# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2002, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/81 "2002-03-29T19:37:56Z")
**Moderator’s Note:** **SenorBeef** , direct personal insults are a violation of the rules of this forum. Do not do that again. Saying you _weren’t_ typing in anger or in the heat of the moment really just makes it worse. And to several of the rest of you: Cool it. Either debate each other’s _arguments_ in a reasonable manner, or if you absolutely must, open up threads in the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2002, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/82 "2002-03-29T19:39:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > In fact, I read, and give effect, to both clauses, while gun-rights folks ignore the first and give primacy to the second. The first clause does not say that the government shall or shall not do anything, the second one does. The fact that you can make a sentence which does not have the same meaning as the one in the constitution doesn’t change what is stated in the constitution. ---
**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:** [March 29, 2002, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/83 "2002-03-29T19:39:24Z")
Fine. Sorry. Do they also get reprimanded for insulting me, or is it alright to insult so long as you don’t use a naughty word? ---
**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:** [March 29, 2002, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/84 "2002-03-29T19:42:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\* > > You still have done nothing to explain how, even in that context, “regulating” a militia could _not_ involve “regulating” the very things that make it a militia - even using the meaning of the 18th century \*\* Yes, he did. He stated that in the usage of the times, “well-regulated” doesn’t mean “subject to regulations by the federal government”, but “well maintained, trained, and armed”. So that does, indeed, answer your point. Put it this way: What’s the point of creating a militia to oppose potential tyranny if the federal government is in charge of the militia, and therefore can disarm it? There’d be absolutely no point. ---
**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:** [March 29, 2002, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/85 "2002-03-29T19:46:01Z")
Cecil is many things, **Max** , but he is not a legal scholar. Nor is my restatement–which, again, gives effect to all the words of the provision as required by basic principles of legal interpretation–saying that the right of the people to bear arms is incompatible with a well-regulated militia. The amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but only to the extent those arms are necessary to a well-regulated militia. What’s that? You say you’re not a member of the militia? Why, in that case I would suggest that you write a letter to your state representatives and ask them to start one up, pronto! [You may now begin the predictable “everyone’s in the militia” argument.] ---
**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:** [March 29, 2002, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/86 "2002-03-29T19:46:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*See my previous post, **Riboflavin**. In fact, I read, and give effect, to both clauses, while gun-rights folks ignore the first and give primacy to the second. \*\* The first clause is explanatory. It explains why the second exists. The second is the actual clause that restricts the government. State constitutions often have similar setups. An explanatory clause, and then the actual restricting clause. For example, off the top of my head, Rhode Island as “A press corps, necesary to the freedom of the state, the right of the people to freely express themselves shall not be infringed”. Not exact, but I could find it if you insist. The [Explanation clause, restrictive clause] format is found in a lot of the state constitutions because that’s how they used language at the time. It only appears unique here because it’s the only use in the Bill of Rights. ---
**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:** [March 29, 2002, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/87 "2002-03-29T19:50:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*[You may now begin the predictable “everyone’s in the militia” argument.] \*\* Not everyone. Males 17-45, veterans to 65. It’s only predictable beacuse it’s true. You might as well have said “You may now begin the predictable rational argument.” What’s your point, anyway? The well-regulated militia refered to in the Constitution is the same militia defined in USC 10. Are you saying “only the militia has relevance… oh, but you still can’t bear arms, because, well, you’re only in the 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:** [March 29, 2002, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/88 "2002-03-29T20:13:03Z")
10 U.S.C. 311: > [@](#): > > (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. > > (b) The classes of the militia are - > (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and > (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Now hand over the shotgun to the ATF, grandpa. And no more women with guns in their purses, either. Bwahahahahahaha! My evil plan to disarm the populace and place them under my nefarious control is nearly complete! 🆒 On a more serious note, I’d also point out that merely being a member of the “militia” by Congressional fiat does not prevent Congress from restricting the right to bear arms as I’ve set it forth above, for that right is only infringed if it interferes with the well-regulated militia. (A) You ain’t well-regulated if you ain’t got any regulations in your “unorganized militia.” (B) Any particulary regulation isn’t a violation of your second amendment rights if the restriction doesn’t interfere with the operation of a well-regulated militia. Somehow, I think the National Guard has more than enough weapons to handle its activities, so they don’t need yours. ---
**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:** [March 29, 2002, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/89 "2002-03-29T20:17:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*10 U.S.C. 311: Now hand over the shotgun to the ATF, grandpa. And no more women with guns in their purses, either. Bwahahahahahaha! My evil plan to disarm the populace and place them under my nefarious control is nearly complete! 🆒 \*\* Did you completely ignore the last few posts? Are you being willfully ignorant? Being part of the militia is not a prerequisite to having the right to own a firearm. > [@](#): > > \*\* > On a more serious note, I’d also point out that merely being a member of the “militia” by Congressional fiat does not prevent Congress from restricting the right to bear arms as I’ve set it forth above, for that right is only infringed if it interferes with the well-regulated militia. \*\* Really? Are you the legal scholar that you criticized cecil for not being? > [@](#): > > \*\* > > (A) You ain’t well-regulated if you ain’t got any regulations in your “unorganized militia.” \*\* Why not read the last 10 or 15 posts? It might do you some good. > [@](#): > > \*\* > (B) Any particulary regulation isn’t a violation of your second amendment rights if the restriction doesn’t interfere with the operation of a well-regulated militia. \*\* Please tell me where the constitution says “The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If that’s what they meant - and that’s what your asserting, then why you “the people”? > [@](#): > > [B} > Somehow, I think the National Guard has more than enough weapons to handle its activities, so they don’t need yours. \*\* The national guard has nothing to do with the unorganized militia. ---
**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:** [March 29, 2002, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/90 "2002-03-29T20:19:15Z")
Er, by “you” in the second to last line, I meant “use”. ---
**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:** [March 29, 2002, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/91 "2002-03-29T20:20:20Z")
Mods: I accidentally made a triple and a double post earlier, if you could clean those up, please… ---
**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:** [March 29, 2002, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/92 "2002-03-29T20:33:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > Did you completely ignore the last few posts? Are you being willfully ignorant? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Being part of the militia is not a prerequisite to having the right to own a firearm. Nope. But it doesn’t guarantee it, either. > [@](#): > > Really? Are you the legal scholar that you criticized cecil for not being? I’d lay odds I’ve published more legal scholarship and written more court opinions than Cecil. I have the highest respect for the gentleman, of course, but his training is in the field of genius, not the law. > [@](#): > > Why not read the last 10 or 15 posts? It might do you some good. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Please tell me where the constitution says “The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If that’s what they meant - and that’s what your asserting, then why you “the people”? That’s not my point. My point is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms may be infringed unless it affects the well-regulated militia. ---
**Author:** ![stofsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dfb087/32.png) [@stofsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stofsky)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2002, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/93 "2002-03-29T20:51:27Z")
Unless I’m mistaken (which is possible), one of the Nordic countries (Sweden or Switzerland, I think) has gotten around this very issue. Men of fighting age are issued a rifle and a sealed container of ammunition. Periodically, the seals are inspected, and periodically the men have to go for weapons training. There ya have it–a well-regulated citizen militia. Far more regulated than my going to a gun show, slipping the guy a c-note to skip the background check, and walking out with a 9mm and cop-killers. Oh, and **Beef**? This kind of undermines your argument: > [@](#): > > Regardless, there’s a difference between arms and ordnance. It seems clear to me that the founding fathers wanted the people armed with the commonly accepted military rifle of the day. So much for the 9mm, huh? ---
**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:** [March 29, 2002, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/94 "2002-03-29T21:51:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stofsky \* > \*\*Unless I’m mistaken (which is possible), one of the Nordic countries (Sweden or Switzerland, I think) has gotten around this very issue. Men of fighting age are issued a rifle and a sealed container of ammunition. Periodically, the seals are inspected, and periodically the men have to go for weapons training. \*\* Switzerland. [QUOTE] \*\* There ya have it–a well-regulated citizen militia. Far more regulated than my going to a gun show, slipping the guy a c-note to skip the background check, and walking out with a 9mm and cop-killers. [QUOTE] \*\* Wow, did you pull that one right off of [bradycenter.com](http://bradycenter.com)? I’ve never seen so many emotionally driven misconceptions in one line, outside of that site. A) What does bribing a gun dealer have to do with a gun show? If the dealer is being a criminal (and it’s very unlikely, because the ATF tests for stuff like this), what does being at a gun show have to do with anything? Sounds like pointlessly trying to give the impression that gunshows somehow don’t have to follow the law - and they do. Additionally, cop-killer is such a fad term. The bullets they were talking about weren’t really different than any commercial self defense loads, but they had evil names like “black talon” and geez we can’t have evil sounding names! > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Oh, and **Beef**? This kind of undermines your argument: > > So much for the 9mm, huh? \*\* I should’ve been more general, and used the term “military arms” of the day. The army has millions of m9 berettas that fire 9mm, and because of that, assumably they have some sort of militia purpose. And I never conceded that something had to be militia-related in order to own it. ---
**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:** [March 29, 2002, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/95 "2002-03-29T21:56:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\* > Nope. But it doesn’t guarantee it, either. \*\* The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Sounds like a gaurantee to me. And “people” is not limited to the USC 10 unorganized militia definition. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I’d lay odds I’ve published more legal scholarship and written more court opinions than Cecil. I have the highest respect for the gentleman, of course, but his training is in the field of genius, not the law. \*\* What is it that you do? I’m not going to give you any credit for working in the legal field, btw. You’ve already said things like “,” why on earth should we be limited in that discussion, in the year 2002, to what a bunch of 18th century schmoes may or may not have thought were natural rights when they couldn’t even be bothered to write them into law?", suggesting you clearly can’t objectively interpret the Constitution. > [@](#): > > \*\* > That’s not my point. My point is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms may be infringed unless it affects the well-regulated militia. \*\* Explain the logic behind that one. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless it inteferes with a well-regulated militia.”? Even if I accept that odd definition - how could my gun ownership possibly interfere with a well-regulated militia? Since it can only bolster that militia, using your definition, arms ownership would be garunteed. ---
**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:** [March 29, 2002, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/96 "2002-03-29T21:59:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stofsky \* > \*\*Unless I’m mistaken (which is possible), one of the Nordic countries (Sweden or Switzerland, I think) has gotten around this very issue. Men of fighting age are issued a rifle and a sealed container of ammunition. Periodically, the seals are inspected, and periodically the men have to go for weapons training. > \*\* Also, what are you trying to suggest with this? That a citizen militia only works if the government gives them weapons and ammunition? That sealing the ammo somehow prevents them from doing evil things? What is your point? ---
**Author:** ![Qwertyasdfg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/ecc23a/32.png) [@Qwertyasdfg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qwertyasdfg)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2002, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/97 "2002-03-29T22:24:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > \*\* > > Not everyone. Males 17-45, veterans to 65. > > It’s only predictable beacuse it’s true. You might as well have said “You may now begin the predictable rational argument.” > > What’s your point, anyway? The well-regulated militia refered to in the Constitution is the same militia defined in USC 10. > > Are you saying “only the militia has relevance… oh, but you still can’t bear arms, because, well, you’re only in the militia.”? \*\* If this militia has let all these grave injustices slip by, and hasn’t done a single thing that you said it could/should do in the past 225 years, then it no longer is relevent. While you talk about protecting some none existant militia’s right to bear arms, more persuasive arguments have come up against this “right.” Your argument about will/ability means nothing, except that when push comes to shove the “militia” doesn’t do jack unless they directly are effected, and even then they still do nothing. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2002, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/98 "2002-03-29T22:25:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hudley \* > \*\* > > There are a vast number of things that go into the efficiency of a fighting force, only one of which is the weapons. Read Sun Tzu for information on the art of warfare. Substitute “practiced” for “regulated” and perhaps the intention will become a bit clearer. You could provide a troop of monkeys with muskets, but they wouldnt be an effective fighting force. Nor would a troop of crack ninja SEALS with no weapons. That is the topic; you’re refuting the converse instead. To have a well-regulated militia, one of the aspects that needs regulating (by any definition) is their armaments, and one of the things they require is their armaments. That’s what the Second Amendment, taken _in its entirety_ as the anti-any-reasonable-control lobby hates to do, says. It does not mean anything more or less than what it says. > [@](#): > > The militia is given as but an example of why the people have the right to keep and bear arms. No, it is _the_ reason given. The only one. > [@](#): > > Not to be repetitive, but the only purpose such registration serves is to provide a list of weapons to be confiscated when the next whim of the grabbers gets passed either by a municipality, state, or the fed. Perhaps you can explain why you have to register your car, then. So the government can find it when they want to take it away?You do not answer the question of why one might think that “regulation”, in any sense of the word, equals “banning”. It does not and never did, paranoid fantasies notwithstanding. > [@](#): > > I apologize for the rant, but I get so disgusted by the attitude of some that, to me, sounds like “dont bother me with the facts, its how I FEEL that matters”. …they and they alone can decide not what the law says, but what the law SHOULD say. \*\* I share that disgust, and it applies to those who so badly want the Second Amendment to mean something other than what it says that they revere only half of that single sentence while trying to explain away the other, inconvenient half. I’d extend my disgust to those who use all-or-nothing, quasi-religious arguments such as your assertion about registration being obviously only the first step toward banning. ---
**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:** [March 29, 2002, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/99 "2002-03-29T22:29:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. > > Sounds like a gaurantee to me. There you go again, ignoring the first clause of the amendment. It’s like you’re putting your fingers in your ears, stamping your feet, and crying “la la la la la la” in a deliberate attempt to ignore that which you do not like. That may work in kindergaten, but try to address the issues when you’re in Great Debates, okay? > [@](#): > > And “people” is not limited to the USC 10 unorganized militia definition. I never said it was, though you would apparently prefer to take the militia out of the amendment entirely. As I have stated several times already, the well-regulated militia requirement establishes a limit to the right of the people to keep and bear arms described in the second clause. Please try to accept the fact that this is my position, rather than continuing to repeat the same mischaracterizations again and again. > [@](#): > > What is it that you do? I’m a lawyer. All of the above statements in regards to my experience were entirely true, and that’s all that I feel you’re entitled to know. > [@](#): > > I’m not going to give you any credit for working in the legal field, btw. You’ve already said things like “,” why on earth should we be limited in that discussion, in the year 2002, to what a bunch of 18th century schmoes may or may not have thought were natural rights when they couldn’t even be bothered to write them into law?", suggesting you clearly can’t objectively interpret the Constitution. Move to strike as conclusory, ad hominem, and irrelevant in that it fails to address the question quoted. > [@](#): > > “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless it inteferes with a well-regulated militia.”? > > Even if I accept that odd definition . . . My apologies. Read it instead as _The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed if the infringement interferes with a well-regulated militia._ ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2002, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/100 "2002-03-29T22:30:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > \*\* > > Yes, he did. He stated that in the usage of the times, “well-regulated” doesn’t mean “subject to regulations by the federal government”, but “well maintained, trained, and armed”. See my post directly above. “Well maintained, trained, and armed” includes control of the weaponry, without which you don’t have a militia. > [@](#): > > Put it this way: What’s the point of creating a militia to oppose potential tyranny if the federal government is in charge of the militia, and therefore can disarm it? There’d be absolutely no point. \*\* What happened to the classic anti-any-control argument that a militia is to defend against foreign invasions? I miss seeing the old scenario of everybody with a hunting rifle using it to capture those Soviet paratroopers - or was it those regiments of British lobsterbacks? I forget now. Oh yeah - now the argument is that the government, which _is_ the people btw in the rest of the Constitution, could itself try to _suppress_ the people? Is that the kind of argument you have to resort to? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732.md?page=6)