Rights addressed individual rights. How do the anti-gunners come to the idea that they are all collective?

Do states have a collective right to free speech? Do States have a collective right of freedom of the press? Do states have a collective right of freedom of religion? Do states have a collective rightto not have to quarter troops? No,these are all individual rights.

Also; The Bill of Rights were written years following the revolutionary war. What factor did you think influenced the founding fathers to write the 2nd amendment? It's easy; Volunteers, making up volunteer militias, using arms stored in their home.


I don't think it can be argued that the revolutionary war was a huge influence to the Bill of Rights; I.E. the 3rd and 2nd amendments.

Therefore my closing argument is that the "collective rights theory" is bullshit!
 
D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

Flintlock wrote:
I see your point, but even if the 2nd amendment was a collective right, it still says to keep. To me, it appears that having "to keep" them somewhere else besides with youdoesn't hold any water. Particularly, because a significant portion of the militias used privately owned arms.
Click to expand...

'Keep and bear' as two separate and distinct Rights was considered briefly in Heller's oral arguments and, I think, in the vein of dismissing the militia interpretation.

Either we are equal or we are not. good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$
 
Neplusultra

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
imported post

Flintlock wrote:
vt357 wrote:
IF I believed in the collective rights theory (which I obviously don't), I would argue that yes you have the right to OWN any military arm that you want. But since you may only own the firearms for militia purposes, they may only be used for militia purposes. I would insist that you must STORE your arms at a designated militia armory. They are yours, you own them, but you can only use them for practice at the militia shooting range (same location as armory). They may not leave the armory range unless the militia is called upon by the government unless being directly transported to another armory, shooting range, or gunsmith. You could not keep them at home. This setup would be similar to French firearm ownership where the gun must be kept at a "gun club."
Click to expand...
I see your point, but even if the 2nd amendment was a collective right, it still says to keep. To me, it appears that having "to keep" them somewhere else besides with youdoesn't hold any water. Particularly, because a significant portion of the militias used privately owned arms.
Click to expand...
It not only says "to keep" it also says "and bear". So your right to carry these weapons cannot be infringed! And I do agree, it says "arms" which I would take to mean anything and everything considered an weapon. Of course you get into the whole nuclear bomb issue then, but that's another argument.
 
S

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
imported post



CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: If you're right, Mr. Dellinger, it's certainly an odd way in the Second Amendment to phrase the operative provision. If it is limited to State militias, why would they say "the right of the people"? In other words, why wouldn't they say "state militias have the right to keep arms"?

MR. DELLINGER: Mr. Chief Justice, I believe that the phrase "the people" and the phrase "the militia" were really in -- in sync with each other. You will see references in the debates of, the Federalist Farmer uses the phrase "the people are the militia, the militia are the people."

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But if that's right, doesn't that cut against you? If the militia included all the people, doesn't the preamble that you rely on does not really restrict the right much at all? It includes all the people.

MR. DELLINGER: Yes, I do believe it includes all the people in the sense of Verdugo-Urquidez, all those who are part of the polity. What -- what defines the amendment is the scope and nature of the right that the people have. It's, it is a right to participate in the common defense and you have a right invocable in court if a Federal regulation interferes with your right to train for or whatever the militia has established. So that -

JUSTICE KENNEDY: (interrupting with a point about his view that the two clauses are independent). "...in effect the amendment says we reaffirm the right to have a militia, we've established it, but in addition, there is a right to bear arms."
 
deepdiver

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

Besides on the state level, male residents 17-45 under federal law are defined as being in the unorganized militia. That leads quickly to a demand to assert our 2A rights to keep AND bear arms common for military service AND opens up an equal protections argument for every citizen who is not a male ages 17-45 years of age.
 
Flintlock

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
Flintlock wrote:
I see your point, but even if the 2nd amendment was a collective right, it still says to keep. To me, it appears that having "to keep" them somewhere else besides with youdoesn't hold any water. Particularly, because a significant portion of the militias used privately owned arms.
Click to expand...

'Keep and bear' as two separate and distinct Rights was considered briefly in Heller's oral arguments and, I think, in the vein of dismissing the militia interpretation.

Either we are equal or we are not. good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$
Click to expand...
I agree with you for the most partDoug.Clement did mention that the 2nd amendment had a military conotation but the right of the peopleis a separate entity from militia servicein the amendment. I am glad it was at least brought up in arguments for the sake of discussion. My post was just playing devils advocate for a moment.
 
I

irfner

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
434
Location
SeaTac, Washington, USA
imported post

In the constitution the term 'the people' always refers to individuals. So the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Is a right of individual people. Once recognized as a right thejustification is irrelevant. If you look at the justification for any of our rights those things can change over time but our rights remain. Also these back door attempts to preempt our right such as by controlling ammunition are an infringement.
 
L

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

I have a theory that if there is a ruling for a collective RKBA, we still win. Because the militias inarguably belong to the several states. So this position could invalidate federal gun control laws as interfering with the right of states to regulate their militias. I.E. the congress couldn't ban semiautomatic weapons because Virginia, or Florida or Wyoming could say they are necessary to be in the hands of civilians so as it may be possible to properly arm their militias. Just my crazy two bits.
 
deepdiver

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

longwatch wrote:
I have a theory that if there is a ruling for a collective RKBA, we still win. Because the militias inarguably belong to the several states. So this position could invalidate federal gun control laws as interfering with the right of states to regulate their militias. I.E. the congress couldn't ban semiautomatic weapons because Virginia, or Florida or Wyoming could say they are necessary to be in the hands of civilians so as it may be possible to properly arm their militias. Just my crazy two bits.
Click to expand...
Oh, interesting concept! I hope someone with more knowledge than I has a cogent response about this possibiity.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

T Dubya wrote:
SNIP How do the anti-gunners come to the idea that they are all collective?
Click to expand...

Dishonestly.

Collective rights theory falls apart even earlier in the thought process than the 2nd Amendment or the English 1689 Declaration of Rights.

Its this simple:One can't very well claim the collective is worth protecting unlessone also claims the individuals that make it up are worth individually protecting. Inversely, John Doe doesn't suddenly become worth protecting as a member of the collectiveif he isn'tworth protecting as an individual. Collectives are built from individuals. There wouldn't be a collective unless there were individuals to collect.

We've heard this nonsense before: "The individual should subordinate himself to the collective." Communism. Itimplies the individual is worthless. Of course, the evidence of that lie is how hard those types of governments work to make sure that those same supposedly valueless individuals don't leave the country. Those governments consider the individual damned valuable--as a drone keeping the Party fed and secure.

The collective rights theorists would howl loudly if they, individually, were threatened. Just try telling one of them it would be OK for them to get killed with no penalty to the killer as long as it doesn'thappen to enoughindividuals to threaten the collective. They'llprove their own lie quick enough. They'llconsider their own life, the lifeof an individual,pretty damned valuable.
 
T

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Citizen wrote:
The collective rights theorists would howl loudly if they, individually, were threatened. Just try telling one of them it would be OK for them to get killed with no penalty to the killer as long as it doesn'thappen to enoughindividuals to threaten the collective. They'llprove their own lie quick enough. They'llconsider their own life, the lifeof an individual,pretty damned valuable.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have noticed that they seem all too willing to sacrifice people they don't know to the occasional rape and murder in order to preserve their version of society, and I am astonished that anyone could be so cold-blooded as not not imagine themselves being in that awful helpless position.
 
deepdiver

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
T Dubya wrote:
SNIP How do the anti-gunners come to the idea that they are all collective?
Click to expand...

Dishonestly.

Collective rights theory falls apart even earlier in the thought process than the 2nd Amendment or the English 1689 Declaration of Rights.

Its this simple:One can't very well claim the collective is worth protecting unlessone also claims the individuals that make it up are worth individually protecting. Inversely, John Doe doesn't suddenly become worth protecting as a member of the collectiveif he isn'tworth protecting as an individual. Collectives are built from individuals. There wouldn't be a collective unless there were individuals to collect.

We've heard this nonsense before: "The individual should subordinate himself to the collective." Communism. Itimplies the individual is worthless. Of course, the evidence of that lie is how hard those types of governments work to make sure that those same supposedly valueless individuals don't leave the country. Those governments consider the individual damned valuable--as a drone keeping the Party fed and secure.

The collective rights theorists would howl loudly if they, individually, were threatened. Just try telling one of them it would be OK for them to get killed with no penalty to the killer as long as it doesn'thappen to enoughindividuals to threaten the collective. They'llprove their own lie quick enough. They'llconsider their own life, the lifeof an individual,pretty damned valuable.
Click to expand...
+18,246

Excellent post!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top