Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment individual vs collective rights

<BR>I don`t understand the distinction between individual and collective rights. Is there some one patient enough to explain it.<P>------------------<BR><BR>4pwr

I'll give it a try, simplified. A collective right, may be an individule right, but an individule right would not be a collective right.<BR>A collective right is the right of the people (whole),ie: speech, religion, assembly, bear arms, etc.etc. an individule right, is the right of the person in particular, generally property rights. Age of Minority/Majority questions (ie: schooling- society provides the right (collective) to provide a H/S education, the individual has the right to continue or drop out at 16), stuff like that.<BR>In a democracy, NO ONE looks out for the rights of the individule, by definition, majority rules. In a Republic, the individules rights are protected by the rule of law. You can not be forced against your will on your own property.<BR>Which is why it saddens me to here sooooo many people refer to America as a democracy.<P>Wake up Americans; your loosing your rights by referendum. <P>------------------<BR>Lest not we forget, America is a Republic, NOT a democracy. Learn the difference, spread your knowledge, help end the lie. Fear a government that fears your guns.

Here's a quote I once heard. "A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

<P>Ram, I have to disagree with your definitions somewhat. Freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and bear arms are all individual rights. Any individual can exercise them. For example, I have the right to own a gun as an individual. The anti-gunners would have people believe that the right to bear arms is a collective right, so only the National Guard would be allowed to have guns. Your "right" with this thinking would be embodied "collectively" as the nation as a whole is armed through a designated group such as the guards. This thinking is incorrect. <P>The right to bear arms, as are the rights to free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion are <B>individual</B> rights.<P>There is a wealth of documentation from the Framers of the Constitution to support this. <BR>Long live our Constitutional <B>Republic!</B><P><A HREF="http://home.midmaine.com/~briggs/" TARGET=_blank>Liberty Matters</A><P>

Crow;<P>To paraphrase, it goes "A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch, A republic is a well armed sheep contesting the vote" - Benjamin Franklin<P>Ben was also credited with another famous quote. While leaving the hall, with the ink still wet on the document, legend says a woman inquiring as to what our founding fathers had accomplished, call out to him and said; "Mr. Franklin what have you given us?"<BR>His reply; "A Republic madam, if you can keep it"<P>Ironically, several Presidents have mis quoted this over the years, sustituting the word democracy in Republic's place.<P>------------------<BR>Lest not we forget, America is a Republic, NOT a democracy. Learn the difference, spread your knowledge, help end the lie. Fear a government that fears your guns.

MehuntR;<P>I guess I have to disagree with your answer somewhat. Not looking to flame, cuz I think we're on the same side here. The reason the anti's arguement that you gave doesn't hold water, is, The "National Guard" are not "people" they are a creation of govenment. The Bill of Rights are rights of the people. NOT government. The rest of the Constitution deals with the powers and limits of government. The ratifying States felt so strongly that the people be recognized (in writing) they demanded a listing of the rights reserved to the people, hense our Bill of Rights was added to assure ratification. New Hampshire being the swing State. (This also explains why there are 10 amendments to an original document)<BR>I'm curious, you never defined collective right. What do you feel it is?<P>p/s- Good link

<BR>RAM,<P>Theoritically, a collective right is one in which a member of society enjoys as a matter of being part of that society without necessarily being able to exercise it himself. Actually, it's an oxymoron. There could be no collective rights without individual rights being secure. <P>Thankfully, the Bill of Rights secure individual rights and as you aptly put it, the rest of the Constitution deals with the powers and limits of government.<P>"Collective rights" is actually socialistic idealogy. America is based the concepts of individual freedom and individual responsibilty, and it is what the founding documents deal with. Collectively, we delegate certain limited "powers" to government, but "rights" are ours individually, God given and inalienable.<P>We do have to be careful not to allow certain "buzzwords" to become legitimized through repetition. The idea of "collective rights" is one of them.<P>Either a right is secured by an individual or it is no right at all.<P>That's my 2 cents. Thanks for your patience with me. <p>[This message has been edited by MeHuntR (edited April 12, 2001).]

MehuntR;<BR>Always glad to meet another Patriot.<P>Somebody has got to tell me how to put in those little characters!<P>Your "signature message" is very neat and impressive too!<P>Ya'll got any extra Savage 99's up there in Maine?<P>------------------<BR>Lest not we forget, America is a Republic, NOT a democracy. Learn the difference, spread your knowledge, help end the lie. Fear a government that fears your guns.

RAM, thanks. I too am pleased to meet a fellow Patriot! Stars and Stripes forever!<P>Do you collect Savage 99s? I do have one, in 303 Savage. It was my grandfathers. He bought it in 1920. I've been told it's taken many a deer.<P>The little characters are easy, just type a colon and parenthesis, or whatever for whichever character you want and it appears automatically... <P>Your signature says a great deal also...To our Republic...<P>

P.S.<P>Just found the following Stephen Halbrook qoute... <P>Halbrook, S. - [A collective right interpretation of the second amendment] remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis. That Every Man be Armed: The Evolution of A Constitutional Right, p. 83 (The Independence Institute 1984.)<P>

Yeah,<P>I pursue a passion, more than collect. Seems every time I set out to "collect", everyone else gets the same idea, and finding them get more and more difficult.<P>They are quite a rifle, do you still hunt yours? <P>Probably shouldn't plug up the board with chit chat. My e-mail is ross1899yahoo.com<P>------------------<BR>Lest not we forget, America is a Republic, NOT a democracy. Learn the difference, spread your knowledge, help end the lie. Fear a government that fears your guns.

Ram, thats what the campfire is all about, just chit-chat and sharing experiences and knowledge with some <B>BS</B> thrown in for seasoning <BR>MeHuntR, Where the heck did you get a picture of the grill on my old '90 <B>KW</B> <B>COE</B>? truck is long gone but I have a picture of it here somewhere, I'll see if I can find it. A guy out in "Lost Wages" NV sold it (the grill) to me at a truck stop for fuel money.<P>------------------<BR><B>T LEE</B><BR>Remember: There is no such thing as OVERKILL. Just a generous margin of SAFETY! <P><B>APATHY.....Freedoms greatest enemy!</B>

<BR>Yeah, what's wrong with chit-chat? I do hope we helped 4pwr out with some food for thought.<P>RAM, I haven't hunted with gramp's M99 in ages. I should take it out, it deserves another deer. Then again, regretfully, I have my dad's rifle too...<P>T LEE, I can see where 'ole Betsy Ross would make a great truck grill.<P>Hope you all have a great Resurrection Day holiday weekend!<P>Keep your powder dry!<P> <P>

Thank`s every one for clearing up my question. I am very pleased with your responses. Again,thank`s 4pwr<P>------------------<BR><BR>4pwr

I am always surprised how these threads turn out. It started as as discussion of mg brass and ended up at 300sav. I bet if if I wanted to know more about the 30-30,would I find out by asking about spotting scopes. Reminds me of being around the boy scout campfire. Whisper something in first boy`s ear,have it go around and see what it ends up at. <BR> can`t wait til the guvmnt taxes this.<P>

MeHuntR,<P>Your "posters" sure are interesting. How do you do that? Do you scan an image and then have a program that will plunk it down where you want it to go? I'm a long ways from a computer tech, but am curious, thanks. CAT

You're right 4pwr, this thread has taken some iteresting turns.<P>CAT, this forum uses UBB code which can place image files, url links, or a number of other functions into your post. When you are on the reply page click on the "*UBB Code is ON" link to the left. This will explain UBB and its commands. For example to place the image in my post below, I typed the url address to the image file and encased the address with [img][/img], the UBB image command.<P><BR> <P><p>[This message has been edited by MeHuntR (edited April 15, 2001).]

<BR>This news is topical concerning the individual versus collective debate...<P>--------------------------<P>Ashcroft to protect private ownership of firearms <BR>By Jerry Seper<BR>THE WASHINGTON TIMES<P><BR> Attorney General John Ashcroft has reversed a Clinton administration policy on the Second Amendment, saying the Justice Department has "reaffirmed a long-held opinion" that all law-abiding citizens have the individual right to keep and bear firearms.<BR> In a decision likely to inflame liberals and anti-gun lobbies, Mr. Ashcroft said in a letter last week to the National Rifle Association that the Justice Department has taken the position that the amendment "protects the private ownership of firearms for lawful purposes."<BR> The Clinton Justice Department, under Attorney General Janet Reno, maintained that the Second Amendment guaranteed only the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias.<BR> Solicitor General Seth Waxman, a Clinton appointee, even argued in a 1994 court case involving a Texas man that the amendment "does not extend an individual right to keep and bear arms." A federal judge later disagreed with the government�s Second Amendment arguments and dismissed the case.<BR> "As I was reminded during my confirmation hearing, some hold a different view and would, in effect, read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution," Mr. Ashcroft said in the letter Thursday to NRA Executive Director James Jay Baker. "I must respectfully disagree with this view, for when I was sworn in as Attorney General of the United States, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.<BR> "That responsibility applies to all parts of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment," he said.<BR> In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, Mr. Ashcroft argued that "the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protects the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms" and that early Supreme Court decisions "routinely" reaffirmed that position.<BR> Mark Levin, former chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese III, praised the Ashcroft decision. He said the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to "protect the liberty of individuals and groups of individuals against the power of the central government."<BR> "The right to bear arms is no less of a right than the right of free speech," he said. "The problem with liberals is that they wish to pick and chose between individual liberties and scuttle those with which they don�t agree. John Ashcroft�s decision is in the finest tradition of James Madison."<BR> Mr. Ashcroft has long been a supporter of a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and Justice Department officials noted yesterday that attorneys general of both parties have taken similar positions, dating back to 1934 when Homer Cummings testified before Congress that the first federal gun-control statute was unconstitutional.<BR> The officials said the current Justice Department position was not partisan, noting that the view of the Second Amendment was shared by Sen. Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and noted liberal constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe.<BR> Mr. Ashcroft wrote in response to a letter from the NRA�s Mr. Baker about the attorney general�s and the Justice Department�s views of the Second Amendment.<BR> "We would respectfully like to enquire as to your view and that of the current Department of Justice on the nature of the Second Amendment, specifically whether it guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms," Mr. Baker wrote. He told reporters last night it was "clear" from Mr. Ashcroft�s letter that the "Bush administration respects the individual right embodied in the Second Amendment."<BR> The NRA supported Mr. Bush in the 2000 election, spending more than $1 million on behalf of his campaign. Mr. Baker noted last night, however, that the NRA has always asked new attorneys general for their view on the Second Amendment.<BR> Justice Department spokeswoman Mindy Tucker described the Ashcroft letter as a reflection of the attorney general�s support of the right to own firearms.<BR> "It was simply him stating a position of the Justice Department, which is consistent with that of past administrations, both Republican and Democrat," she said.<BR> A coalition of liberal groups sought to defeat the Ashcroft nomination. More than 200 organizations, ranging from the Sierra Club to homosexual rights groups to the gun-control lobby, banded together to challenge Mr. Ashcroft�s appointment.<BR> At one point, former Rep. Mike Barnes, head of Handgun Control Inc., charged that Mr. Ashcroft shared the "same extremist theory on the Second Amendment subscribed to by Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and so-called militia groups." Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, laid into the former Missouri senator�s strong support of the Second Amendment, demanding that he "apologize" to the American people.<BR> Mr. Ashcroft has vigorously supported increased enforcement of existing gun laws. The Justice Department�s $24.6 billion budget for fiscal 2002 is aimed at reducing gun crime, and such other goals as stopping violence against women, combating drugs and guaranteeing the rights of all citizens.<BR> The attorney general also has said that the new fiscal budget contains $158 million in increased funding to enforce gun laws through increased prosecutions and through collaborative approaches to crimes committed with firearms.