This message was self-deleted by its author

[Glenn Vardy]

163. Misdirection, smoke and mirrors

DELAWARE (September 11, 1776)
18. That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.

MARYLAND (November 11, 1776)
XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.

I posted these provisions from state Declaration of Rights and asked who these rights belonged to. The answer is: they belong to the people in their collective capacity. Simple. But THIS is what 'Straw Man' replied with:

You seem to be very confused between individual rights, which are natural and universal according to Enlightenment theories, and the collective rights of political entities. There is no such thing as a "natural right" for a political entity, since political entities are social constructions. Political entities can grant political rights to collective entities, but they cannot "grant" rights to individuals, since individual rights, being natural, predate the political entity. Political entities can only recognize and seek to protect those natural rights.

Individuals cannot function as political bodies. Political systems define their constituent parts and grant them certain rights and responsibilities within the system. Enlightenment political theories, such as the ones under which our political system was constituted, seek to defend certain individual, inviolable, and inalienable rights against any potential tyranny by political entities. It's a balancing act and a symbiotic relationship. The nature of political bodies is to amass power, and in so doing, they become potential oppressors. The Founding Fathers sought to protect our political system against such an eventuality.

I as an individual do not have the right to declare war against a foreign power. That right is delegated to the Congress in our system. It is a collective right of that particular body. I do have to the right to vote for members of Congress and to gather information and disseminate opinions on their performance. Those individual rights must be protected if the Congress is to continue to be representative of the people's will.

I do not have the individual right to raise a militia and take it to war. That right was granted to political entities by political entities. I do have the individual right to keep and bear arms, which the Second Amendment protected against infringement specifically to enable the militia. This is another case balancing the rights of the individual with the rights of collective entities. It is "the right of the people," not "the right of the state." However, it is a mistake to think that without the militia the right is forfeit, just as it is a mistake to think that people who don't vote should forfeit their right to free speech and free access to information.

The more you empower political entities and disempower the individual, the closer you get to totalitarianism. That's what the Founding Fathers sought to prevent. That's what you seem to be in a hurry to embrace.

It's all misdirection, smoke and mirrors.

Is your answer to my simple question that those rights belonged to "political entities?" What words are used to refer to these entities?