Constitutional Collectivism is a Misnomer; or

(ANNIE GET YOUR GUN)


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. - Amendment II


So comes last week’s announcement that, after a 68 year hiatus, the United States Supreme Court has agreed to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment (see above). While the issue has been a polarizing one between the likes of the NRA and those adamantly opposed to guns since the Supreme Court took up the scope (no pun intended) of the issue back in 1939, the true heart of the issue, that being the right of self defense and self preservation, has taken a back seat to the singularity of the gun issue. In revisiting the issue, the Court will seek to answer the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to own a gun for one’s private use and protection, or does it only guarantee a collective right to gun ownership in an organized military force, i.e., militia, as in a National Guard unit?

It is, in the opinion of this author, ineffectual that one would dare attempt to make a case for such a thing as “collective rights”. There exists no such thing as “collective rights”. Such is a truism. And, it is impossible to deny a truism when it stares one so squarely in the eye. Consider the following by Ayn Rand which exterminates any possibility of the existence of “collective rights”.

“Any group or 'collective,' large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. In a free society, the 'rights' of any group are derived from the rights of its members through their voluntary, individual choice and contractual agreement, and are merely the application of these individual rights to a specific undertaking... A group, as such, has no rights.”

Now, before I get on with my other point in addressing how a collectivized view of the Second Amendment would drastically attenuate or weaken the inalienable rights bestowed upon each and every individual by God (or that “unforeseen force” for some of you) and as stated in the US Declaration of Independence and for which premise the entire American political experiment is based upon, I should mention that the Supreme Court’s review of this issue will address the District of Columbia’s current ban on handguns. And, in doing so, it is worth mentioning that despite the DC area’s ban on handguns, their national ranking with respect to crime is well known. And, mind you, not for good reason. Because, as I pointed out following the Virginia Tech school shooting (Gun Free Zones Remain Senselessly Defenseless), legally disabling one’s right to arm themselves does not prevent criminals from being armed. An individual willing to commit burglary or murder commits a crime. Is it not then ridiculous to conclude that such an individual is likely to be willing to commit the crime of illegal possession of a firearm? Of course it is.

However, in concluding my final point which is the weakening of the rights that lie at the core of all rights; that being the right of the individual, I refer to yet another truism this one from the French Statesman Frederic Bastiat.

"If every person has the right to defend even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups."

And, therein lies my greatest fear with a collective interpretation of the Second Amendment. As I asserted some weeks back. True and honest rights do not compulse, coerce, nor do they intimidate in their attainment. If by granting a collectivized group the right to “keep and bear arms” we deny the right of the individual to “keep and bear arms” and the right to self defense and the right to protection from exterior forces, who will decide the members of this “collective group”? And more alarmingly, what is to prevent such a collectivized group of armed individuals from having exclusive power over unarmed individuals?

The framers certainly knew the overwhelming potential for the Federal government to wield exclusive power over its citizens (the States) and in turn become their greatest enemy. I should hope that We The People of this United States of America have the ability to understand the high stakes of this issue. And, if nothing else, the NRA will.