• 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 .
TurtleDude said:
yeah you keep making that opinion which learned people reject
Click to expand...

Some folks are stuck on the notion that militia means anything other than the individual free citizen....no matter how much proof to the contrary you drop in front of them.

The unorganized militia has always been the free citizen, not the Reserve, National Guard, etc.
 
It sounds like Charlie Browns teacher in here......:roll:

No change, will still have firearms as an individual right, and all I hear from the gallery is "wah,wah,wa,'wah". :shrug:

Like those folks that still believe in a flat earth.
 
Polar Bum said:
It sounds like Charlie Browns teacher in here......:roll:

No change, will still have firearms as an individual right, and all I hear from the gallery is "wah,wah,wa,'wah". :shrug:

Like those folks that still believe in a flat earth.
Click to expand...

lol. natural rights are in State Constitutions. only the right wing, never gets it.
 
danielpalos said:
lol. natural rights are in State Constitutions. only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...



Get what?

Get the fact that SCOTUS ruled it an individual right and you are frothing at the mouth over it?

Get the fact that millions carry firearms on a daily basis and you cannot prevent it?
Seems that you have a serious case of butthurt to get over....actually, I am quite pleased with the current situation.

You, however, seem to be working yourself up to a significant emotional event......have you tried deep breathing?
 
Last edited:
Polar Bum said:
Get what?

Get the fact that SCOTUS ruled it an individual right and you are frothing at the mouth over it?

Get the fact that millions carry firearms on a daily basis and you cannot prevent it?
Seems that you have a serious case of butthurt to get over....actually, I am quite pleased with the current situation.

You, however, seem to be working yourself up to a significant emotional event......have you tried deep breathing?
Click to expand...

Judicial activism. How did Dred Scott happen, if natural rights were asserted in any federal venue?
 
danielpalos said:
Judicial activism. How did Dred Scott happen, if natural rights were asserted in any federal venue?
Click to expand...


How do bumble bees fly? Why is the sky blue?

Does it really matter? You are attempting to bail out the ocean with a tea cup on the subject of the 2A.

In the end, it changes nothing....its an individual right, and unlikely to change in my lifetime.

But, if it makes you feel better, continue to preach.....well, whatever it is you preach, and I will raise a toast to your dogged determination to sway the rest of the Nation to your views.. :cheers:
 
Polar Bum said:
Some folks are stuck on the notion that militia means anything other than the individual free citizen....no matter how much proof to the contrary you drop in front of them.

The unorganized militia has always been the free citizen, not the Reserve, National Guard, etc.
Click to expand...
Fact is that since 1792 "militia" has been applied to all men between 17-45. Over the years the Militia Act has been modified a bit - in 1862, for instance, the militia removed the require to be white. Later the militia was split into an organized militia, e.g. National Guard, and the "unorganized militia" - all other eligible males.
 
Bullseye said:
Fact is that since 1792 "militia" has been applied to all men between 17-45. Over the years the Militia Act has been modified a bit - in 1862, for instance, the militia removed the require to be white. Later the militia was split into an organized militia, e.g. National Guard, and the "unorganized militia" - all other eligible males.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know.....the 1792 militia act is still current, though it is now under Title 10 USC......the only exception to the 17-45 age requirement is veterans, which can still be called up for service until age 65.
 
Polar Bum said:
How do bumble bees fly? Why is the sky blue?

Does it really matter? You are attempting to bail out the ocean with a tea cup on the subject of the 2A.

In the end, it changes nothing....its an individual right, and unlikely to change in my lifetime.

But, if it makes you feel better, continue to preach.....well, whatever it is you preach, and I will raise a toast to your dogged determination to sway the rest of the Nation to your views.. :cheers:
Click to expand...

lol. that is the point. It could not happen if natural rights were involved and not statutory rights.
 
danielpalos said:
There are no individual rights in our federal Constitution. The People is plural and collective and refers to the Body Politic of the United States.
Click to expand...

There REALLY isn’t anyone stupid enough to believe that the Bill of Rights was written to protect a government entity, is there? I mean...I get it. Some people fee a sense of obligation to make the stupid argument. But no one actually believes it. Do they?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
VanceMack said:
There REALLY isn’t anyone stupid enough to believe that the Bill of Rights was written to protect a government entity, is there? I mean...I get it. Some people fee a sense of obligation to make the stupid argument. But no one actually believes it. Do they?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It was written that way for reason. The militia is also, a body politic.
 
danielpalos said:
There are no individual rights in our federal Constitution. The People is plural and collective and refers to the Body Politic of the United States.
Click to expand...

It's an individual right. "the people" always refers to individuals.
 
danielpalos said:
It was written that way for reason. The militia is also, a body politic.
Click to expand...
Stop it. You dont actually believe what you are saying. Stop being silly.
 
danielpalos said:
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.
Click to expand...

But they are natural rights. They may be some what specific aspects of each right, but they are natural rights. A Taxonomy and List of Natural Rights
 
danielpalos said:
It was written that way for reason. The militia is also, a body politic.
Click to expand...

The people that helped form the amendment would strongly disagree.

How Alexander Hamilton solved America's gun problem ? 228 years ago

In Federalist 46, Madison writes of the local militia versus a national military:

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. [Federalist 46] The Avalon Project : Federalist No 46

In Federalist 29, published 228 years ago, in 1788, Alexander Hamilton concurs as to why militias are necessary:

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. [Federalist 29] The Avalon Project : Federalist No 29

If you read both of these papers, both authors refer to citizens as the primary infantry. They list concerns like an over reaching federal government and quick reaction to invading armies. What they don't list is the government's right as the government has no rights.
 
ksu_aviator said:
The people that helped form the amendment would strongly disagree.

How Alexander Hamilton solved America's gun problem ? 228 years ago

In Federalist 46, Madison writes of the local militia versus a national military:

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. [Federalist 46] The Avalon Project : Federalist No 46

In Federalist 29, published 228 years ago, in 1788, Alexander Hamilton concurs as to why militias are necessary:

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. [Federalist 29] The Avalon Project : Federalist No 29

If you read both of these papers, both authors refer to citizens as the primary infantry. They list concerns like an over reaching federal government and quick reaction to invading armies. What they don't list is the government's right as the government has no rights.
Click to expand...

I am not confusing regular military with the militia; unorganized or well regulated.
 
danielpalos said:
I am not confusing regular military with the militia; unorganized or well regulated.
Click to expand...

It's an individual right. A thousand posts to the contrary won't change that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom