Graystar
Member
Like I said elsewhere...that depends on how you define “bear arms.†Maybe we can start a new thread on that.
It's true...the meaning of “the People†is collective...not individual.
- Thread starter Graystar
- Start date
- Status
Graystar
Member
There ya go!
Why do you say that? Do you consider any type of system that uses voting as a tool to be a Democracy? That there can be no voting in a Republic?
Don't confuse majority rule with majority selection of representation.
Fletchette
Member
Well, ok. But just to be sure, tomorrow I am going to change my name to "the People".
Graystar
Member
You are not understanding what a collective right is. A collective right doesn’t supplant any individual right. By its nature, a collective right simply cannot be exercised to its end by an individual. It takes many individuals, working together, to bring the right to fruition.
Tag
Member
agreed.
Many individuals, exercising their free will to function as 'the people'. I agree with your points, but it all seems to hinge on the will of the individual to even take part.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
So in the event of an election where the winner is chosen by a single vote, does it suddenly transmogrify into an individual right?
Graystar
Member
I live in New York City, and of all cities this democratic haven of a town had the lowest turnout in the last election.
Go figure...
Tag
Member
Interesting point Justin, I suppose that sheds more light on the individual roots of any collective action.
Graystar
Member
No, it doesn’t. The one vote cannot stand alone...it means nothing without the support of the other votes.
Tag
Member
What if there were no other votes, ridiculous as it may seem. Say a two person town held an election whereby the one running for office could not participate. If the other person chose to vote, they would be fully exercising their rights as a true individual.
Or more reasonably, what if only one person in a given community turned out to vote in a local election, they would have single-handedly fulfilled their right.
Or more reasonably, what if only one person in a given community turned out to vote in a local election, they would have single-handedly fulfilled their right.
Graystar
Member
Well, I don’t see it as a new definition...just a different way of stating what already is. I simply use that definition to describe the relationship between the term “the people†and its use within the Constitution in those areas where there’s no dispute about what it is referring to.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Why?
And if so, then let me posit another hypothetical to you:
Imagine a small town in the rural midwest somewhere. Simply nothing more than a wide spot in the road with a population of twenty or thirty people.
Now, let us suppose that there is an election to determine who will be mayor in that town.
Let us further suppose that for whatever reason only one person bothers to show up to that election and cast a ballot, thereby casting both the deciding and only vote.
What then? Is the ballot of that individual simply null and void due to the apathy of the other citizens of our hypothetical town?
Graystar
Member
It doesn’t matter. The collective simply has one member. That does not change the nature of the right.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Ah. Now we get to the base of the whole thing: semantics. Is it possible to have a collective of one?
And if so, in what way is a collective comprised of one different than a single person?
For clarification, here is the definition of "collective" as defined by Merriam-Webster ( http://www.m-w.com )
And if so, in what way is a collective comprised of one different than a single person?
For clarification, here is the definition of "collective" as defined by Merriam-Webster ( http://www.m-w.com )
Graystar
Member
Because no matter which vote you pick as the “deciding†vote (the last vote...maybe the first vote?) its standing as the deciding vote is lost if just one of the other supporting votes isn’t cast. ALL the votes are needed to win...not just the one.
I just went through that one with Tag. It doesn’t change the nature of the right. The voter is just a collective of one. The underlying structure I described doesn’t change.
Tag
Member
Semantics indeed, but I think Greystar may still be correct, the right is implied as collective, and can be fulfilled by a lone individual. 
There are no collectives of one in my book.
There are no collectives of one in my book.
Jim March
Member
Graystar, you're freakin' losin' it here.
Gawd, you're missing all sorts of stuff.
The English Bill Of Rights of 1686 I think it was, specifically mentioned personal rights of petition for redress and the right to arms. And not in any possible collective sense, although it WAS limited to Protestants. But regardless, that's where we got the core ideas for the first and second amendments.
You're also in a head on collision with everything from the Anti-Federalist papers to the Miller decision (which agreed Miller was a member of the "unorganized militia" and therefore had a personal right to arms). Miller in turn disrespected the 14th (like a LOT of other cases post-1870) and didn't take into account how the 14th transformed the 2nd.
Want to understand how the courts viewed the RKBA as an individual right pre-14th? Read Dred Scott (1856). If blacks had been citizens and had the "priviledges and immunities of US citizenship", they'd have had "the right to bear arms, solo or in company" was how it was phrased?
There's three ways to view the 2nd and it's original meaning:
1) The founders preferred citizen militias to standing armies;
2) They wanted to preserve an individual right to arms;
3) They wanted to block one of the most common infringements on the English RKBA provision, a ban on groups of people being armed. THAT in turn is why they included the "militia clause", they were literally legalizing the most radical form of RKBA: "private militias".
None of these are really in conflict with each other, and none allow limitations on private personal arms. And if you think #3 is impossibly radical, look at the "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" section of the core constitution: these guys were willing to wrap their heads around THE most radical arms bearing of them all: privately owned warships, the single most powerful military asset of the day.
To imagine that the same people ready to legalize THAT were into grabbing personal firearms is utter lunacy.
Take what's left of your credibility and slink away quietly, please.
Gawd, you're missing all sorts of stuff.
The English Bill Of Rights of 1686 I think it was, specifically mentioned personal rights of petition for redress and the right to arms. And not in any possible collective sense, although it WAS limited to Protestants
. But regardless, that's where we got the core ideas for the first and second amendments.You're also in a head on collision with everything from the Anti-Federalist papers to the Miller decision (which agreed Miller was a member of the "unorganized militia" and therefore had a personal right to arms). Miller in turn disrespected the 14th (like a LOT of other cases post-1870) and didn't take into account how the 14th transformed the 2nd.
Want to understand how the courts viewed the RKBA as an individual right pre-14th? Read Dred Scott (1856). If blacks had been citizens and had the "priviledges and immunities of US citizenship", they'd have had "the right to bear arms, solo or in company" was how it was phrased?
There's three ways to view the 2nd and it's original meaning:
1) The founders preferred citizen militias to standing armies;
2) They wanted to preserve an individual right to arms;
3) They wanted to block one of the most common infringements on the English RKBA provision, a ban on groups of people being armed. THAT in turn is why they included the "militia clause", they were literally legalizing the most radical form of RKBA: "private militias".
None of these are really in conflict with each other, and none allow limitations on private personal arms. And if you think #3 is impossibly radical, look at the "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" section of the core constitution: these guys were willing to wrap their heads around THE most radical arms bearing of them all: privately owned warships, the single most powerful military asset of the day.
To imagine that the same people ready to legalize THAT were into grabbing personal firearms is utter lunacy.
Take what's left of your credibility and slink away quietly, please.
Tag
Member
Sweet
I'm ducking out of this one for now guys, to be continued.
Graystar
Member
Yes.
As I said before, a single person can fully realize the exercise of his right. A member of a collective cannot fully realize the exercise of his right without the other members. Even with the case of the single voter, his casting of his vote does not fully realize his right. The vote still needs to be counted.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
But doesn't that put you in direct contradiction with the definition of the term "collective?"
After all, every definition of the term refers to a collective as a group, which is defined as having two or more members.
After all, every definition of the term refers to a collective as a group, which is defined as having two or more members.
Graystar
Member
Jim, as usual, you’re wrong. Obviously, the judges of that time understood the difference between our right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, and our right to keep and carry firearms for personal defense, as protected by the Ninth Amendment.
Miller fully supports my view. But then again, you never did understand Miller...or Cruikshank for that matter.
Finally, this thread is a discussion of my notion that the term “the people†is uniformly used as a term of collectiveness in all places where it’s meaning is undisputed. Obviously, the Second Amendment is not one of those places. Mostly everyone has been pretty good at keeping focused on the conceptual issue at hand. Then you have to come in with your RKBA ranting and raving. You scared off poor Tag!
I wish you’d just try to listen to others once in a while.
Graystar
Member
Who’s talking about the term “collective?†I’m talking about the term “collective rights†(or “collective privilegesâ€, or “collective immunities,†but lets just stick to the “rights†version.)
We all know that a flash suppressor doesn’t suppress the flash. It just redirects it out of the view of the shooter. In a similar, partial-use way, the operational part of “collective†isn’t that you need two or more members...it’s simply that you need members. A membership of one person still makes that person a member. With an individual right, there is no membership required. A single person fully exercises the right in its entirety.
Okay Graystar.....gotcha...
In an earlier post above, you admit that "collective" can be defined as a collective of one single individual.
That admission right there shows that this thread has been nothing more than one big semantic game.
In other words, this whole this is nothing more than Graystar playing cutesy games with his own personal definition of "collective" (which he says, can of course mean just one person) and then he throws in more cutesy little games with the word "fully" just to muddy the waters.
He can retreat into saying, "Yes, individuals can realize their rights, only they can't realize their rights FULLY....." whatever the Hell that means.
This thread has not been anything but one big game of semantic tail chasing.
hillbilly
In an earlier post above, you admit that "collective" can be defined as a collective of one single individual.
That admission right there shows that this thread has been nothing more than one big semantic game.
In other words, this whole this is nothing more than Graystar playing cutesy games with his own personal definition of "collective" (which he says, can of course mean just one person) and then he throws in more cutesy little games with the word "fully" just to muddy the waters.
He can retreat into saying, "Yes, individuals can realize their rights, only they can't realize their rights FULLY....." whatever the Hell that means.
This thread has not been anything but one big game of semantic tail chasing.
hillbilly
Could we all do our best to keep this friendly please? It's an interesting discussion (even though I strongly believe Graystar is wrong
) but I'm only interested in reading if it doesn't descend into a bunch of ad hominem insults.That said, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Graystar. Do you seriously advocate the concept of the "collective of one"? You're defending what seems to be an absurd formulation.
As for the the "collective" nature of "The People", I've always understood it to be joint and several. "The People" have rights only insofar as any individual has the rights of the group. It would be pointless to say "The People" have the right to keep/bear arms, if no person has the right to keep/bear arms.
Are you arguing for the position that the Nation Guard, or some other formal body not in existence at the time of writing, was the actual meaning of "The People", and that only the said group had a recognized right to keep/bear arms? That flies in the face of the plain meaning and historical context of the text.
-twency
- Status