Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)I said: "The Second Amendment is a militia amendment. Most state Declaration of Rights contained something along the line of:
"That a well-regulated militia is the proper/natural defence of a free state/country/government; that standing armies are dangerous etc" Who did these rights belong to? They belonged to "the people" in their collective capacity."
beevul said: "Asking "who" rights belong to, is...well...just dumb."
I said: "What's your answer?"
beevul said: "My answer to what exactly?"
I said: "WHO or WHICH BODY do those rights belong to? My own answer is: they belong to the people in their collective capacity, not to each individual in person."
beevul said: "Right...which is why voting only happens when everyone is ready to vote, rather than voting being done individual by individual...Oh, wait..."
I said: "So, because an individual votes, "A well regulated militia is the natural/proper defense of a free state/country/government" must be securing an individual right?"
beevul said: "No. Because a restriction was placed on government, which restricts government with no specificity toward protecting rights at an individual or collective level, both levels are equally protected."
I said: "So those provisions aren't securing individual rights ("No",) but they're securing rights on an "individual level????" Those rights belong to the people on a collective level, don't they?"
beevul said: "Government is restricted from infringing on X, and X can be exercised individually and collectively. The exercise of x at the individual "level", is equally as protected from government infringement as the exercise of x at the collective level."
-------------------------------
You've acknowledged that the right may be "exercised at a collective level." Perhaps you could explain how the right was to be exercised on an individual level? And you haven't explained the contradiction in your statement. They don't protect individual rights, but they protect rights that may be exercised on an "individual level?"
The only argument still afloat is that they protect the right of the people in their collective capacity. It was a matter of a "well regulated militia" as opposed to a standing army.