• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

the latest talking point of the anti's

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
30,820
The latest talking point of the anti's appears to be that the Second Amendment was intended to be a collective right, not an individual right. First person to present this, the lovely David Hogg, followed closely by several of the usual suspects and likely more to come.

Guns & Gadgets reports this and has the Hogg tweet as well as another. He points out that the source Hogg cites actually isn't about 2A, and provides multiple referenced quotes from the Founders to prove it.

 
He points out that the source Hogg cites actually isn't about 2A, and provides multiple referenced quotes from the Founders to prove it.

A half way decent liberal, doesn’t let silly things like facts get in their way…

Pick your agenda and start chipping away, conservatives just sit and watch vs do anything proactive, so there isn’t much resistance.
 
Last edited:
But the founders framed our nation with separation of powers in the way of three branches - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...r-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-9#post-12404072

And when legislative and executive branches violate the constitution/BOR, then it's up to the judicial branch to be the final word.

And in Heller and Bruen, the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment is an individual right unattached to the militia and applied to self defense at home and outside of home. And in Caetano, the Supreme Court ruled "modern" firearms are protected under the Second Amendment.

Even Associated Press finally got the "modern rifle" memo and provided this guidance to all the journalists to stop using "assault rifle/weapon" and instead use "semi-automatic rifle" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...r-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-8#post-12380551

"Avoid assault rifle and assault weapon, which are highly politicized terms ... convey little meaning about the actual functions of the weapon"​
 
Last edited:
Even Associated Press finally got the "modern rifle" memo and provided this guidance to all the journalists to stop using "assault rifle/weapon" and instead use "semi-automatic rifle" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...r-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-8#post-12380551

"Avoid assault rifle and assault weapon, which are highly politicized terms ... convey little meaning about the actual functions of the weapon"
On the topic of "assault rifles", the anti's are also harnessing young people to carry their water, see this video from Braden at Langey Outdoors:
 
They also overlook the Militia Act of 1903 which makes individuals part of the unorganized militia. This covers all abled bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim

§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
 
The "collective right" argument may be the latest talking point, but it's hardly new. It's just recycled. The antis have been arguing that for as long as I've been following 2A law.
The issue of collective versus individual rights was the major point of the Heller decision. News organizations threw a huge fit about it upending 70 years of collective rights dogma. There was in fact a not small number of gun owners and gun rights organizations which worked very hard to prevent the case from moving forward fearing the Supreme Court would galvanize the collective rights theory resulting in the loss of many legal gains made in the early 2000s. At this point what we are seeing is a bunch of anti's hoping current cases can stall long enough for the older conservative justices to retire or pass away and be replaced by young liberal ones by the Biden administration. Then when cases reach the high court they may overturn the individual rights theory and put us back to the old way of collective thinking and bans.
 
I don’t talk with non 2A, non freedom loving people or neighbors. I vote!

It’s that bad in Seattle, unless neighbors prove to me they are on my side. I don’t talk or debate about 2A issues. We can be friendly, but I still have one eye open
 
Last edited:
I don’t talk with non 2A, freedom loving people or neighbors. I vote!

It’s that bad in Seattle, unless neighbors prove to me they are on my side. I don’t talk or debate about 2A issues. We can be friendly, but I still have one eye open
If I lived in Seattle, I might take the same position. That said, I don't live there, and where I live, it's even safe to invite an anti to the range.
 
So the 2A is a collective right..., doesn't that mean other rights are also collective rights? The right to keep and bear arms (but only government organized militias). Freedom of the press (but only government sponsored media agencies are allowed). Freedom of religion (but only government approved religions).

You don't just get to pick who is able to use their rights and how they are to be used. Freedom of speech protects offensive speech because inoffensive speech doesn't need protection. It would be a meaningless right if government got to determine if and how you can exercise your rights.
 
So the 2A is a collective right..., doesn't that mean other rights are also collective rights? The right to keep and bear arms (but only government organized militias). Freedom of the press (but only government sponsored media agencies are allowed). Freedom of religion (but only government approved religions).

You don't just get to pick who is able to use their rights and how they are to be used. Freedom of speech protects offensive speech because inoffensive speech doesn't need protection. It would be a meaningless right if government got to determine if and how you can exercise your rights.
another misconception about the 2A that the Anti do get is the it was written to keep the government hand off our guns not to dictate rights of ownership or usage
 
Well as we all know, the world's leading experts on the constitution, environment and geopolitics are between the ages of 7-22 years old. :confused:

A funny guy recently pointed out that using these kids to go out and lead the charge is actually pretty brilliant because you can't tell a kid to go sit down and sthu or yta.

That hogg kid is a big yawn fest to me, yeah, educate me about my constitutional rights because you have superior knowledge by dint of having a school you went to shot up.....smh
 
If they're talking about a "collective right" in the same breath as "government sanctioned organizations", then that's not a "right" in the same sense at the inherent individual rights talked about with respect to the Bill of Rights.

The government doesn't have "rights", the government has "powers". And these powers are granted to the government by the people...as are the limitations on those powers.

Now, I'm sure the attorneys out there are plenty willing to expound on the accuracy of my comments here, but at the root of all this is the simple fact that governments are made up of people. Ultimately, they're not separate living entities governed by natural laws of existence. They exist SOLELY to propagate and enforce the standards by which societies are to exist and function (for whatever reasons, nefarious or otherwise) and to do this requires them to use force. Force can come in many forms, but force is still force regardless. Don't follow the rules and be punished.

Therefore government's don't have inherent rights. They have powers, granted to them by the people (willingly or otherwise).


Take a look at the U.S. Constitution and how it's written as an excellent example of what I'm trying to say. Anything related to the government, it speaks of "power". Anything related to the people, it speaks of "right".

Doing a word search on the text, "power" occurs 37 times. Examples:

Art I, Sect. 1: "All legislative Power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States..."
Art I, Sect. 2: "The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment".

Art II, Sect. 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
Art II, Sect 1: "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or inability to discharge the Power and Duties of the said Office..."

Art III, Sect 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court..."
Art III, Sect 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity..."

Amendment X: "The power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


Doing a word search on the same text, "right" occurs 16 times. Examples:

Art I, Sect 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries:"

Amendment I: "...the right of the people to peaceblyu to assemble..."
Amendment II: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Amendment IV: "The right of the people to be secure..."
Amendment VI: "...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."


THAT SAID...to be fair, the phrase "the right of choice" is mentioned three times in Amendments XI and XX with respect to Congress in their duties as defined by those respective Amendments. But in all those times, it's in direct reference to a condition or circumstance of the exercising of specific powers granted to them, not an inherent (or legal) "right".

For example, in Amendment XI: "And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President (a power granted) whenever the right of choice (the condition under which the granted power may be exercised) shall devolve upon them before the fourth day of March next following..."
 
Regardless what news organizations and online pontificators say, laws are the written legislation and concurrent case law (court decisions). Right now the law of the US is 2A rights are individual rights per supreme court decisions. How much those rights are restricted by various Federal and state/local statutes are slowly being decided in real time today. The supreme court did not accept any cases on this subject for almost 70 years during the 20th century. As Justice Thomas has noted many times it's been a topic which the court actively avoided, whether by cases not being appealed up or simply turned away for review. Likely that's because the government didn't have an appetite for dealing with an enumerated right which most politicians of the day in both major parties truly did not like. I honestly don't believe we would be in this situation today if not for the breadth of knowledge and communication afforded by the internet and the general change of attitude by the public in response to war and terrorism over the past 20 years.
 
The "collective right" argument may be the latest talking point, but it's hardly new. It's just recycled. The antis have been arguing that for as long as I've been following 2A law.
They totally don't care that the point was specifically addressed in Heller, they figure their followers will listen only to their lies.
 
I wouldn't trust Hogg to reliably tell me the color of his own bowel movements. Let alone what the 2A should mean. I don't know why anyone listens to that kid who has a history of lying and not knowing what he is talking about.

Point aside, the militia at the time of writing was composed of people. Individuals forming a collective. Militias had to be armed and ready to go at a moment's notice. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say the right of the militia or the collective shall not be infringed, it says PEOPLE.
 
When the left starts talking about collective rights vs individual rights, I start painting out how that words "the people" are used in the Constitution.

The People have the right to peaceably assemble.
If that was a collective right, the only assembling would be in the Legislature. No more street demonstrations, or marches.

It's the same "the people" in the entire document. It isn't a different "the people" in one amendment than in another.

There are other examples to be found, but I will let you find them.
 
I wouldn't trust Hogg to reliably tell me the color of his own bowel movements. Let alone what the 2A should mean. I don't know why anyone listens to that kid who has a history of lying and not knowing what he is talking about.

Point aside, the militia at the time of writing was composed of people. Individuals forming a collective. Militias had to be armed and ready to go at a moment's notice. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say the right of the militia or the collective shall not be infringed, it says PEOPLE.
As a person who seen social break down first hand. Within days, a city like Seattle turned into a war zone with Police backing down because of orders, to the defunding and criminalizing police. The war lords backed by rich idiots can and will burn down a city to the ground. So what did people do… BUY GUNS!

and a year later, back to there old ways for finding a demon to blame for their demons
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top