• 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 .
cabse5 said:
Does that mean the federal government can't enforce immigration policy because a few municipalities in the US don't enforce immigration policy?
Click to expand...
I don't see how this is related, but municipalities don't enforce immigration laws, however they should cooperate with the federal govt.
 
cabse5 said:
Does that mean 3 branches can never exist in government because there never, ever in the history of governments were 3 branches before the experiment that became the federal government of the U.S.? Does that mean each state can print their own money and decide their own trading and foreign policies, for example, because the constitution before The Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, allowed for the printing and policy making by states? Dude, get a clue.:)
Click to expand...

Have you ever read the US Constitution? It answers some of your questions. And as far as the relationship to arms, the Articles didn't take the right away either.
 
American said:
I don't see how this is related, but municipalities don't enforce immigration laws, however they should cooperate with the federal govt.
Click to expand...

OK, how about if I use states to describe entities that don't enforce US immigration policy? I believe one argument you and SCOTUS use for universal right for arms is that state constitutions have the universal right for arms. Since some states don't enforce US immigration policy, should the US be able to enforce US immigration policy?
 
Last edited:
American said:
Have you ever read the US Constitution? It answers some of your questions. And as far as the relationship to arms, the Articles didn't take the right away either.
Click to expand...

As far as arms are concerned, the second amendment is more current and up to date for The Constitution than the articles of The Constitution. Why, for example, amendment #10 is out of date because amendment #15 was passed by congress and the people in 1869.
 
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...

Not really. Because it depends on how big your gun is. If just a simple firearm was an adequate equalizer, then why wouldn’t gun advocates be happy with a simple handgun?

The NRA knows this, and is hoping for an arms race between the bad guys and a completely paranoid populace. Who benefits? The gun manufacturers, laughing all the way to the bank. They just need to take care to make sure they don’t slip on all the blood and gore on the streets on their way there.
 
Last edited:
American said:
Have you ever read the US Constitution? It answers some of your questions. And as far as the relationship to arms, the Articles didn't take the right away either.
Click to expand...
Again, natural rights is another reason given for universal rights for arms. I'm saying that there are no natural rights for 3 branches of government. Since there are no natural rights for 3 branches of government, should 3 branches be disallowed?

Should each state be able to print their own money and initiate their own trading and foreign polices because that was their natural right created by the Articles of Confederation?
 
cabse5 said:
OK, how about if I use states to describe entities that don't enforce US immigration policy? I believe one argument you and SCOTUS use for universal right for arms is that state constitutions have the universal right for arms. Since some states don't enforce US immigration policy, should the US be able to enforce US immigration policy?
Click to expand...

That obligation was delegated to the federal government in 1808. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. A simple fee or fine, can make that happen.
 
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...

Both in the sense they wanted to have a military capacity on the cheap as the country was struggling under the Articles of Confederation with sporadic rebellions all over the place. I doubt they would have included the second amendment if they saw what the military and law enforcement apparatus look like today.
 
danielpalos said:
That obligation was delegated to the federal government in 1808. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. A simple fee or fine, can make that happen.
Click to expand...

I kinda know this but some universal federal arms advocates (and judges) think, for example, states previously having universal arms rights was a reason for universal arms rights in The Constitution.

Could things not be in The Constitution if some states didn't have provisions or enforcements on certain issues?
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
I kinda know this but some universal federal arms advocates (and judges) think, for example, states previously having universal arms rights was a reason for universal arms rights in The Constitution.

Could things not be in The Constitution if some states didn't have provisions or enforcements on certain issues?
Click to expand...

Not over entry into the Union, since 1808. US States have no basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state; that is why a federal id. is important; for all foreign nationals in the US.
 
danielpalos said:
the specific language includes the context of the Body Politic known as the militia; thus, precluding the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, in favor of State Constitutions and Due Process.
Click to expand...

The people as individuals are not part of a regulated militia until urged to muster, they may make up the militia they are not under regulation unless mustered. Law on this is very fixed; government may regulate the militia but may not use this as a pretext to regulate people not actively called, otherwise any promulgated regulation could be coerced onto people as part of the militia. Your argument is not logical in that it doesn't examine the limits of the regulatory process and when it begins and ends.
 
OpportunityCost said:
The people as individuals are not part of a regulated militia until urged to muster, they may make up the militia they are not under regulation unless mustered. Law on this is very fixed; government may regulate the militia but may not use this as a pretext to regulate people not actively called, otherwise any promulgated regulation could be coerced onto people as part of the militia. Your argument is not logical in that it doesn't examine the limits of the regulatory process and when it begins and ends.
Click to expand...

natural rights are already in our State Constitutions.
 
danielpalos said:
Not over entry into the Union, since 1808. US States have no basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state; that is why a federal id. is important; for all foreign nationals in the US.
Click to expand...

Think we're talking over each other. You're talking about immigration policy and I'm talking about the second amendment.
 
cabse5 said:
Think we're talking over each other. You're talking about immigration policy and I'm talking about the second amendment.
Click to expand...

There are no individual rights inferred in our Second Amendment. Both terms, militia and people are collective and plural.
 
danielpalos said:
There are no individual rights inferred in our Second Amendment. Both terms, militia and people are collective and plural.
Click to expand...

False or people could not be armed...at all. Again, reality shows your reasoning to be completely wrong.
 
Fledermaus said:
Rote regurgitation.....
Click to expand...

its kind of like those toy "the magic 8 ball" you shake it and one of several stock answers appears. Its the same nonsense over and over and over
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom