# Gun Control - The ninth amendment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 29, 2002, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732 "2002-03-29T12:49:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/261 "2002-04-04T02:14:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Johnny L.A. \* > “_Potential harm_”? So we should penalize people based on what they _might_ do? Usually we penalize people for what they _do_ do. Though I would decline to use the word “penalize,” the answer to your question is yes. We should take away certain guns from people because of what they might do with them, in that the potential harm of misuse dramatically outweighs any benefits associated with their continued private ownership. I’m glad you’re starting to see the light. > [@](#): > > Almost all rapes involve the use of a penis. Why don’t we tattoo serial numbers (or Social Security Numbers) on every penis and register the owner. . . . I want it noted for the record that it was a pro-gun person who first analogized guns to penises in this thread. God, how I’ve striven to resist that analogy. As for the rest of your penis story, I would point out that the owner of every penis in the nation is already registered and assigned a number. The government knows you’re male, and they know your SSN, right? On a more serious note, the benefits of penis ownership clearly and substantially outweigh their detriments to society (though Andrea Dworkin would take issue with that). Guns, not so much. > [@](#): > > And yet you said earlier: > > Why pass legislation if we _can_, if we _shouldn’t_ be passing it? I don’t get it. All I said is that we should take gun control proposals on their own merits rather than reflexively reject them all. 😕 > [@](#): > > A gun ban in the United States would work about as well as a drug ban would work here. Nah, it would work much better. Drugs are far more profitable, easier to manufacture and smuggle, and very few people have $500/day gun habits. > [@](#): > > As for your James Huberty example, you may remember a man who went crazy in Killeen, Texas and shot up Luby’s Restaurant. One of the patrons, a doctor, obeyed Texas law and left the handgun she normally carries in her purse inside of her vehicle. She testified that she reached into her purse to retrieve the gun, but being a law-abiding citizen it was not there. She testified that could have shot the attacker and saved lives had she had her gun, but instead she had to watch her parents and many others be killed. Sure, I remember Luby’s. But where did I argue that concealed carry was a bad thing? > [@](#): > > I and many others, supported by a mountain of statistics, believe that imposing further restrictions will _not_ result in a net benefit to society, and will result in a net detriment; doing little or nothing to stop violent crime, and imposing major and onerous restrictions on individual gun owners. YMMV. Yep. But you guys are wrong. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/262 "2002-04-04T02:34:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Yep. But you guys are wrong. 😛 No, we’re not. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/263 "2002-04-04T02:49:39Z")
The proposition **SenorBeef** was trying to establish was that the largest gun control group in the country supported the total elimination of private gun ownership. Those quotes don’t establish the proposition, I’m afraid. It’s no surprise that some folks want to get rid of all guns, but not even the VPC wants to ban all guns, according to that quote–just handguns. They’re clearly tilting at windmills, but they’re not the biggest group and they’re not tilting at that particular windmill. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/264 "2002-04-04T07:49:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Does your gun give you magical mind-reading powers? That’s no more convincing to me than it would be to you if I claimed the NRA was secretly dedicated to the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. > > \*\* No. Have you ever read anything Sarah Brady has written? It’s hysterical. It’s clear how she feels about guns, and doubt that she’d settle for some level of “reasonable gun control”. I’ve also read things that she’s said that have flat out stated that she, and HCI, advocated gun bans - but this was before they turned down their rhetoric to draw in more moderate people. I couldn’t find the quote, sorry. And so it’s reasonable for you not to believe me. But I have no doubt in my mind Sarah Brady would stop for anything but an all out ban. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/265 "2002-04-04T07:55:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*(A) Are you a conscientious objector to having your car licensed by the state? If you’re a professional, do you practice civil disobedience rather than submit to licensing as a doctor, accountant, or beautician? Maybe you’re a pilot (hey, Johnny!) or a HAM radio operator, or . There’s nothing special about guns that exempts them from registration with the state. \*\* Gun ownership is a specifically enumerated Constitutional right, whereas the others are not. Does this also give the state powers to license gun owners - and therefore the power to reject those who it does not favor? > [@](#): > > \*\* > (B) Cite, please, on registration --\> confiscation. Johnny’s anecdote indicates quite the opposite. And even if it did, tough noogies. If guns are banned–which we all know they won’t be–you don’t get to keep your guns. \*\* Australia and England are the too most recent examples. If you need full cites and everything, I’ll have to do them tomorrow, I’m pretty tired. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Probably because there are so few seriously substantive laws on guns across the nation that criminals can easily avoid their requirements. Can’t buy a gun in D.C.? Drive across the river to Virginia. Believe me, I want to enforce the hell out of existing laws, ineffectual as they are, _and_ add some serious substance to the ones we have. It would be a more interesting debate if people took up gun control proposals on the merits rather than complaining that existing laws don’t work well enough or aren’t enforced enough: _I agree_. \*\* Eh, I fundamentally disagree, but you know that by now. Gun control has little effect on crime. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > I don’t have to, convince you, though. If the government seizes your rifle to give to the army to fight off the invading Canadian hordes, they are constitutionally obligated to compensate you. If they seize it because they think it’s a threat to public safety, you aren’t entitled to a penny unless they choose to compensate you. That’s all I was saying, and it’s just a basic principle of property law. \*\* Yeah, we all want that sort of power in government hands. > [@](#): > > \*\* > They’re dead. Dead guys don’t roll around. Don’t care. \*\* Figured. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Yeah, but semiautomatic assault rifles–the term is in common usage, so you’ll just have to live with it–have been used to kill large numbers of people on multiple occasions. Bye bye, assault rifles. I’d also suggest that the primary reason why noody has used a fully auto weapon in a crime since '34 is because we sensibly regulated them nearly out of existence. \*\* Not true, there are around 300,000 of them currently out there. Not exactly one per home, but not exactly small change, either. Additionally, “semiautomatic assault rifles” are a meaningless term. You show intellectual dishonesty in using it. Please stop. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Re: “Guns that look mean.” I roll my eyes in your direction. Please, I have no fear of how a gun looks. Hell, I have no fear of guns. On the other hand, I have a serious fear of assholes with guns. If you can figure out how to separate the assholes from the guns I’m all ears. \*\* Why don’t we give the State total powers to do that? I mean, we all know how effective and unbiased they are. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Come talk to me when you develop a way to turn libel into a weapon capable of killing anybody in sight. \*\* Let’s neatly side step the principle… ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/266 "2002-04-04T13:15:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > Gun ownership is a specifically enumerated Constitutional right, whereas the others are not. Does this also give the state powers to license gun owners - and therefore the power to reject those who it does not favor? Yes, the state may license gun owners and reject those it does not favor, provided the basis for the rejection is not discriminatory. As a matter of fact, the state can do exactly as it pleases when it comes to gun control, for the Second Amendment applies only to the federal government. > [@](#): > > Australia and England are the too most recent examples. If you need full cites and everything, I’ll have to do them tomorrow, I’m pretty tired. I’d be happier with American examples. We’re rather different countries, after all. > [@](#): > > Not true, there are around 300,000 of them currently out there. Not exactly one per home, but not exactly small change, either. 300,000 highly regulated, difficult-to-obtain, fully automatic weapons out of 300,000,000 easily-purchased and not very regulated guns? Oh, and cite on the 300,000? BTW, didn’t those two L.A. bank robbers go full auto? The ones who were armed to the gills, with all the helicopter footage of their shootout with the police? [Indeed, they did.](http://www.cnn.com/US/9702/28/shootout.update/) So you were falt-out wrong when you claimed such weapons hadn’t been used in a crime since 1934. > [@](#): > > Additionally, “semiautomatic assault rifles” are a meaningless term. You show intellectual dishonesty in using it. Please stop. Nope, sorry, ain’t gonna change [the English language](http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=assault%20rifle) just to work with your desire to control the terms of the debate. ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/267 "2002-04-04T13:21:12Z")
**Minty** : I try to limit my involvement in gun threads to just providing cites and links in an effort to at least remove some of the rhetoric and show facts. And you are not the first to say I don’t believe you. As an opposing viewpoint, your rational arguements are good, however, IMHO, they are completely wrong. And I know that there is no rational discourse that would change your mind, no matter what links or cites I can provide. As a long time owner of firearms (I am a competitive shotgun shooter and former youth rifle champion) I have seen (to affirm SenorBeef’s assertion) the VPC, and the Brady Bunch (especially in their original incarnation, the HCI) and the new kid on the block, AGS, espouse time and again that their goal is to remove ALL guns from ALL private ownership. I do not dismiss them as an annoyance, or ignore them. I follow their press releases and literature as closely as I follow the NRA’s. It has only been since the last presidential election that these three have modified their rhetoric in order to prevent losing members. Their new strategy is one law at a time, chipping away our freedoms until one day we turn around and realize that they’ve achieved their goal. These organizations have absolutely nothing to do with stopping crime or preventing accidents. And I think that this is a valid strategy. In the early 90’s, my father and I resigned our NRA membership due to our perception that the group was being taken over by extremists. Only in the last five years have we returned to the fold so-to-speak, after seeing the lengths that the “other side” seemed to be going to, including the disinformation and junk science statistics that have proliferated in poli-speak prior to the last election. You may find it hard to believe, but there are many firearms owners in the US who feel that the NRA is a sellout. Even though the NRA is growing and is close to five million members, there are other organizations that are growing at a huge rate because they feel that the time for compromise is over. You may dismiss them as delusional paranoids worshipping an anachronistic icon, but they live and work in your neighborhood. Sorry, did my best to keep this short. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/268 "2002-04-04T13:44:18Z")
Fair enough, BF. I just don’t recall HGI ever coming out in favor of a complete ban, and I think gun-rights folks have been complaining about an alleged “incrementalim” strategy for at least a decade. But I appreciate and thank you for your comments. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/269 "2002-04-04T13:56:43Z")
> [@](#): > > BTW, didn’t those two L.A. bank robbers go full auto? The ones who were armed to the gills, with all the helicopter footage of their shootout with the police? Indeed, they did. So you were falt-out wrong when you claimed such weapons hadn’t been used in a crime since 1934. Sorry **minty** , the statement was that no _legally held_ machine guns have been used in the commission of a crime. The machine guns used in the North Hollywood bank robbery were _not_ legally obtained. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/270 "2002-04-04T14:28:40Z")
Good. That just proves that the strict federal licensing and registration requirements for private ownership of machine guns works very well, in that nobody the government has licensed has committed a full-auto crime. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/271 "2002-04-04T17:29:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Yes, the state may license gun owners and reject those it does not favor, provided the basis for the rejection is not discriminatory. \*\* I disagree. To me, it is the same as licensing someone to write an editorial. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > As a matter of fact, the state can do exactly as it pleases when it comes to gun control, for the Second Amendment applies only to the federal government. \*\* Er, doesn’t the 14th amendment force states to comply with rights written into the federal Constitution? > [@](#): > > \*\* > I’d be happier with American examples. We’re rather different countries, after all. \*\* NYC confiscated a lot of the firearms (primarily long arms) that it forced people to register, and had garunteed that the registration would not lead to confiscation. That’s the only one I can think of off the top of my head. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > 300,000 highly regulated, difficult-to-obtain, fully automatic weapons out of 300,000,000 easily-purchased and not very regulated guns? Oh, and cite on the 300,000? \*\* Over 68 or so years, we’ve had hundreds of thousands of machine guns trade over probably millions of hands. The fact that not one has been used to commit a crime is significant. (Actually, a police officer used a full auto lent to him from the department to commit a crime, once, but I don’t know if that counts as “civilian-owned NFA firearm crime”. And I looked, and I’m a bit off with my numbers. “Over 240,000”, it says: [http://www.guncite.com/gun\_control\_gcfullau.html](http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html) > [@](#): > > \*\* > BTW, didn’t those two L.A. bank robbers go full auto? The ones who were armed to the gills, with all the helicopter footage of their shootout with the police? [Indeed, they did.](http://www.cnn.com/US/9702/28/shootout.update/) So you were falt-out wrong when you claimed such weapons hadn’t been used in a crime since 1934. \*\* Aren’t we quick to assume? I said legally owned fully automatic firearms. You hurt your case by bringing this point up. The weapons used in the L.A. shoot out were Chinese military arms (I believe) smuggled illegally through Mexico. A good example of why gun bans are ineffective. So we regulate full auto weapons, and so they just smuggle them in. Same thing that would happen with [insert next banned firearms here]. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Nope, sorry, ain’t gonna change [the English language](http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=assault%20rifle) just to work with your desire to control the terms of the debate. \*\* An assault rifle is “A select-fire capable weapon of carbine length firing an intermediate cartridge, serving a role between that of a full power rifle and a submachine gun.” That is a military definition of such a weapon, and I doubt you could find a soldier who’d disagree. The fact that Brady, et al, wanted to scare people and try to exploit the similarties in appearance between real assault rifles and stripped versions does not change their meaning. “Assault weapons… are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons – anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun – can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” – “Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation” Josh Sugarmann, March 1989 - Sugarmann is the head of VPC It’s fairly clear that they invented the term “semiautomatic assault rifle” to fuel fires for the ban. To scare people who are ignorant about guns. The term was intentionally created to be deceptive, and used only by the ignorant. Since you are not ignorant of this, as I just explained it to you, it would be dishonest of you to continue using the term. You are still insisting on using a deceptive word to associate “scary machine gun!” with neutered assault rifles. If you must, continue, but know that you are being dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/272 "2002-04-04T17:37:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Good. That just proves that the strict federal licensing and registration requirements for private ownership of machine guns works very well, in that nobody the government has licensed has committed a full-auto crime. \*\* At the cost, of course, as you said, of being “almost regulated out of existance.” If the cost of federal licensing and regulation leads to only a small percentage of the population being allowed to own guns, then we’ve completely raped the whole idea behind the second amendment. Even in your (I believe incorrect) assessment of the second amendment, you believe the government cannot create gun restrictions or bans that would harm a well-regulated militia. Well, licensing and controlling the people who own arms - and therefore can oppose the government - is entirely counterproductive and definitely would harm a well-regulated militia. So licensing would be against even _your_ idea of the second amendment. Besides, I’d guess that well over 99%, probably over 99.8%, of legally owned firearms are never used in a crime. That’s a pretty low rate to justify a licensing which would have guns “almost regulated out of existance.” ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/273 "2002-04-04T17:43:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Though I would decline to use the word “penalize,” the answer to your question is yes. We should take away certain guns from people because of what they might do with them, in that the potential harm of misuse dramatically outweighs any benefits associated with their continued private ownership. I’m glad you’re starting to see the light. \*\* Then taking away the freedom of speech of someone who advocates, say, revolution would also be perfectly okay, since his potential harm to society is much greater than the benefit. Rights are not subject to a cost/benefit analysis. This is why they’re rights, and not privileges. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > I want it noted for the record that it was a pro-gun person who first analogized guns to penises in this thread. God, how I’ve striven to resist that analogy. \*\* :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > \*\* > > As for the rest of your penis story, I would point out that the owner of every penis in the nation is already registered and assigned a number. The government knows you’re male, and they know your SSN, right? On a more serious note, the benefits of penis ownership clearly and substantially outweigh their detriments to society (though Andrea Dworkin would take issue with that). Guns, not so much. \*\* Of course, there are those who consider self defense a sin… > [@](#): > > \*\* > > I don’t get it. All I said is that we should take gun control proposals on their own merits rather than reflexively reject them all. 😕 \*\* We still give them some merit and analysis, but not as much as we used to. We understand, as I’ve covered before, that most gun control lobbys are pushing for outright bans, and are taking any “reasonable gun law” step they can get support for. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Nah, it would work much better. Drugs are far more profitable, easier to manufacture and smuggle, and very few people have $500/day gun habits. \*\* Not at all. Guns can be extremely profitable with prohibition, because it’s worth a lot to a criminal to be the only one armed. Guns are pretty easy to manufacture, too, especially if you go for some of the simpler ones. And very few people have $500/day drug habits, either - most of the population are occasional $40 pot smokers. But for some odd reason, pot still gets smuggled in… > [@](#): > > \*\* > Yep. But you guys are wrong. 😛 \*\* Well, I’m sure we’ll have a productive discussion. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/274 "2002-04-04T18:10:13Z")
No time for long responses. > [@](#): > > Er, doesn’t the 14th amendment force states to comply with rights written into the federal Constitution? Only some of them. Federal courts have invariably held that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. Check out the [findlaw.com](http://findlaw.com) text of the Second Amendment and read the annotations following. > [@](#): > > Rights are not subject to a cost/benefit analysis. This is why they’re rights, and not privileges. [The Dude] Well, that’s, like, your opinion, man. [/The Dude] No basis in law for that one, I’m afraid. “Rights” are balanced all the time, including the right to free speech that you keep analogizing to. > [@](#): > > Even in your (I believe incorrect) assessment of the second amendment, you believe the government cannot create gun restrictions or bans that would harm a well-regulated militia. Well, licensing and controlling the people who own arms - and therefore can oppose the government - is entirely counterproductive and definitely would harm a well-regulated militia. So licensing would be against even your idea of the second amendment. Nope. As discussed back around page 2 or 3, the well-regulated militias of the several states already have plenty of weapons. Restricting private ownership would therefore have zero impact on the well-regulated militia, and would therefore be perfectly consistent with the entirety of the Second Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/275 "2002-04-04T18:45:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > [The Dude] > > Well, that’s, like, your opinion, man. > > [/The Dude] > > No basis in law for that one, I’m afraid. “Rights” are balanced all the time, including the right to free speech that you keep analogizing to. \*\* As much as we’d like to “creatively interpret” the Constitution and what the founding fathers said today, it seems pretty clear to me that the basis of our country was that rights were inalienable and not subject to any whim or cost/benefit analysis. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Nope. As discussed back around page 2 or 3, the well-regulated militias of the several states already have plenty of weapons. Restricting private ownership would therefore have zero impact on the well-regulated militia, and would therefore be perfectly consistent with the entirety of the Second Amendment. \*\* You’re speaking of \* select militias \*, like the national guard. Those are run, essentially, by the federal government. They are a division of the army, with weapons on loan from the federal government, prosecuting tresspassers under federal law. There is no way in hell that the founding fathers meant that the militia meant to allow the people to keep the government in check is, indeed, _run_ by that government. The unorganized militia is not the national guard, and the second amendment refers to the unorganized militia. Having the federal government license and decide to have arms most certainly hurts the unorganized militia. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/276 "2002-04-04T19:04:13Z")
How on earth can you claim 2nd Amendment refers to the **un** organized militia when it specifically describes a **well** -organized militia? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2002, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/277 "2002-04-06T01:11:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*How on earth can you claim 2nd Amendment refers to the **un** organized militia when it specifically describes a **well** -organized militia? \*\* Because it says that people have the right to bear arms. You’ve presented your opinion as to why it doesn’t mean what it clearly says, and now you act all confused because we don’t accept that. If you’re going to ignore what it says in favor of what you want it to say, at least have the decency to acknowledge the other side’s arguments. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2002, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/278 "2002-04-06T01:25:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*How on earth can you claim 2nd Amendment refers to the **un** organized militia when it specifically describes a **well** -organized militia? \*\* US Code 10.(whatever) makes reference to 2 legal militias: The organized militia, consisting of the national guard and naval militia, and the unorganized militia, consisting of all males, aged 17-45, and veterans up to 65. The second amendment, of 1780s, did not refer to the national guard, created in the 1910s. And the second amendment doesn’t say “well organized”. I thought you might’ve caught on to that, giving that whole battle over grammar we were having. Let me ask if this makes sense to you: The militia is established so that the whole of the people have potential physical force to contest the physical force of the government, therefore the people can bear arms. However, since the government now has tons of weapons, it no longer refers to the militia created to potentially oppose the government, but actually refers to armed agents of the State itself. Therefore, the safeguards put in the Constitution, an armed citizenry capable of opposing the government, is invalid, because the army has enough guns of it’s own, therefore doesn’t need the guns of the base of citizens which might be called on to oppose it. Is that what you’re trying to say? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2002, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/279 "2002-04-06T03:35:11Z")
Fine. If it makes you feel any better, I will correct my unintentional error thusly: How on earth can you claim 2nd Amendment refers to the unorganized militia when it specifically describes a **well-regulated** militia? No regulations = not well-regulated. Bye bye now. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2002, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/280 "2002-04-06T06:20:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Fine. If it makes you feel any better, I will correct my unintentional error thusly: How on earth can you claim 2nd Amendment refers to the unorganized militia when it specifically describes a **well-regulated** militia? > > No regulations = not well-regulated. Bye bye now. \*\* We’ve been through what “well-regulated” means in 18th century terminology. There was also a social structure that was more conducive to having rugged, armed men who were capable citizen-soldiers than that of today. In fact, if you train in fighting these days, you run the risk of being arrested by certain states for violating anti-“paramilitary training” laws. Learning to be a marksman was a celebrated sport, as well as important training, not something you felt you had to hide from your neighbors, as you sometimes have to now. A citizenry at large can still be well armed and capable as a fighting force, without any sort of rigid organization. Those who say “tanks, big, noisy, civilians have no chance!” have not studied war. Point being, the founding fathers considered the militia the whole of the people, not specific _select militas_, chosen and run by the state. In fact, they specifically warn _against_ select militias, because how is an arm of the state going to be relied upon to keep the power of the state in check? The national guard was formed 150 years after the second amendment was written. Are you going to honestly suggest that that’s what they had in mind? An arm of the state is supposed to be our last defense against the state - and because of that, we shouldn’t be able to defend ourselves? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732.md?page=15)