Reply #90: I take it as a given that the platform supports the truth, you are free

[hansberrym]

to argue otherwise if you wish since you apparently believe Kerry, Edwards, and the platform are only "trying to fool" gun owners into voting for them.

But on the question of whether Kerry and Edwards are supporting individual right or collective rights, you don't have a leg to stand on.

The collectives rights argument denies that the second amendment is about "owning guns" or "hunting". But Kerry/Edwards have explicitly stated for the record that they believe the second amendment does protect hunting and gun ownership. Therefor Kerry/Edwards' stated view of the second amendment is compatible ONLY with the individual rights interpretation, so there is no ambiguity as to which interpretation they support, despite your "soft soap" claims.



From Silveira v. Lockyer:
There are three principal schools of thought that form the basis for the debate.

The first, which we will refer to as the “traditional individual rights” model, holds that the Second Amendment guarantees to individual private citizens a fundamental right to possess and use firearms for any purpose at all, subject only to limited government regulation. This view, urged by the NRA and other firearms enthusiasts, as well as by a prolific cadre of fervent supporters in the legal academy, had never been adopted by any court until the recent Fifth Circuit decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 227 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 2362 (2002).

The second view, a variant of the first, we will refer to as the “limited individual rights” model. Under that view, individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service.8


The third, a wholly contrary view, commonly called the “collective rights” model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to “bear arms” guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Under this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as due process, equal protection, and the like. Long the dominant view of the Second Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal courts, the collective rights model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates.