NPR - 2nd Ammendment - Individual or Collective

[BlindJustice]

NPR on On Point had a disscussion about the 2nd Ammendment and how the outright handgun ban in Wash. DC might be interpretted when the SUpremes look it it in the upcoming case.

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/03/20080317_b_main.asp

Hit the radio button for the audio replay of the program.

Randall

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Just the very fact that it is acceptable, by most in America, to even discuss or debate this in terms of individual or collective is telling of the deplorable state of American political culture.

I thought these matters were "self evident" ...I thought they were a given. Understood and without question.

I suppose not.


If you don't know your rights, you don't have any. A victory for government education and television propagandists.

People deserve what's coming.

 

[Ready2Defend]

IF the second ammendment applies only to the collective - and is fulfilled in the national guard: Do the members of the national guard KEEP and BEAR their arms home with them each night? Some would be carrying full auto carbines home with them. But how about the tank crews - do they KEEP and BEAR their arms ie drive the tank home when on leave? If the second ammendment applies to the military then there are some people who theoretically could seek to exercise their constitutional rights in keeping and bearing some pretty wild hardware.

 

[siglite]

If the second's collective, I suppose they're all collective, no?

 

[antsi]

If the second's collective, I suppose they're all collective, no?

That's one of the scariest things about this.

Freedom of the press? Well, that's a collective right. Therefore, the government runs a newspaper. You are free to submit an article for approval and possible publication. There's no individual right to start your own newspaper, though.

Freedom of assembly? Well, that's a collective right. Have a look at the government-sponsored public assemblies here on the schedule. You're free to go to any one of them you want to go to. There's no individual right to organize your own demonstration, though.

Same thing could apply to any other constitutionally protected liberty.

The business of re-interpreting the bill of rights to make certain rights deemed inconvenient to social control simply go away could lead us to places we really do not want to go.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Keep on questioning and debating rather than asserting your rights.


It's the path to tyranny.

 

[Samuel Adams]

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

This says it all.

 

[torpid]

Thanks for the link!

(aslo, please see my sig)

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Don't debate. Proclaim.

Why would you debate the truth? That is anathema to good nature.

I no longer argue or debate. I clearly state the truth to anyone, anti or not.

The second you debate, you automatically concede that what you believe in is not a truth - but something subject to political whims.

The antis have no problem and no hesitation in openly declaring and stating their anti-gun beliefs and sticking to them.

In all honesty, they are superior in many ways to 90% of THR members. Even with their silly and absurd statements, false-facts, twisted logic, perversion of truth --- they still manage to win by getting the PROs to concede too many fundamental facts. They don't accomplish this through their wit, but by the COWARDICE of the pros who cannot proclaim their beliefs and state the truth.


Some may view my approach as abrasive or non-productive. It is not. It is never abrasive to acknowledge the truth, and it isn't non-productive since people confuse themselves with how to properly educate the masses on the RKBA.


Key word - educate.


A debate does not educate, and rarely converts anyone. For debating by its very nature is combative. Another key word - convert.


The key is to evangelize the RKBA. Do not argue it. Do not debate it. Merely spread the truth, which is righteous in every way - as the fact that it is.

He who has an ear will listen. Those that won't listen to that, will not listen in a debate. Those types have made up their mind and are the political and ideological enemies of freedom and liberty. Either through intent, or by ignorance. The end effect is equally destructive.

 

[fearless leader]

I personally don't buy the Citizen Militia. The Militia and the PEOPLE are mentioned seperately. I believe it was Ben Franklin that said having a militia during a time of war is good, but during time of peace their purpose may be perverted to turn on the people.

I feel the reason our right to keep and bear was to repel the well regulated militia from turning their aggression on the PEOPLE.

However, if the Governor of my state declared an emergency and said "Ma, Pa, grab your gun and come a runnin'," I grab my M-1A and would answer the call.
My .02 cents.

 

[one45auto]

I've got several anti-gun co-workers positively drooling at the prospect of the Supreme Court ruling the Second Amendment a collective Right. They've already (and quite gleefully) asked me "so what are you gonna do when they take away all your guns?"

Needless to say, they are all poorly educated and totally ignorant of their Rights. They also regard anyone who strongly believes in freedom - particularly the Second Amendment, as having "issues." The last time I quoted the Founding Fathers during one of our debates I was accused of being a wild-eyed, militia radical hell bent on overthrowing the government.

Now, I ask you, can there be any surer sign of how low this nation has sunk?

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Idiots like them should be replied with

"so wut are ya gonna do when they march you into the gas chambers?"

I've seen the same cretinous types far too many times. Gleefully cheering for their own enslavement. Worst part of all, they don't even realize it.

That is the ultimate control and slavery. I get flashbacks of the movie "The Matrix" something about "still plugged in" something about "prison for your mind" something about "they will fight for and die to defend the very system that enslaves them" ....


You get the picture.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

Interesting. The first commentators were quite rational. That last guy was the usual rubbish; talking as an expert but hasn't even understood the previous rulings.

Overall, despite some typically hysterical and bigoted callers and goading by the moderator, a reasonable presentation.

 

[Zedicus]

antsi:

If the second's collective, I suppose they're all collective, no?

That's one of the scariest things about this.

Freedom of the press? Well, that's a collective right. Therefore, the government runs a newspaper. You are free to submit an article for approval and possible publication. There's no individual right to start your own newspaper, though.

Freedom of assembly? Well, that's a collective right. Have a look at the government-sponsored public assemblies here on the schedule. You're free to go to any one of them you want to go to. There's no individual right to organize your own demonstration, though.

Same thing could apply to any other constitutionally protected liberty.

The business of re-interpreting the bill of rights to make certain rights deemed inconvenient to social control simply go away could lead us to places we really do not want to go.

+1000!

 

[romma]

I have little faith in a government that takes property deeded to individuals (citizens of this country)from them, and gives it to others because they claim they can make it more valuable for tax purposes...

Kelo vs New London!

 

[Koblenz]

The very premise that there is a legitimate arguement over whether the or not the 2nd Amendment is a collective versus an individual right is a lie. There is no "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment needed. Numerous of the founding fathers who wrote and voted on the Constitution have left writings making it clear that the 2nd Admendment was intended to be an individual right. The answer is as clear and easy to find as it could possibly be. The liberals are trying to trick the public by making them think the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation. They also make the arguement that the 2nd Amendment was meant only to allow hunting. Utter nonsense!

Liberals make me sick. They haven't an honest bone in their bodies. They consider the public to be generally stupid and it is perfectly acceptable to get what they want with lies and trickery.

 

[xjchief]

Since the beginning of this great republic the people have had the right to keep and bear arms. As late as the early 80's schools, at least my school was, were still teaching that the 2nd amendment was "the right to bear arms". Its function was to keep the government from overstepping it's bounds as an armed citizenry would be much more difficult to oppress than an unarmed one.

Apparently the history revisionists have been hard at work and, supposedly, now the right to bear arms was never an individual right and that the crazy militia types and the NRA had come up with some crazy scheme.

 

[one45auto]

Idiots like them should be replied with

"so wut are ya gonna do when they march you into the gas chambers?"

I tried a similar approach by asking them how much of their precious freedom of speech they'd still be able to exercise if a soldier shoved an M-16 in their face and screamed "SHUT THE $%#^ UP RIGHT NOW!!" Their reaction? "Oh you're crazy, that'll never happen here." Needless to say the words "Kent State" elicited nothing more than a blank stare, or at most a shake of the head as they once more labeled me a paranoid fanatic. My references to the disarming of law-abiding homeowners in New Orleans in the wake of hurricane Katrina was met with "yeah, well they needed to do that to keep people from shootin' each other or turning vigilante."

That is the ultimate control and slavery. I get flashbacks of the movie "The Matrix" something about "still plugged in" something about "prison for your mind" something about "they will fight for and die to defend the very system that enslaves them" ....

What a perfect analogy!

 

[Halo]

I imagine if the Founders could see how morons 200 years in the future would confuse the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, they would have omitted mention of the militia, or enumerated it separately.

It seems pretty clear to me that the whole mention of the militia means "we need a (citizen) militia to keep the state free, and as the militia is composed of the armed citizenry there may be no laws denying the citizens their right to bear arms". Yet somehow we're supposed to believe this actually means the National Guard, an institution that didn't come into existence until the 20th century.

I agree with the previous poster that when we get sucked into arguing over the nature of our most basic rights, it gives the false impression that there is even a legitimate debate. At some point we have to emphatically declare that our most basic and fundamental rights are not subject to debate or reinterpretation.

 

[one45auto]

This seems entirely appropriate.

 

[only1asterisk]

the very fact that it is acceptable, by most in America, to even discuss or debate this in terms of individual or collective is telling of the deplorable state of America

Yep,