• 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!

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

Was the right to bear arms originally meant as an Individual right or a Collective right?

  • Individual Right

    Votes: 51 70.8%

  • Collective Right

    Votes: 17 23.6%

  • Unsure

    Votes: 4 5.6%
  • Total voters
    72
  • Poll closed .
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the native Americans, eh?
 
Manc Skipper said:
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.
Click to expand...

(sigh) Clearly you neither follow scholarly literature on the issue, nor Supreme Court decisions...

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER | FindLaw

and:

Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.
Click to expand...
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/

The first decision, Heller, states it is an individual right not tied to the Militia. The second decision "incorporated" this right as applying to the States.

It is NOT a "collective right" in the USA. What it is in YOUR country is a matter of complete indifference to me.
 
danielpalos said:
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.
Click to expand...
BS, think about it further, maybe next time you will grasp the error in your statement....
 
Skeptic Bob said:
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.
Click to expand...

How do other developed nations manage without all these equalizers? And they have lower crime rates. Strange.
 
Nickyjo said:
How do other developed nations manage without all these equalizers? And they have lower crime rates. Strange.
Click to expand...

Poverty breeds crime. Many of those countries have less poverty. Less gangs as well. Rural America is where the highest percentage of people are gun owners and in those areas violent crimes is more along the lines of what Western Europe experiences. There is something about American city life that has an ill effect on people. I am sure there are many factors.
 
Objective Voice said:
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?

Discuss....
Click to expand...

It had nothing at all to do with firearms - it was "the right of the people to keep bare arms".

Noah Webster was ****ing around with various spellings and everybody got all ****ed up.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
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....
Click to expand...

Hamilton doesn't have a "different" take on gun ownership. He is discussing the need for a militia, and one aspect of that militia is an armed population. That doesn't itself negate the idea, held by all the Framers, and the population in general, that individuals have a right to own a gun. Think for a minute about the time period we're talking about; indian raids, pirates, highwaymen, thugs, and almost constant threat from one or another foreign power. Add to that the natural distrust of government of the time, and it's easy to see why people wanted the individual right to go around armed. It's obvious to any non-partisan thinker that the Framers meant the Second Amendment to cover two subjects, which were related; the need for a citizen militia, and the right of individuals to own firearms. Therefore the wording of the Second Amendment. And for over 100 years it was not even a subject for debate, not until the industrial revolution and the rise of urban crime.

A only logical argument is to say that we need a new Amendment covering firearms. That of course, would be hotly debated.
 
danielpalos said:
lol. i call bs. Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

Define "Well Regulated" and not use Government in your argument.
 
Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

But you didn't read Federalist 29 did you.
 
Individual is the only way it makes sense given the motivations. I think the Supreme Court got it nearly perfect in Heller, and that's even though in my ideal world there never would have been a 2nd Amd. (Don't ask me to untangle that, it takes several thousand characters).

Consider it this way. There were two main impetuses for the 2nd. (1) the fact that invading another country and killing all its inhabitants, first through disease, second because we wanted them to stop killing us (which they were doing perfectly reasonably, seeing as we were trying to take their country from them), (2) the fact that we beat off our own invaders (Britain) in part because a lot of people had arms. It makes sense that self-defense is the core.




Now let's ignore this super-short summary of a very long decision and think about what makes sense pragmatically. Namely, about how on Earth it could possibly make sense to have a right to bear arms that is tied to "collective ownership".

First, what do we mean by collective? If it's in opposition to individual then collective cannot be a bunch of individuals owning arms and thereby enjoying an individual right, then coming together later. What else could it mean?

Well, if it's not an individual right but collective, one must assume someone/something else is storing the arms. Who and what? Whether guns are stored in a government-owned or a commune-owned (or...what?), they are not individually possessed. Fine. But how the hell are they used for self-defense? Further, how could they possibly be used to resist a tyrannical government if the government either owned the facility or could target it/them easily?



I don't like the 2nd, but it's right there in the constitution. It must be respected or amended. Period.
 
Objective Voice said:
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....
Click to expand...

Collective. And I wish everyone would just get over it and admit that and have the gun debate on its actual merits, rather than insisting on misreading a relatively simple English sentence.

The Constitution doesn't have to mention individual gun rights in order to successfully debate individual gun rights. The Constitution doesn't mention lots of things that people consider important, and that they have successfully debated and gotten made into law -- or even amendments to the Constitution. Debate on the merits, not willful denial.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Collective. And I wish everyone would just get over it and admit that and have the gun debate on its actual merits, rather than insisting on misreading a relatively simple English sentence.

The Constitution doesn't have to mention individual gun rights in order to successfully debate individual gun rights. The Constitution doesn't mention lots of things that people consider important, and that they have successfully debated and gotten made into law -- or even amendments to the Constitution. Debate on the merits, not willful denial.
Click to expand...

Ironic.
 
Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

Reynolds' (aka Instapundit, I think) guide is interesting. I saved it and will read it again later when I have time to actually look into some of his references. Thank you.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Collective. And I wish everyone would just get over it and admit that and have the gun debate on its actual merits, rather than insisting on misreading a relatively simple English sentence.

The Constitution doesn't have to mention individual gun rights in order to successfully debate individual gun rights. The Constitution doesn't mention lots of things that people consider important, and that they have successfully debated and gotten made into law -- or even amendments to the Constitution. Debate on the merits, not willful denial.
Click to expand...

When I read the text of the 2ndA I reach one conclusion. When I read other material from the Founding era and consider it all, I reach another conclusion.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Collective. And I wish everyone would just get over it and admit that and have the gun debate on its actual merits, rather than insisting on misreading a relatively simple English sentence.
Click to expand...

One does not "admit" what simply is not true. :shrug:
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Reynolds' (aka Instapundit, I think) guide is interesting. I saved it and will read it again later when I have time to actually look into some of his references. Thank you.
Click to expand...

You should read the entire volume it's from -- the Tennessee Law Review, Spring 1995 edition. The entire issue is a scholarly symposium on the issue.
 
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes......just bring a knife to a gunfight and find out all about it.

LOL!
 
It's an individual right.
 
There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment. The terms are, Militia and the People. Those are collective terms, not Individual terms.
 
danielpalos said:
There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment. The terms are, Militia and the People. Those are collective terms, not Individual terms.
Click to expand...

The Founders didn't think they had to spell it out -- but, yes -- they believed in individuals retaining the right to protect themselves.
 
danielpalos said:
There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment. The terms are, Militia and the People. Those are collective terms, not Individual terms.
Click to expand...

You are wrong about the intent.

We have lived with this as an individual right for over 200 years. Only in the last 20 years has there been a school shooting problem.

Who do you think the "people' in your post are? Individuals you say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom