Collectivist Uberpost spaceholder (Updated but still unfinished....)

I'd like to do a piece about this whole "collective rights" concept, as I have much more to say that what I said in my previous post. Can't do it quite yet though, since I have an exam tomorrow. (yes, she scheduled an exam on Good Friday..... my other class is cancelled)

of course my uberpost is about equal to a blurb by kevin's standards

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The notion of "collective rights" is a relatively new phenomenon. Prior to the 1960's the 2nd Amendment was considered an individual right just like the rest of the Bill of Rights. (although courts had no problem ignoring it when they felt like it) Somewhere along the line the idea crept up that maybe the 1st clause of the Amendment, "A Well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,...." was meant to restrictive upon the 2nd clause of the amendment.

Well what exactly is a "collective right?" Can it even be defined? Well it's a right which a group of people hold collectively. The theory, at least as applied to the 2nd Amendment, is that the militia clause restricts the breadth of the right to one that is conditioned upon service in a State militia. Such a reading makes the claim that I only have a right to "keep & bear arms" while actively serving in a militia, which is of course a collective group. I, as an individual citizen, forfeit that right when I cease my participation / membership in the group.

The entire concept of "collective rights" is faulty. If rights are collective in nature, then what protection do they afford me, an individual? Do I only have a right to freedom of Religion when I'm engaged in active worship with others, and only at a church controlled by the Federal government? Must I form a group before petitioning the government? Do I have a right to freedom of speech and of the press, but no right to individual ownership of a printing press or computer?

Let us consider what that would mean, if the 1st clause were indeed restrictive upon the 2nd. In order to even begin such an exercise one must assume that "well-regulated" takes on it's contemporary meaning rather than it's 18th century meaning. In other words we must abide by the doctrine of a "living Constitution" rather than consider it in the context of when it was written, which Thomas Jefferson considered to be the proper method of Constitutional interpretation.

OK, so let's make the faulty assumption that "well-regulated" means "regulated" by the government. What are we left with? We are left with an Amendment that makes no sense. Why would the founders delegate to the Federal government the power to infringe upon that which "shall not be infringed?"