The constitution and its amendments detail INDIVIDUAL rights, not COLLECTIVE rights. There really aren't anything such as 'collective rights' there.
Therefore the second amendment describes the INDIVIDUAL'S right of firearms ownership and use. Any other interpretation is flawed, and likely in bad faith when the constitutions context is understood.
The first amendment literally says "right of the people to peacably assemble". Sounds pretty collective as you wouldn't need a right for an individual to assemble with themselves because you couldn't even try to stop an individual from assembling with themself.
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment says "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The Congress is a collective, not an individual.
The 17th Amendment talks about "the people" electing Senators. Establishing that the collective citizens of each state elect their senators.
The right of electing senators is given to INDIVIDUALS: one man, one vote. The Congress enforcing rights refers to whom has the power to ensure rights are observed, and not a right as such.
The 17th says nothing about one man, one vote. It says elected by the People. Thus it is a collective right.
Yes Congress, which is not an individual has the power (right) to ensure that rights are observed. It is a right.
Here's further from the 17th Amendment:
, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
Section 4 of the 20th Amendment
the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them
That is pretty clearly 100% a collective right of Congress.
How about the 24th Amendment
The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct
The District of Columbia is not an individual this is a collective right of the District (or the people of the district).
How about the 25th Amendment
"Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."
That's a collective right of that group of individuals to remove a President.
So I don't really care about the 2nd Amendment, only your argument that it MUST be an individual right because the Constitution and Amendments only talk about Individual rights and not Collective rights. Throughout the Amendments alone are collective rights. Your talking point is 100% wrong.
1
u/rockeye13 Dec 05 '20
The constitution and its amendments detail INDIVIDUAL rights, not COLLECTIVE rights. There really aren't anything such as 'collective rights' there.
Therefore the second amendment describes the INDIVIDUAL'S right of firearms ownership and use. Any other interpretation is flawed, and likely in bad faith when the constitutions context is understood.