It's true...the meaning of “the People†is collective...not individual.

[Ieyasu]

There is no class being referred to in any of these quotes. The term “people†covers every single citizen of the US in each of the above quotes.

*LOL*

Was your use of the word citizen unintentional? Because if it wasn't you just, more or less, defined the people class. Not all persons were considered citizens of the U.S.

That’s right. I’m glad to see we are in agreement.

Only if you agree the amended passage, without the reference to persons, still speaks of protecting an individual right from search and seizure, which your previous post claimed it didn't.

 

[Lochaber]

I'm amazed to see that no one else things like me here. To my way of thinking "We the People" reads like "We the People, not they the Monarchy". To my way of reading it, it is the most clear statement of individuality and personal right you can make. Someone has yet to explain to me WTH a collective right is and what sense does it make for a government to assign rights to itself. Isn't it a tad crazy to say what the Constitution says that the Gov can own guns where it already states that one of its main reasons for existance is providing a common defence?

I have a feeling that some "people" get really confused and over analize simple words. I doubt that the meaning of people has changed much and according to Webster it means:

1 plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest
2 plural : HUMAN BEINGS, PERSONS -- often used in compounds instead of persons

Persons, Human beings, individuals as opposed to Monarchy, Government, Organizations. That would be pretty clear to any 12 year old I know.

Also there is "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government". If that doesn't differentiate between the individuals acting together a collective entreprise then I don't know what does.

Loch

 

[Ieyasu]

Lochaber,

Do you think that the term "people," at the time the Constitution was written, meant all persons? Do you think the 2A, at the time it was written, was guaranteeing the right of slaves their RKBA?

 

[Graystar]

Exactly... every single individual citizen. And every single individual citizen has the God given right to bear arms. And the 2nd prohibits Congress from stepping on the toes of any of them.

Do you think that the term "people," at the time the Constitution was written, meant all persons? Do you think the 2A, at the time it was written, was guaranteeing the right of slaves their RKBA?

I don't understand these continual attempts to hijack the thread. Read the original post. The Second, Ninth, and Tenth amendments were left out of the discussion. Please read the original post and address the ideas raised there.

 

[Michigander]

Graystar,

I have the right to vote, as an individual, correct?

Now, if I go to the polls a minute before they close and I am informed that no one else has voted thus far and that my vote will be the only one cast, do I lose my right to vote? Cannot I still cast my individual vote?

If yes, then where is the "collective"?

If no, then where is the "right"?




on a side note: Maybe you should change your handle to "Borg."

j/k

 

[another okie]

It's plural, not collective. There's a difference.

 

[Ieyasu]

I don't understand these continual attempts to hijack the thread.

As usual you're wrong. I quoted the 2nd to Lochaber since it was the easiest way to illustrate that his definition of the "people," as used back then, was probably incorrect.

 

[Ieyasu]

It's plural, not collective. There's a difference.

Plural for what?

 

[2nd Amendment]

WE the People...

Meaning each individual in agreement. From the first post of this thread it seemed so obvious to me I haven't bothered to comment. Rights address each individual, while we the People refers to those individuals, their Rights and their agreement. From all the pages of this thread I have yet to see how anyone can avoid the obvious plurality in favor of some collectivist ideal, especially within the context of the times and the actual writers of the documents in question.

 

[Ieyasu]

Rights address each individual, while we the People refers to those individuals,

So did slaves have RKBA? They were considered persons too.

 

[2nd Amendment]

That's an old and facile argument. Slavery was an evil institution, but it existed. As such they neither had the capacity to exercise their Rights(based on my belief that everyone has the same Rights and the only question is can they use them without being killed for their efforts)nor were they counted as relevant individuals in the building of our nation.

This was a grievous error that has since been fixed. The fact of its existence at the time has no bearing on the Rights of those who were not slaves, and thus not considered lesser persons to whatever degree, at the time.

 

[Ieyasu]

That's an old and facile argument.

I think you misunderstand my argument as well as what the term, "people," meant when the Constitution was written.

(based on my belief that everyone has the same Rights and the only question is can they use them without being killed for their efforts)

This thread is not based upon your beliefs, but what the term "people" meant when the Constitution was written and to whom rights were protected and guaranteed when that term was used.

nor were they counted as relevant individuals in the building of our nation.

That's why the term "people" did not refer to everyone as individuals when the Constitution was written. And it's clear to see when examining the Constitution that "persons" has a different meaning than "people."

 

[2nd Amendment]

Slaves were not viewed as "People". To be blunt, they were not viewed as human. In short, they are meaningless to the equation and thus any consideration of them in the context of the Constitution or BoR is as pointless as considering any other livestock.

Right or wrong essentially the only "people" considered were whites. As such I'm not going to bother arguing the relevance of slaves. They had none here. As for my opinions, that's all this thread is about, individual opinions. And as I said above, I see not the slightest evidence to alter mine. "the people" is a plural reference to all Citizens, not a collectivist reference to a homogenized group. *shrug* You're free to disagree...we all have our opinions, afterall.

 

[Ieyasu]

2nd Amendment,

not a collectivist reference to a homogenized group.

As I mentioned previously, you did misunderstand my argument. I never said the "people" refers to a collective body. You assumed that.

Had you read the previous posts in this thread you would have seen where I stated that "the term 'people' refers to a class of people (whose definition could change with the times, just as what is 'reasonable' or 'cruel or unusual' could change), whereas the term "person(s)" does not refer to a class."

Slaves were referred to as persons in the Constitution and in other statutes during that time period, but they were never considered to be a part of "the people." Had this not been the case, any abolitionist could have filed a suit on behalf of any slave (in a state that had an RKBA provision). However, it was undestood at that time that "the people" back then, generally referred to freemen/citizens/males.

That is why you'll never see an RKBA provision from that time-period saying "No person shall be deprived of the right to bear arms..." Either the term "people" or "freeman" was used.

Thus the term "persons" was not interchangable with "the people" during that time period. But, again, that, in and of itself, does not make the reference a collective one!

 

[DRZinn]

I DON'T CARE if they meant individuals or everyone as a group! I have certain basic rights, which include anything that doesn't harm anyone else, and I don't need them enumerated in the Constitution for them to be valid.

 

[griz]

Someone has yet to explain to me WTH a collective right is and what sense does it make for a government to assign rights to itself.

You are not alone. Greystar's defineition is circular, and he has yet to even tell how his collective right differs from an individual right.

 

[Graystar]

You are not alone. Greystar's defineition is circular, and he has yet to even tell how his collective right differs from an individual right.

You’d know how if you actually read through the thread.

 

[twency]

Quote:
You are not alone. Greystar's defineition is circular, and he has yet to even tell how his collective right differs from an individual right.
_
You’d know how if you actually read through the thread.

I've read every word of every post. I still haven't figured out exactly what your argument is. Help us out, please. (I'm still stuck on the whole "collective of one", and all that.)

-twency

 

[Michigander]

Graystar,

I have the right to vote, as an individual, correct?

Now, if I go to the polls a minute before they close and I am informed that no one else has voted thus far and that my vote will be the only one cast, do I lose my right to vote? Cannot I still cast my individual vote?

If yes, then where is the "collective"?

If no, then where is the "right"?

 

[2nd Amendment]

Ieyasu, I have read the thread. My initial(and what was supposed to be my only) comment on this thread was not addressed to "you" specifically. It was an overall dismissal of the entire discussion. So no, I wasn't failing to understand your point, I just wasn't addressing only that, or you, until you specifically replied. Sorry.

 

[griz]

You’d know how if you actually read through the thread.

I already have. That's why I say that despite the fact that you have created a technical but meaningless "definition", you still haven't said why an individual right differs from a collective one to the individual exercising that right. If you can point out to me where you have I will retract my statement and offer an apology. If not, you're blowing smoke.

 

[Ieyasu]

2nd Amendment,

Yeah, I know your post wasn't directed at me. I just jumped at the claim that the people meant all individuals. Today that's basically true, but back then it referred to citizens. Sorry if my post seemed hostile. Part of my frustration lies with some folks posting dictionary definitions of people or what they "feel" the term should mean in contradiction to what's been posted here and without considering that (I'm not referring to you, just pointing out my frustration).

 

[Ieyasu]

I've read every word of every post. I still haven't figured out exactly what your argument is. Help us out, please.

Why bother? The Fourth Amendment cannot be reconciled with his "theory." Further, other state constitutions from that time and the writings of the Founders and their contemporaries shoot down an automatic association between a collective right and the term the "people." Even a Supreme Court decision from the 19th century says the term "the people of the United States" is synonymous with citizens.

Graystar is confused, he just won't admit it, or doesn't know it. When the term "people" was used it could refer to a right that was exercised individually, collectively, or both. It depends on the context. The meaning of the term "people" is the same regardless.

Somebody should refer him to the 1780 Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. He'd positively salivate over that one. Aw heck, I can't resist. Here ya go Graystar: http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm Have fun!

Special excerpt (from Article XXIX): "It is, therefore, not only the best policy, but for the security of the rights of the people, and of every citizen..."

*LOL*

 

[twency]

I've always found the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania illuminating and inspiring:

Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

I wouldn't mind if Bill of Rights portion of the US Constitution had been written more like this, but there really doesn't seem to be any plausible contention that the underlying meaning of the 2nd Amdmt. of the US Const. is significantly different.

The PA Constitution has been rewritten over the years, with the text above occurring in the most recent. The somewhat different original text of the Constitution of Pennsylvania (1776) reads as follows:

XIII. That the people have a right bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The prohibition against the standing army was eventually discarded, but the protection of the right to bear arms in and for "defense of themselves and the State" has been retained. This to me sounds like both an individual and collective right. It is joint and several. Held by the group as a whole, and held in full by individual members of the group.

-twency

 

[Gunfyter]

I started to wade through this thread but quickly gave up. I would offer to one and all the following book: The Second Amendment Primer by Les Adams published by Palladium Press. Available from the NRA Bookstore. It's about as difinitive as you could ask for and quotes the Founding Fathers at length with regard to "The Right To Keep and Bear Arms", an individual right.