Silver Bullet
Member
TDPerk: Welcome to The High Road ! Glad to have you here.
It's true...the meaning of “the People†is collective...not individual.
- Thread starter Graystar
- Start date
- Status
Graystar
Member
Does your right to speech outrank your right to privacy? That doesn’t make much sense...does it? Yet, that’s exactly what you’re asking me to determine. Collective rights are different from individual rights. There are no overlaps. It is impossible.
Graystar
Member
Who do you think possess those tanks in the National Guard amory?
Graystar
Member
It most certainly does!
Graystar
Member
I can only hope...
Zak Smith
Member
This has got to be one of the most pointless threads so far. As far as I can tell, the opening essay is neither principled nor actually comes around to a debatable thesis.
Only if you are interested...
Re Merriam-Webster online dictionary search for the noun people and tracking through person, thence individual: my take is that "people", as a noun, is a catch-all for the purpose of grouping individuals (for whatever the objective).
Therefore, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" provides that no rule, codified or not, shall be empowered to restrict, dilute, or ban the individual's free ownership, carry, and use of Arms. And please note that the word "Arms" does not restrict RKBA to firearms.
**To save time and space, and because one must follow M-W's internal links, I suggest you http://www.m-w.com/, search the dictionary for the noun "people"; upon reading, then proceed using the link to "person", thence "individual".
Note: Since humans can (and do) rationalize just about everything, I suspect that it's difficult to expect even a pure objective effort to - finally, once and for all - put to rest the RKBA question.
Maybe , one day, technology will allow us to go back in time, sit down with the Founders over a beer and a clay pipe, and pick their brains as to exactly what they meant. It may take a while. I sincerely hope that we have the time... before the whole subject becomes passe.
For whatever the value.
-Andy
Re Merriam-Webster online dictionary search for the noun people and tracking through person, thence individual: my take is that "people", as a noun, is a catch-all for the purpose of grouping individuals (for whatever the objective).
Therefore, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" provides that no rule, codified or not, shall be empowered to restrict, dilute, or ban the individual's free ownership, carry, and use of Arms. And please note that the word "Arms" does not restrict RKBA to firearms.
**To save time and space, and because one must follow M-W's internal links, I suggest you http://www.m-w.com/, search the dictionary for the noun "people"; upon reading, then proceed using the link to "person", thence "individual".
Note: Since humans can (and do) rationalize just about everything, I suspect that it's difficult to expect even a pure objective effort to - finally, once and for all - put to rest the RKBA question.
Maybe , one day, technology will allow us to go back in time, sit down with the Founders over a beer and a clay pipe, and pick their brains as to exactly what they meant. It may take a while. I sincerely hope that we have the time... before the whole subject becomes passe.
For whatever the value.
-Andy
Fletchette
Member
We have that technology. It is called a "book". The Founders put their arguements into essays supporting their Constitution (were those guys thinking or what!) - The Federalist Papers.
Numerous specific arguements in support of RKBA.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Yikes! How did this thread ever go anywhere? Lordy!
Individual vs. Collective: Read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the Constitution itself.
Read the Federalist Papers. And the Anti-Federalist Papers. Read some of the writings as to the thoughts of those who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
There is not one iota of Collectivism in their use of words. Throughout their writings is the idea of liberty for individuals.
The writers are still noted for the clarity of their thoughts and their ability to use the English language. It strikes me as odd that someone could see any of them changing word meanings from one of the Amendments of the Bill of Rights when writing another. That's just not done, even in today's world, by anybody with a modicum of literacy.
That is, "the people" of the First Amendment didn't have free political speech only when in groups. "The people" didn't have freedom from having soldiers a home only if the home was a communal-barracks place of residence. "The people" applies to individuals AND to groups--but always to individuals. Give Jefferson, et al, some amount of credibility as to consistency in thought, speech and writing!
Art
Individual vs. Collective: Read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the Constitution itself.
Read the Federalist Papers. And the Anti-Federalist Papers. Read some of the writings as to the thoughts of those who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
There is not one iota of Collectivism in their use of words. Throughout their writings is the idea of liberty for individuals.
The writers are still noted for the clarity of their thoughts and their ability to use the English language. It strikes me as odd that someone could see any of them changing word meanings from one of the Amendments of the Bill of Rights when writing another. That's just not done, even in today's world, by anybody with a modicum of literacy.
That is, "the people" of the First Amendment didn't have free political speech only when in groups. "The people" didn't have freedom from having soldiers a home only if the home was a communal-barracks place of residence. "The people" applies to individuals AND to groups--but always to individuals. Give Jefferson, et al, some amount of credibility as to consistency in thought, speech and writing!
Art
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Not taking issue Art - but ''the people'' still to me is a collective - even tho directed at those individuals within ''the people''. ''The person'' .. is a singularity and a member of ''the people'' - I hear what you say - I'm just on a semantics trip!
Huh??? As a previous poster suggested open a book (or do a Web search).
Three jurists who were CONTEMPORARIES of the Founders and wrote constitutional commentaries, unambiguously described the Second Amendment as preserving an INDIVIDUAL right. There is no contrary evidence from that period. The right to keep arms as guaranteed by the 2A can be exercised individually or collectively. The right was preserved for a collective purpose, but that doesn't tranform the right into a collective right. Again, I refer you to those three jurists.
Whose word would you take, those three jurists' or Graystar's thoroughly shallow attempt at Constitutional interpretaton?
(For a similar example, see this thread (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=86514&page=4&pp=25) where he insists the Bill of Rights is not law!)
Further, for anybody who is still paying attention to this thread and really isn't sure what the term "people" meant, see this: http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html#pe
Fletchette
Member
OK, it has been a day - I went down to the court house and legally changed my name to "the People". So, I and I alone can keep and bear arms!
So hand in yer guns, give 'em up, you individuals of the collective!!
So hand in yer guns, give 'em up, you individuals of the collective!!
Stand_Watie
Member
Bingo. I would agree that it is a collective right as well as an individual right if the term "collective right" hadn't been so bastardized by the anti-gunners. The ff's certainly intended the right to protect and promote the militia as an overall armed populace, but reading writings contemporary with the ff's (easiest and simplest I think are reading state constitutions that were contemporary to the BOR) they also intended the right to apply to individuals for personal uses such as hunting and self defense.
TDPerk
Member
Au contraire
Not at all, what if the People of the United States decide “collectively,†that their right to my property in the form of taxes outweighs my right to live peaceably? If I refuse to pay taxes or otherwise resist their confiscatory ways, I die, I am killed resisting arrest. This is true even when it is patently clear that a plain English reading of the Constitution makes the vast majority of the Federal Government’s spending illegal, so there is no question of the taxes being levied illegitimately. They are ongoing felony theft on a breathtaking scale. It results from simple majoritarianism.
I am unaware of any need to make it more complicated than this—no collective rights exist, only individual rights do, and while might does not make right or rights—it does tend to create reality, and prudence does for now dictate that I am obedient to the mere majority in most areas of law where I am in disagreement with their views.
It makes more much more sense, I think, to say nothing collective exists because every collective is dependent on the individuals in it for it’s character and effect, than it does to say that collectivity exists as something other than an abstraction because some things are not accomplished until more than one individual does their part.
The section of the Constitution cited in Flechette’s post, in conjunction with other passages in that charter, creates a legally jusitifiable expectation that the individual people who are legally able to vote in a State may see their representatives to Congress chosen by a majority vote of those voting in a congressional district, as their State’s Constitutions provide.
I think Flechette has the better point, the legal right to vote is established by the various constitutions involved, and it is an individual right, which individuals have a reasonable expectation will result in a representative being elected in the manner written down. It would still be up to every individual (there’s that word again) involved in the process to do their duty as written in order for this expectation to be met.
Incidentally, if those individuals do not do their duty as written, then it still is up to individuals (there’s that word again) who may have evidence to that effect to impress the individuals (there’s that word again) having and investigative and prosecutorial office that a crime has occurred, and then it is up to those individuals (there’s that word again) to do their duty, and so on ad infinitum. Or now is it ad nauseum?
Nothing collective exists, as nothing which may be usefully regarded as “collective†or the result of an aggregate of actions of individuals is in fact greater than the sum of the actions of the individuals in the aggregate.
Merely that it is useful, a mental short hand of sorts, to think of collections of people as one thing, do not make the mistake of thinking that that thing or any character ascribed to it really exists. Everything human is individual, as we are.
Yours, TDP
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paterna patriae
Not at all, what if the People of the United States decide “collectively,†that their right to my property in the form of taxes outweighs my right to live peaceably? If I refuse to pay taxes or otherwise resist their confiscatory ways, I die, I am killed resisting arrest. This is true even when it is patently clear that a plain English reading of the Constitution makes the vast majority of the Federal Government’s spending illegal, so there is no question of the taxes being levied illegitimately. They are ongoing felony theft on a breathtaking scale. It results from simple majoritarianism.
I am unaware of any need to make it more complicated than this—no collective rights exist, only individual rights do, and while might does not make right or rights—it does tend to create reality, and prudence does for now dictate that I am obedient to the mere majority in most areas of law where I am in disagreement with their views.
The fictional corporate person known as the United States of America owns them. This fictional legal person is nonexistent in fact, and only has legitimate effect when the individual (there’s that word again) officers of the corporation perform their duties as described in the Constitution and the laws made pursuant to it.
It makes more much more sense, I think, to say nothing collective exists because every collective is dependent on the individuals in it for it’s character and effect, than it does to say that collectivity exists as something other than an abstraction because some things are not accomplished until more than one individual does their part.
Firstly, Merriam-Webster’s definition of a right—to the extent you have quoted it—is incomplete because it implies the necessity for a right to be secured by law without stating that the right inheres to a person as a matter of natural law and not positively established legal law. If this is the complete definition they give for “rights†then they are impling that when slave codes were enforced in the United States, slaves had no right to the fruits of their own labor which their owners were thieving from their “property.â€
The section of the Constitution cited in Flechette’s post, in conjunction with other passages in that charter, creates a legally jusitifiable expectation that the individual people who are legally able to vote in a State may see their representatives to Congress chosen by a majority vote of those voting in a congressional district, as their State’s Constitutions provide.
I think Flechette has the better point, the legal right to vote is established by the various constitutions involved, and it is an individual right, which individuals have a reasonable expectation will result in a representative being elected in the manner written down. It would still be up to every individual (there’s that word again) involved in the process to do their duty as written in order for this expectation to be met.
Incidentally, if those individuals do not do their duty as written, then it still is up to individuals (there’s that word again) who may have evidence to that effect to impress the individuals (there’s that word again) having and investigative and prosecutorial office that a crime has occurred, and then it is up to those individuals (there’s that word again) to do their duty, and so on ad infinitum. Or now is it ad nauseum?
Nothing collective exists, as nothing which may be usefully regarded as “collective†or the result of an aggregate of actions of individuals is in fact greater than the sum of the actions of the individuals in the aggregate.
Merely that it is useful, a mental short hand of sorts, to think of collections of people as one thing, do not make the mistake of thinking that that thing or any character ascribed to it really exists. Everything human is individual, as we are.
Yours, TDP
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paterna patriae
TDPerk
Member
The Dead Horse Smiley is premature...
...as long as GrayStar keeps throwing up red, dead herrings. Yours, TDP, m.l., m.s.l., & p.f.p.p.
PS. How's THAT for a visual!
...as long as GrayStar keeps throwing up red, dead herrings. Yours, TDP, m.l., m.s.l., & p.f.p.p.
PS. How's THAT for a visual!
That term is not what makes the 4th Amendment an individual right!
"Persons" is used to match the plural "people."
Compare the 14th Amendment from Virginia's declaration of rights (also written by Madison) to the 4th Amendment:
"That every freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures <b>of his person,</b> his papers,..."
The 4th:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
Last edited:
Mute
Member
Really now? You say that as if it's a given truth. Why don't you actually back that up with some illustrations here?
Yooper
Member
For what it's worth:
The concept of a "collective right" certainly implies individual rights, you can not have a collective without individuals. The collective right may imply that the group or collective may have some power which is greater than the sum of the individual rights, an individual has the right to vote, the group has the power to elect. Carried to the ridiculous, an individual may have had the power to elect, but only after the fact as coincidence. A group can determine the meaning of a "common good" and take rights away from individual members if they demonstrate a gross misuse of that right, a convicted murderer will find it difficult to legally keep and bear arms.
The concept of a "collective right" certainly implies individual rights, you can not have a collective without individuals. The collective right may imply that the group or collective may have some power which is greater than the sum of the individual rights, an individual has the right to vote, the group has the power to elect. Carried to the ridiculous, an individual may have had the power to elect, but only after the fact as coincidence. A group can determine the meaning of a "common good" and take rights away from individual members if they demonstrate a gross misuse of that right, a convicted murderer will find it difficult to legally keep and bear arms.
Graystar
Member
Then write your congressman
Graystar
Member
All my references are to the way the terms are used in the Constitution itself. When you review the use of the term "persons" and "people" in the Constitution, then the distinction is clear.
Actually, I take the position that "rights" exist outside the operation of law, are inherent whether or not they are acknowledged or codified by law. "Rights" do not inure to groups, but only to individuals. If, theoretically, rights inured to groups, what is the status of those rights when the composition of those groups change? It is not logical to have fixed "rights" for dynamic "groups" (collectives).
So there. "The people" is simply a short way of saying "each and every person".
So there. "The people" is simply a short way of saying "each and every person".
No, that is why your reasoning is circular and incorrect.
When your shallow analysis is compared to what those contemporaneous to the Constitution unambiguously explained (as posted above), and when compared with other writings of the times (as posted above), it is clear that any possible ambiguity, uncertainty of meaning, or alternative interpetation arising from too small a sample size, disintegrates when exposed to all of the evidence.
The example I posted, clearly shows that it is not the inclusion of "persons" that transforms the 4th Amendment into an individual right. It effectively resolves any real or imagined ambiguity when interpreting the 4th Amendment and the effect that "persons" had on that amendment.
TDPerk
Member
So then I'd address the problem of a "collective" right interfering with one of my individual rights (which I thought you said was impossible), by writing...
...an individual?
While no individual is an island, the individual is the measure of all things.
Yours, TDP
Graystar
Member
It doesn't even come close to doing that.
- Status