Reply #104: yep

[iverglas]

"Earleir someone tried to float the idea that the collective right could not exist without each member having the individual right.....which IS rubbish. And for anyone who doubts that, I'd invite them to print their own currency."

Yes, that is the point. A collective right is something that can only be exercised collectively. A people's collective right to self-determination as a people is not something that can be exercised by an individual.

It may be that some collective rights cannot be effectively exercised unless the individuals in the "collective" have certain other, individual rights. There is a degree of inter-connectedness. The collective right to self-determination would be hard to exercise if, say, the individuals in the people in question did not have the right of free speech, so that they could try to rally support for their cause without getting tossed in jail. But still, the existence of the collective right is not dependent on the existence of individual rights.

That's why I mentioned the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Civil and Political Rights, which acknowledges the universal recognition that the free exercise of individual rights is a prerequisite to the freedom and security, i.e. the exercise of the collective rights of freedom and security, of peoples.

I can see that your founders might have thought that the individual possession of arms was a prerequisite to the security of a free state. I'd say that the plain fact is that legislative drafting in the 18th century just wasn't up to snuff by our present standards, and of course rights theory was pretty rudimental by those same standards, and the result in the 2nd amendment is a dog's breakfast. And that's about the only firm conclusion I can draw, I'm afraid!

.