An individual right?

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Owen Sparks

member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,523
With the upcoming Supreme Court case, the 2A will be decided to be an individual right or a collective right. In other words: Do you have the right to own a handgun -or-
Do we have the right to have a government that owns handguns? It will depend on the mindset of those judges on the bench at the time. Here is a good explanation of collectivism vs individualism attitudes.

http://freedomkeys.com/collectivism.htm
 
I like this part of the definition of collectivism:
"Collectivism requires self-sacrifice, the subordination of one's interests to those of others." -- Ayn Rand, Letters of Ayn Rand
Click to expand...

What is missing in that quote is that the self-sacrifice is never voluntary, that is, the minions of colectivism enforce the self-sacrifice.
 
230rn, Could you explain what would be in the middle column?

Any compromise with evil .....

OS
 
Last edited:
"If anyone reads the writings of our forefathers I don't see how the cannot believe that the ownership of firearms is an individual right."
________________________________________________
Can the court even concider anything except the actual wording of the 2A? If they interperate it like the first, not only would you have the right to own a firearm, but if you could not afford one, it would be provided at tax payer expence.

OS
 
ROMAK IV,
Did you read Hillarys quotes on the bottom right of the page?
Scary.

OS
 
Last edited:
I believe the bill of rights was drafted to recognize rights that exist prior to the formulation of the new government. In other words, something that an individual always has, and that the government has no say about regardless of the popular sentiment of the day.
 
Owen Sparks:

230rn, Could you explain what would be in the middle column?

Any compromise with evil .....

OS
Click to expand...

Oh, every once in a while I get a little tired of folks (not just on this forum) looking at things as if they were in a totally bimodal distribution --where things can only be one way or the other way, and there's no middle ground.

While the article itself is really trying to contrast the fundamental concepts of colectivism versus individualism, it struck me that once again, there is a place for the middle road.

Forgive me, but even your remark about compromising with evil demonstrates my point to some extent. Is it really "evil" to be concerned about the welfare of others and attempt to construct "collective" measures to alleviate their suffering?

Is it "evil" to get together to build a road for the "collective" use of society?

While I will grant that things like Social Security and Welfare are subject to much abuse and fraud, still there are circumstances where through no fault of the individual, that individual needs help. And don't go on about how their situation is a result of their own individual choices. That is not universally true, as anyone who's been kicking around this planet since 1940 can attest --there are circumstanstance beyond the individual's control, beyond his choice-set, which may have placed him in a bad situation.

Do I ignore his plight? Sorry, but I cannot.

And although I refuse to give any money or cigarettes or even the time of day to the various folks who hang around the Jesus Saves Mission on Park Avenue and Lawrence here in Denver, I do contribute to the mission directly.

Am I "evil" for contributing to this collective effort to help individuals?

Does this action put me in the "evil" collective column, where I take some responsibility for others less fortunate than I?

Nope. I don't think so.

When I see the unfortunates who hang around the mission, I can't help but think, "There, but for a couple of lucky breaks, go I."

I am just simply not that uncompromising on most societal issues.

(But on firearms rights themselves, I do in fact get a little one-sided.)

So, while I am basically an individualist, I am also sensitive to the legitimate reasons for a certain amount of "collectivism."

In general, and no insult to anyone, either on THR or otherwise, I have found that people who have a tendency to push things into either one category or another, have not usually thought it through. The old saying that "You must stand for something, or else you'll fall for anything," is, to me, just a slick way of saying, "My mind's made up. Don't confuse me with facts."

For relevance: GUN
 
Last edited:
While I will grant that things like Social Security and Welfare are subject to much abuse and fraud, still there are circumstances where through no fault of the individual, that individual needs help. And don't go on about how their situation is a result of their own individual choices. That is not universally true, as anyone who's been kicking around this planet since 1940 can attest --there are circumstanstance beyond the individual's control, beyond his choice-set, which may have placed him in a bad situation.
Do I ignore his plight? Sorry, but I cannot.
And although I refuse to give any money or cigarettes or even the time of day to the various folks who hang around the Jesus Saves Mission on Park Avenue and Lawrence here in Denver, I do contribute to the mission directly.
Click to expand...

Doing charitable work and making contributions are wonderful things; enlisting the power of government, however, to force others to do likewise is theft.

Nothing I've seen in this thread so far indicates there might be any sort of "right" between individual rights, which are well defined and commonly understood, and collective "rights," which are lies.
 
You make a good point 230RN; however, I think that the collective building of roads and other interstate commerce projects is allowed under the Constitution. There is, in fact, a lot for the common good that is allowed under the Constitution. However, as Standing Wolf says, and I have always said, "Marxism is great philosophy for the individual, but it is a very bad philosophy for a government."
You have a certain personal obligation as a human being to help other human beings, you do NOT have a right to put a gun to my head and take from me to help others.
And make no mistake, the government takes at the point of a gun. If you doubt it, don't pay your taxes and you will quickly find the gun pointed at you.
There really is no middle ground, something is either in keeping with the Constitution or it is not. We are (or are supposed to be) a nation governed by laws, not of men.
Now, just because there is no middle ground in the Constitution, there is interpretation and there are individuals who can, by personal choice and desire, rally other like mined individuals to do good works; it is when government gets involved that if switches from making a good personal choice, to oppressing an individuals right to choose. As only government can have a true monopoly. Middle ground for the government, is the reason we are where we are.
Just my take on it.
 
Actually, the question that the Supreme Court will be deciding has nothing to do with paranoid rambling about collectivism or Ayn Rand. The question at hand is whether the 2nd Amendment prevents the federal government from disarming the state militia or whether the federal government from disarming individuals.

While folks on THR (and in general) speak about "the government" as though it were one entity, much of the tussles over the Constitution in the earl years of our country was over the rights of the federal government versus the rights of the the state governments. There were many who did not trust the federal government, but who did trust the state governments.

Over the years, due mostly to the power of the purse, the federal government has become much more entwined with state government than most of the founders would have likely envisioned. For most of them, federal government and state government were very different entities, with very different responsibilities.

Mike
 
From the link in the first post:
"We need to stop worrying about the rights of the individual and start worrying about what is best for society." -- Hillary Clinton
Click to expand...
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, June 28, 2004.
Click to expand...

Can anyone authenticate these two quotes?

As to what the Supreme Court will be considering, there are other posts/threads discussing that.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Conclusions: what some people jump to at the slightest provocation based upon the least bit of fact or evidence.
 
Forgive me, but even your remark about compromising with evil demonstrates my point to some extent. Is it really "evil" to be concerned about the welfare of others and attempt to construct "collective" measures to alleviate their suffering?
Click to expand...
It is certainly not evil to be concerned about the welfare of others. it is evil to use armed bands of men from the government to take from some people to "help" others.

Is it "evil" to get together to build a road for the "collective" use of society?
Click to expand...
Roads are normally paid for by those who use them either directly, in the form of tolls, or indirectly in the form of motor fuel taxes. in effect roads are paid for by those who choose to use them. That is certainly the least evil way to pay for some collective project.

While I will grant that things like Social Security and Welfare are subject to much abuse and fraud, still there are circumstances where through no fault of the individual, that individual needs help. And don't go on about how their situation is a result of their own individual choices. That is not universally true, as anyone who's been kicking around this planet since 1940 can attest --there are circumstanstance beyond the individual's control, beyond his choice-set, which may have placed him in a bad situation.

Do I ignore his plight? Sorry, but I cannot.
Click to expand...
So to save the one in ten, or one in 100 person who is truly deserving, you would take from everyone else at the point of a gun? You do understand don't you, that the vast majority of people receiving transfer payments from various governmental sources are doing so simply because it is available, and they chose not to save for themselves because they knew some government entity would bail them out.

And although I refuse to give any money or cigarettes or even the time of day to the various folks who hang around the Jesus Saves Mission on Park Avenue and Lawrence here in Denver, I do contribute to the mission directly.

Am I "evil" for contributing to this collective effort to help individuals?
Click to expand...
Voluntary contributions are your choice. They are not extracted at the point of a gun. You are free to choose to contribute to whatever worthy causes you think are deserving as you see fit. it is your money.
 
Hi 230

And although I refuse to give any money or cigarettes or even the time of day to the various folks who hang around the Jesus Saves Mission on Park Avenue and Lawrence here in Denver, I do contribute to the mission directly.

Am I "evil" for contributing to this collective effort to help individuals?
Click to expand...

No, that is a fine, Christian act of love. The evil starts when you are forced to contribute by force of arms -better known as taxation. To contribute to charity is an individual act. The government contribution to charity is a collective one. The former is a virtue, the latter legalized theft.

Selena
 
cyclist said:
Can anyone authenticate these two quotes?
Click to expand...
Cyclist, that probably can't be answered without pushing this thread toward a political discussion, which is off topic for THR.

It's fairly easy to authenticate one of the quotes, though. Google away.
 
Let me nudge this thread back toward the topic at hand. Collectivists tend to see people as groups. And any time you are part of a group, your capacities as an individual are considered no greater than the least member of that group. Therefore if SOME people misconduct themselves with firearms,
then ALL people as a group, should not have firearms. It's like the old weakest link in the chain axiom. My first exposure to this type of thinking happened in grade school. Some of the boys strayed off the playground and caused some minor damage at a neighboring construction site where dirt work was being done. As a result, the entire fifth grade was punished by having to spend recess inside for the next two weeks. The principle could not determine who actually trampled the survey markers, so he punished the group. What really got me was the fact that I was at the dentist when it happened but was still denied playground privileges along with the group. Gun laws work in much the same fashion. They treat everyone as a criminal before you have proved yourself to be because of what other people did or because of what you MIGHT do. This is a direct result of the collectivist mindset that is so prevalent in present day America.
 
Can anyone authenticate these two quotes?
Click to expand...

In short, no. The first is a complete fabrication, the second is completely out of context. Sort of what we claim anti's do. :) But of course, we'd never do that.

"We need to stop worrying about the rights of the individual and start worrying about what is best for society." -- Hillary Clinton
Click to expand...

Search google. Only shows up in sigs, with no attribution.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, June 28, 2004.
Click to expand...

She was explaining to group of rich Democrats why they were losing some tax exemptions. See Snopes on this one.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

Mike
 
Just to be clear, there is a distinction to be made between the distributive adjective "collective" and the a political philosophy called "Collectivism".

No one that I have heard is arguing that the 2nd Amendment has any relationship to Collectivism , or to punishment given out to school children for stomping survey markers. :)

The real question being argued is whether the right to keep and bear arms is limited to "a well regulated militia." If so, the 2nd Amendment was originally intended as a State's rights amendment, to prevent the Federal government from disarming the various state militias. This could make sense historically, in that there was quite a tussle between Anti-Federalists and the Federalists in that time period. If it is limited to the "well regulated militia", that probably means the National Guard.

Our side argues that the first part of the 2nd is an explanation as to why the individual right is important.

Neither side appeals to recycle Cold War stereotypes for justification (except on gun boards).

Mike
 
Irrelevant, the militia is simply the result in the collective of an individual right. While that result may be important to society as a whole it in no way defines the individual right.
Click to expand...

I am not disagreeing with you - just explaining that I think the legal battle in the Supreme court will come down to the intent of the first 13 words of the 2nd Amendment (not some collectivist rant). Are they a justification, an explanation, a limitation, or completely irrelevant?

Something may hinge on "a free State". Does that phrase mean state in the sense of "Massachusetts", of does that mean a more abstract state?

I have to tell you that I would consider the claim that the are irrelevant the weakest. If they are irrelevant, why were they written and ratified? Someone likely thought they were pretty important - at least at the time of ratification.

The writers and ratifiers did not write the simple form, "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Why not?

Do you have any historical or legal evidence that they are irrelevant?

Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Montana Claims U.S. Promised State Individual Gun Rights
Replies
3
Views
436
lacoochee
L
N
  • Locked
Pro 2A Individual Rights article in WSJ!
Replies
5
Views
673
JohnL2
J
S
  • Locked
Another win for the good guys
Replies
1
Views
209
Savage Shooter
S
DrDeFab
  • Locked
ACLU and Heller
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
5K
hso
hso
T
  • Locked
Gun-Rights Showdown Today
Replies
0
Views
376
The Sheriff
T
Back
Top