• 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:
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...

George Mason definitely said the Militia was 'the people', so the right was obviously the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms (armaments).

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-...ecefsarily-post1068296900.html#post1068296900
 
Objective Voice said:
Granted, but the right to defend one's self against threat of property theft or damage, or personal aggression is.

For quite some time, I believed the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted as you do, but after doing lots of research on the matter including reading material from the Founders, state Constitutions and Heller, I've come to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment is, in fact an individual right wrapped in a collective right and that you really can't separate the two based on the way the 2nd Amendment was written.

The Founders basically said, "Citizens, bring your guns to the fight. Many of you already own them. You'll receive your regular training from your state's militia and when necessary you'll come fight for in defense of your new nation as part of a national fighting force." When you consider the 2nd Amendment in that vein, it makes sense. However, I would agree that under such an old standard the question really needs to be asked and answered: "Does the 2nd Amendment need to be changed?" Most gun-rights supporters and activist will surely say NO, but I think it should considering how the country has 1) evolved since the Revolutionary period, and because 2) this country has a significant and deadly gun proliferation problem. I'll save all that for another thread/poll but for now I'm convinced the 2nd Amendment is "an individual right wrapped inside a collective right" that can't be separated based on the way it is written.
Click to expand...

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, for a reason. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is no longer an natural rights issue, but a security of a free State issue. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions. Defense of self, liberty, and property, are natural rights.
 
danielpalos said:
There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, for a reason. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is no longer an natural rights issue, but a security of a free State issue. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions. Defense of self, liberty, and property, are natural rights.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. This is why I've continued to stress that the 2nd Amendment conveys "an individual right wrapped in a collective right".
 
danielpalos said:
In what way is it an individual right?
Click to expand...

As I've explained before, the right to self-defense, as well as, defending one's family and property is a natural right. No one needs a declaration from governmental authority to have this right bestowed upon them. As such, the 2nd Amendment was written in such as way as to ensure that anyone who would become part of "a well regulated militia" would be able to retain possession of their arms whether they brought same to the fight or had one issued to them.

At this point, you're probably thinking since one would become part of a state or federal militia the right to keep and bear arms would be limited only to those who became part of such a fighting force, but remember what I stated above (or rather re-emphasized): those who became part of a fighting force, i.e., a militia, already possessed weapons of their own. The Continental Congress knew this all too well. Hence, the reason our Founding Fathers argued so fiercely not only over who would regulated arms (state or federal government) but whether or not a national militia was even necessary and if so, who would command such and how would it would be "regulated". The ultimate decision was that training would be left to the states (at least until a standing Army could be formed) except in time of war which at such time the national militia (Army) would fall under the President as Command-in-Chief. Still, through it all the right to self-defense, i.e., keeping and bearing arms, was well known to be a natural right of man (well, up until the 14th Amendment every free man at least).

Admittedly, I used to think such a right was limited as well, but since conducting extensive research on the matter my opinion has changed. (Of course, the Supreme Court would never have switch its position of "collective right" to "individual right" has the District of Columbia not been so stupid. But that's water under the bridge now.)
 
Objective Voice said:
As I've explained before, the right to self-defense, as well as, defending one's family and property is a natural right. No one needs a declaration from governmental authority to have this right bestowed upon them. As such, the 2nd Amendment was written in such as way as to ensure that anyone who would become part of "a well regulated militia" would be able to retain possession of their arms whether they brought same to the fight or had one issued to them.

At this point, you're probably thinking since one would become part of a state or federal militia the right to keep and bear arms would be limited only to those who became part of such a fighting force, but remember what I stated above (or rather re-emphasized): those who became part of a fighting force, i.e., a militia, already possessed weapons of their own. The Continental Congress knew this all too well. Hence, the reason our Founding Fathers argued so fiercely not only over who would regulated arms (state or federal government) but whether or not a national militia was even necessary and if so, who would command such and how would it would be "regulated". The ultimate decision was that training would be left to the states (at least until a standing Army could be formed) except in time of war which at such time the national militia (Army) would fall under the President as Command-in-Chief. Still, through it all the right to self-defense, i.e., keeping and bearing arms, was well known to be a natural right of man (well, up until the 14th Amendment every free man at least).

Admittedly, I used to think such a right was limited as well, but since conducting extensive research on the matter my opinion has changed. (Of course, the Supreme Court would never have switch its position of "collective right" to "individual right" has the District of Columbia not been so stupid. But that's water under the bridge now.)
Click to expand...

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
Click to expand...
 
Objective Voice said:
Are you of the opinion that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to those who are part of a well regulated militia? would think that wasn't your position based on your commentary. As I stated in my previous post, what you've suggested would be the case if the 2nd Amend. read this way:



But that's not how it reads. The right to bear arms isn't conditioned on the bearer of arms being part of that a military fighting force. It's based on the real possibility that the arms bearer would volunteer at best, be conscripted at worst but still armed one way or another, trained and made ready to fight. If conditional, I would agree with you. But that's not the case.

It's a individual right wrapped in a collective right.
Click to expand...

I talked about this in the "necefsary" thread. But, no, I don't think that you have to be in the militia to have the right.

I broke down the 2nd amendment like this:

The reason for the 2nd: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
The inalienable right: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"
The restriction on government: "shall not be infringed."

The big question then becomes what is a well regulated militia. The only ambiguous term in here is regulated. Most assume regulated is not ambiguous. Most assume it means a militia that is well organized. That may not be the case, however. The colonists and the United States did not have a standing army. They depended, almost exclusively, on citizens with guns to join the military when needed. Because the wars taxed time and resources, the militia of that time could not afford to train people to shoot. So, I propose that the real meaning of regulated is not with regards to rules, but as the word pertains to operations. A well regulated engine is an engine that works well. A well regulated militia is a militia that works well. Works well, meaning it needs minimal training. In context, minimal training in fire arms.

There was also an issue with the British seizing powder and balls prior to the war. So, the 2nd may have been a response to that not so well known attempt at firearms regulation.

But, to the point, the right to bear arms is an individual right that the framers believed was necessary to maintain the security of a free state.

ps...you could also make the case that as someone that has reached the age of 18, you are a part of the well regulated militia. Men must register for the draft and women can, but are not required. Whether you are a man that has or hasn't or a woman that has or hasn't registered, you are subject to the rules of the draft and therefore are part of the militia. Your role may be inactive, but you are part of a well regulated militia, if you want to use the term regulated by the assumed definition.
 
ksu_aviator said:
I talked about this in the "necefsary" thread. But, no, I don't think that you have to be in the militia to have the right.

I broke down the 2nd amendment like this:

The reason for the 2nd: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
The inalienable right: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"
The restriction on government: "shall not be infringed."

The big question then becomes what is a well regulated militia. The only ambiguous term in here is regulated. Most assume regulated is not ambiguous. Most assume it means a militia that is well organized. That may not be the case, however. The colonists and the United States did not have a standing army. They depended, almost exclusively, on citizens with guns to join the military when needed. Because the wars taxed time and resources, the militia of that time could not afford to train people to shoot. So, I propose that the real meaning of regulated is not with regards to rules, but as the word pertains to operations. A well regulated engine is an engine that works well. A well regulated militia is a militia that works well. Works well, meaning it needs minimal training. In context, minimal training in fire arms.

There was also an issue with the British seizing powder and balls prior to the war. So, the 2nd may have been a response to that not so well known attempt at firearms regulation.

But, to the point, the right to bear arms is an individual right that the framers believed was necessary to maintain the security of a free state.

ps...you could also make the case that as someone that has reached the age of 18, you are a part of the well regulated militia. Men must register for the draft and women can, but are not required. Whether you are a man that has or hasn't or a woman that has or hasn't registered, you are subject to the rules of the draft and therefore are part of the militia. Your role may be inactive, but you are part of a well regulated militia, if you want to use the term regulated by the assumed definition.
Click to expand...

natural rights are not found in our Second Amendment or federal Constitution. They are found in State Constitutions. Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural rights. It says so, in the first clause, which is the intent and purpose clause.
 
TurtleDude said:
more silliness. the right vests with the individuals not the militia. How does a government regulated entity and membership in it be required for a right to vest that the founders believed was endowed to man by the creator?
Click to expand...

Can you ask that again in English?
 
Rob Larrikin said:
Can you ask that again in English?
Click to expand...

It's rather easy to understand if you actually read it but I will break it down so even a cursory review will impart knowledge

1) the right guaranteed by the second amendment was seen by the founders as existing since the dawn of man-before any government

2) a well regulated militia is a creation of government

SO-how does a right that pre-exists government, require MEMBERSHIP in a GOVERNMENT run body to VEST?
 
Slingshot Bob said:
"right of the people" is pretty self explanatory to most people (unless they have an agenda or a hard time with English)
Click to expand...

or put their anti gun-anti NRA agenda ahead of being honest-such as four justices, dozens of senators and hundreds of congress critters and lower court judges
 
danielpalos said:
natural rights are not found in our Second Amendment or federal Constitution. They are found in State Constitutions. Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural rights. It says so, in the first clause, which is the intent and purpose clause.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure out where you came up with this interpretation. I see nothing in the text of the Constitution that would support your claims.
 
danielpalos said:
did you see how you resorted to a fallacy of composition to achieve your fallacy of false cause?

Well regulated militia is declared Necessary to the security of a free State. Natural rights cannot be involved, to make that happen.
Click to expand...

It's an individual right.
 
TurtleDude said:
It's rather easy to understand if you actually read it but I will break it down so even a cursory review will impart knowledge

1) the right guaranteed by the second amendment was seen by the founders as existing since the dawn of man-before any government

2) a well regulated militia is a creation of government

SO-how does a right that pre-exists government, require MEMBERSHIP in a GOVERNMENT run body to VEST?
Click to expand...

Your mistake was in 1) when you assumed the right in the Second was about the individual right to own a musket. It wasn’t. It was about the people’s right to have an Armed Militia (Arms being armaments).
 
danielpalos said:
because natural rights are simply not recognized in our federal Constitution.
Click to expand...

But they are. The first has the right practice religion, speak freely, peaceably assemble and petition the government, the second amendment has the right to keep and bear arms, the fourth has the right to be secure in persons, property, etc, the fifth and sixth have numerous rights regarding fair treatment of the accused and so on. But, the most damning to your claim is the ninth amendment. It states; "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I don't see why they would have put that in there UNLESS they felt they had listed rights, natural or otherwise, in the Constitution.
 
ksu_aviator said:
But they are. The first has the right practice religion, speak freely, peaceably assemble and petition the government, the second amendment has the right to keep and bear arms, the fourth has the right to be secure in persons, property, etc, the fifth and sixth have numerous rights regarding fair treatment of the accused and so on. But, the most damning to your claim is the ninth amendment. It states; "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I don't see why they would have put that in there UNLESS they felt they had listed rights, natural or otherwise, in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Those are not, "natural rights", but collective rights of our "Body Politic". They are clearly expressed in our federal Constitution.

State Constitutions recognize and secure natural rights and they are available via Due Process in federal venues.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
Your mistake was in 1) when you assumed the right in the Second was about the individual right to own a musket. It wasn’t. It was about the people’s right to have an Armed Militia (Arms being armaments).
Click to expand...

yeah you keep making that opinion which learned people reject
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom