Talk:Collective rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Collective rights article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Collective Right to Bear Arms? Cited reference contradicts article.

The article states as an example a, "collective civil right to keep and bear firearms in the United States," but as far as I know, this is very much a minority opinion among jurists and furthermore the reference cited, the article by Nelson Lund, argues just the opposite, namely that the right to bear arms is an individual right.

I hope someone with the legal knowledge to do so will fix this error because, though I have little sympathy for the notion of collective rights, I'm sure there are better examples than the U.S. Second Amendment of such purported rights. Because someone may have evidence that this "collective right" to keep and bear arms is widely recognized as such, I'll wait a while before making a change but if no one has something better to offer I'll just delete this example with its contradictory reference. —Blanchette 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that the citation argues for an individual right and not a collective right. It cites the relevant US Supreme Court decision that determined the right to be collective. I will improve the citation. The right to bear arms is presently a collective right, this is the guiding law that permits the government to regulate guns. The US Attorney General recently stated it to be an individual right, but the USSC has made no recent ruling.

Essentially the collective right means that the people may "keep and bear arms" but no actual person may do so (without permission). It is a silly argument: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If it said instead: Well regulated libraries, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed, would the collective right mean that all books must be kept in locked public libraries? I believe that the collective right to bear arms - and the complete negation of the individual right by making it collective rather than individual is most illustrative. Essentially the argument is that the second right mentioned in the Bill of Rights was to ensure that the military would never be sent into combat without weapons, that the government has the right to arm itself.Raggz 09:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)