5 ms·

Once they came out after Heller and stated they still believed it was a collective right, I knew my relationship with them was over. ACLU (and others) cite it

by hed 5y ago

Once they came out after Heller and stated they still believed it was a collective right, I knew my relationship with them was over. ACLU (and others) cite it as a 5-4 decision but even the dissenters on the case believed it was an individual right, they just still thought it could be regulated / scrutinized. In that sense the individual right won 9-0.

syshum 5y ago
The collective right never made any sense in the first place, not a single other amendment in the bill of rights is viewed as a "collective right" so why in the hell would this lone amendment be a "collective right" Further what the hell does a "collective right" even look like in the first place.... the ACLU hates guns, does not believe anyone outside the government should have guns, the "collective right" was just their cover so they did not have to admit they only stood for some of the constitution not all of it //EDIT: Mods have rate limited me, so in response to comment below allow me to add I guess I should have implicitly stated Constitutional Rights, and more specifically Bill of Rights in the context. On top of that, that is still not a "collective right", that is more of a Balance of rights, You have a right to your property, I have a right to my property, if your actions (aka polluting ) damage my property then you have directly harmed my individual rights and are thus liable An example of this would be the fact that I have the right to swing my arms, but if I swing my arms in a manner that hits another person I have violated their bodily rights not to be injured by me. No one would claim that is a "collective right", no here we are balancing individual rights, their right to not be injured trumps my right to swing my arms in the physical space they occupy at that moment
- arrosenberg 5y ago
  > Further what the hell does a "collective right" even look like in the first place.... I'll give a non-gun example - you buy a piece of property near the headway of an important river. You have an individual right to improve the property, and really use it any way you want. HOWEVER - the people who live downstream of you ALSO have a collective right to use the river, which puts a limit on your individual rights. You can't dump pollutants or trash in the river, nor can you divert the waterway. You have an individual right to use your own property, but your neighbors (depending on the issue, this may be local or global) have a collective right not to suffer damage or externalities from that use. In the context of the gun discussion, the collective rights people believe that gun ownership is intended to defend the neighborhood, not for individual self-defense.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    Do they? That would imply a model where the neighborhood watch is free (encouraged, even!) to own guns. My sense is that the collective rights people believe the police should be allowed to own guns, but certainly not local volunteers.
    - himinlomax 5y ago
      A well regulated militia, perhaps? Tout bad nobody thought of that.
      - thaumasiotes 5y ago
        The term "well regulated" in the second amendment means something like "in good working order". (Compare the sense of the word "order" as "command", which is a similar development.) This is very clear if you read the contemporaneous discussion, which often substitutes synonyms. The idea is that you can call for a force from the militia and they will show up, already possessing weapons that they already know how to use. (Another thing you'll learn immediately by reading that discussion is that one of the primary purposes of the second amendment was to prevent the United States from having a standing army...)
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        I don't think collectivists in general think that individuals shouldn't be allowed to own guns, but that ownership can be well regulated, in the sense that gun owners should be required to show some level of knowledge and such before purchasing a firearm (that is, ownership can be licensed[0], as opposed to carrying). Further, its not at all clear to me that carrying permits have anything to do with the constitutional amendment. The discussion at the time and the amendment itself refer to national defense, both from external and internal threats to the nation, not "bring a gun with me to the store" (concealed/open carry), which I think is what makes many people uncomfortable. Many other countries have regulations of this form, that you have to purchase safety equipment and the government can audit you to ensure that you are safely storing your firearms. This gets people concerned about the government seizing your guns, but I don't think those concerns are realistic (assume the gov decides to do that one day, does having a national gun registry and your gun in a safe make things look any different than the police going door to door with a swat team and searching the house)? I don't think it does. [0]: Eventually. this would take a generation or two

by hed 5y ago

syshum 5y ago

The collective right never made any sense in the first place, not a single other amendment in the bill of rights is viewed as a "collective right" so why in the hell would this lone amendment be a "collective right" Further what the hell does a "collective right" even look like in the first place.... the ACLU hates guns, does not believe anyone outside the government should have guns, the "collective right" was just their cover so they did not have to admit they only stood for some of the constitution not all of it //EDIT: Mods have rate limited me, so in response to comment below allow me to add I guess I should have implicitly stated Constitutional Rights, and more specifically Bill of Rights in the context. On top of that, that is still not a "collective right", that is more of a Balance of rights, You have a right to your property, I have a right to my property, if your actions (aka polluting ) damage my property then you have directly harmed my individual rights and are thus liable An example of this would be the fact that I have the right to swing my arms, but if I swing my arms in a manner that hits another person I have violated their bodily rights not to be injured by me. No one would claim that is a "collective right", no here we are balancing individual rights, their right to not be injured trumps my right to swing my arms in the physical space they occupy at that moment

arrosenberg 5y ago
> Further what the hell does a "collective right" even look like in the first place.... I'll give a non-gun example - you buy a piece of property near the headway of an important river. You have an individual right to improve the property, and really use it any way you want. HOWEVER - the people who live downstream of you ALSO have a collective right to use the river, which puts a limit on your individual rights. You can't dump pollutants or trash in the river, nor can you divert the waterway. You have an individual right to use your own property, but your neighbors (depending on the issue, this may be local or global) have a collective right not to suffer damage or externalities from that use. In the context of the gun discussion, the collective rights people believe that gun ownership is intended to defend the neighborhood, not for individual self-defense.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  Do they? That would imply a model where the neighborhood watch is free (encouraged, even!) to own guns. My sense is that the collective rights people believe the police should be allowed to own guns, but certainly not local volunteers.
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    A well regulated militia, perhaps? Tout bad nobody thought of that.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      The term "well regulated" in the second amendment means something like "in good working order". (Compare the sense of the word "order" as "command", which is a similar development.) This is very clear if you read the contemporaneous discussion, which often substitutes synonyms. The idea is that you can call for a force from the militia and they will show up, already possessing weapons that they already know how to use. (Another thing you'll learn immediately by reading that discussion is that one of the primary purposes of the second amendment was to prevent the United States from having a standing army...)
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        I don't think collectivists in general think that individuals shouldn't be allowed to own guns, but that ownership can be well regulated, in the sense that gun owners should be required to show some level of knowledge and such before purchasing a firearm (that is, ownership can be licensed[0], as opposed to carrying). Further, its not at all clear to me that carrying permits have anything to do with the constitutional amendment. The discussion at the time and the amendment itself refer to national defense, both from external and internal threats to the nation, not "bring a gun with me to the store" (concealed/open carry), which I think is what makes many people uncomfortable. Many other countries have regulations of this form, that you have to purchase safety equipment and the government can audit you to ensure that you are safely storing your firearms. This gets people concerned about the government seizing your guns, but I don't think those concerns are realistic (assume the gov decides to do that one day, does having a national gun registry and your gun in a safe make things look any different than the police going door to door with a swat team and searching the house)? I don't think it does. [0]: Eventually. this would take a generation or two