"Collective right" theory repudiated

The "collective right" theory is criticized by con law professors. "Collective right" is the claim that the 2nd amendment protects a right of states to have national-guard type units. In the documentary, this segment is followed by a discussion of the creation of the National Guard as a component of the Army, not the militia.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• 2d
• Amendment
• right
• to
• arms
• guns
• constitutional
• rights

[Fockersnextdoor]

could one of these speakers please give Obama an education on the 2nd please?

[crackahcrackah]

It's a right not because of the Masonic shitheads who imposed government upon the masses but just because we are ALIVE and that is enough reason to have a gun for procuring food and safety. Stop thinking that rights come from government it makes you sound like a peasant.

[LongPurple]

@LongPurple

Pal, we didn't need any such Gov't "permission" right from the get-go at Lexington and Concord. We tossed out the Crown and took our place as an independent Republic. The need for weapons to “repel the brits” was long over when the BOR came to be. They were all back in London on R&R.

[LongPurple]

@maccamacca87

" . . . the law [2A.] was indeed passed to the rebels could use firearms to repel the brits, . . . " WHAT???

Cornwallis surrenders --1781

Treaty of Paris --- 1783

U S Constitution ratified by states --- 1788

BOR proposed in Congress --- 1789

BOR ratified (including 2 A.) --- 1791

So you say 6 years after the war was formally over, or up to 10 years later, the people were "allowed" by the new Gov't to have guns so they could "repel the brits".

[LongPurple]

States have "powers". Only "people" have "rights".

It is clearly the “right of the people” which is recognized and guaranteed, not that of the militia. If that were the case, we would have a situation tantamount to the BOR saying “an army has the right to bear arms”. That arms-bearing of an army would be implicit, and not require any explicit statement. The only “army” I know that does not “bear arms” is the Salvation Army. (Lousy Infantry, but they have a great brass section)

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 And what if the US government prohibited guns, would you start a revolution, protest or just get on with your life watching gun crime, fall to an all time low.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 but does it really have to be second, out of all rights, the right to own firearms is second on the list, and when one state changes that just a little bit, people come to what is it, speeches, they come with guns strapt to their belts.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 Yes it is easier with a rifle, but thats a rifle, you don't need a 50 caliber, rapid-fire, tool of distruction to hunt deer, do you, as for the Ghandi, i think he was reffering to India, guns weren't banned in the UK until around the turn of the century, before that you by a 5.56mm rifle from a town market!

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 I can kill with my bare hands, that's kind of the point. Its easier with a rifle. Which is part of why it was added to the bill of rights. I always thought this quote from Ghandi was interesting "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." Odd thing coming from a pacifist, no?

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 Is it just me, or is it that everythings just started going downhill since 9/11, think about it, apart from a few small wars here and there, everything was perfectly fine, technology was catching back up from the years it lost in the dark ages, world peace was just around the corner, and if the government censored something, people fought back, then BOOM, 9/11, and now it's all gone tits up hasen't it.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 With the way things are going, with the police in wall street and all, America's soon going to downfall into a Police state.