# 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:** 7
**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, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/121 "2002-03-29T23:30:55Z")
Well of course they make perfect sense if you leave off the introductory clauses. The question is whether or not they mean exactly the same thing with the introductions intact, which they indisputably do not. For instance, I could get an injunction preventing you from publishing libelous things about me, but that wouldn’t restrict the liberty of the press as it is essential to the security of the state. Hence, no violation under that provision, though such an injunction would appear to violate a blanket prohibition on the liberty to publish whatever you want (even being responsible for the publication). > [@](#): > > Normally, as you are a lawyer, I would bow to your experience in this field, but there are quite a few lawyers who would agree with my assessment - including the one on that web page. Oh darn, you mean I’m not going to convince you and you’re not going to convince me? I guess we’ll have to leave it up to the courts, Beef. ---
**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, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/122 "2002-03-29T23:40:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Well of course they make perfect sense if you leave off the introductory clauses. The question is whether or not they mean exactly the same thing with the introductions intact, which they indisputably do not. For instance, I could get an injunction preventing you from publishing libelous things about me, but that wouldn’t restrict the liberty of the press as it is essential to the security of the state. Hence, no violation under that provision, though such an injunction would appear to violate a blanket prohibition on the liberty to publish whatever you want (even being responsible for the publication). > Oh darn, you mean I’m not going to convince you and you’re not going to convince me? I guess we’ll have to leave it up to the courts, Beef. \*\* Actually, you’ve given me a bit to think about. I’m not unshakable in my views, I’m just confident in them. This has, unfortunately, as it frequently does in these sorts of things, turned into an intellectual and semantic pissing contest. Well, it was fun for what it’s worth. In any case, I’m still curious: What do you think the purpose of the ninth amendment is? Additionally, just to be clear, is your position that restrictions on guns are legal so long as they don’t interfere with the 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, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/123 "2002-03-29T23:44:13Z")
So, in Mr. Beef’s world, only half of that particular sentence is really part of the Constitution itself, and the other half is simply commentary that doesn’t actually affect the meaning of the sentence and can be dispensed with, even though it’s ipart of the same text. That then leaves him with the duty of explaining why the hell the framers would even have bothered with it. If that was “standard practice”, they didn’t see a need to follow it anywhere else. Perhaps it makes more sense that they saw a need to be particularly clear about what that single-sentence amendment was intended for, knowing there would be those who would be unwilling to accept it? If so, they were apparently right. SB, you cannot pick and choose what parts of the Constitution to revere and what parts to ignore. It’s a package. Pretty obviously, the framers meant what they said, the way they said it, and meant _all_ of it. ---
**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, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/124 "2002-03-29T23:44:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > [They knew the Bill of Rights did not cover all of the natural rights a person has. They included the ninth amendment to state that, and to protect the unenumerated rights. But they didn’t explain what those natural rights were, so we’re just supposed to take your word for it? Puh-leez. See my previous comments about giving legal effect to the unexpressed, unwritten, unratifed, and unincluded alleged thoughts of a bunch of dead guys. > [@](#): > > I don’t understand your view of the ninth amendment. It’s essentially meaningless in your view. Blame the dudes who wrote it, but all they did is say that they didn’t deny anything by including certain other things. They didn’t say they were including _anything_ by passing that amendment. > [@](#): > > How do you determine unenumerated natural rights, if not from the thoughts and desires for those who set up the legal basis for this country? Tea leaves, tarot cards, and ouija boards. I mean, as long as we’re going to be writing into the Constitution the unexpressed, unwitten, unratified, and unincluded alleged thoughts of a bunch of dead guys, we better be scientific about figuring out what they would have put in there if they’d only thought of it. > [@](#): > > I never said I was objective, but you pretty much stated flat out in the beginning that you didn’t care what a bunch of guys from the 1800s thought. Not if they didn’t bother to write it into law. > [@](#): > > That you were clearly more enlightened than they, Hell yes. There were some smart guys in that convention hall, but they were, by and large, troglodytes by modern standards of human rights. And I’m not even remotely referring to the gun fetish you attribute to them. > [@](#): > > and what you thought people’s rights should be was far more important than what they did. Not what I said. But of course, what I think people’s rights should be is more important than what they didn’t bother or flat-out couldn’t put into law. ---
**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, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/125 "2002-03-29T23:53:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > What do you think the purpose of the ninth amendment is? To prevent the federal government from denying any “nonenumerated right” on the basis that it is not enumerated. If they’ve got other reasons for denying that nonenumerated right, then they may have a leg to stand on. It doesn’t have much practical effect, but it does express a belief that other rights may be recognized, even if they are not explictly enumerated. It’s the recognition part that’s so tricky. > [@](#): > > Additionally, just to be clear, is your position that restrictions on guns are legal so long as they don’t interfere with the militia? Yes, as long as you edit “militia” to read “well-regulated militia.” Elvis and I apparently disagree on that, although our different readings on the constitutional guarantee would probably result in little practical difference. I’d also point out that the Second Amendment has never been held to apply to the states, so we’re talking primarily about federal restrictions (though state firearms regs could not infringe on any well-regulated federal militia, thanks to the supremacy clause). ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2002, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/126 "2002-03-30T00:05:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stofsky \* > Far more regulated than my going to a gun show, Why go to a gun show? Gun shows are only going to have legal weapons at legal prices. All of the estimates I’ve ever seen put illegal weapon prices below those of legal weapons. Plus, you won’t get things like fully automatic weapons, which you can pick up on the street for less than the semi-auto versions. > [@](#): > > slipping the guy a c-note to skip the background check, Why would you slip some guy a ‘c-note’ to skip a background check? Either they have an FFL, in which case they aren’t going to accept a c-note to risk losing their entire business, or they’re a private citizen and so DON’T have to preform a background check in the first place (barring some specific state laws). > [@](#): > > and walking out with a 9mm and cop-killers. BTW, what are ‘cop killers’? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2002, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/127 "2002-03-30T00:15:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > > Yes, as long as you edit “militia” to read “well-regulated militia.” Elvis and I apparently disagree on that, although our different readings on the constitutional guarantee would probably result in little practical difference. Ya lost me there, Chief. I don’t see where we differ. A militia _has_ to be “well-regulated”, in whatever sense of the word one wishes to use, to be of any use at all, so it’s almost superfluous to use the word. It does help add emphasis to the framers’ statement of intent, of course. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2002, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/128 "2002-03-30T00:27:39Z")
Ah… ElvisL1ves and Minty Green, together again. ::sniff, sniff:: Smell those crimson fish… Let’s first clear up a few pieces of Ignorance that seem to have propogated throughout this thread. The first is a gross misunderstanding of the “armed populace protects against tyranny” notion… some are demanding to see examples of this, thus betraying how unfamiliar they are with the notion. It doesn’t go “Government does something bad, causing an army of armed citizens to rise up against them”… it’s the other way around, going “An army of armed citizens acts as another check and balance to Government doing something bad”. As for Qwertyasdfg’s instances where citizen militias _should_ have gotten involved… well, Buckaroo, you’re looking at it all ass-backwards. You’re viewing these events from a modern-day perspective. Slavery? You _are_ aware that a good number of people - citizens, if you will - were greatly in favor of that act, aren’t you? In short, the instances you brought up were not injustices caused by the Government… they were injustices caused by the People. Injustices which, may I add, ultimately righted themselves _without_ bloodshed. As for Minty Green’s fallacy of the excluded middle… I just love how you paint Gun Owners as believing that there should be _no_ restrictions on gun ownership. I’d be able to take you seriously as having published legal articles if it weren’t for that mistaken notion. As for Elvis, he seems to hold to the notion that people who don’t agree with him simply aren’t reading the entire Amendment. Sorry, “Chief”, but some of us are capable of putting 2 and 2 together. Unless you want to provide evidence that there is only a single, ultimate purpose for gun ownership, your argument hasn’t a leg to stand on. ---
**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 30, 2002, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/129 "2002-03-30T00:34:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\*So, in Mr. Beef’s world, only half of that particular sentence is really part of the Constitution itself, and the other half is simply commentary that doesn’t actually affect the meaning of the sentence and can be dispensed with, even though it’s ipart of the same text. \*\* It’s all part of the Constitution. I’m saying the first clause isn’t restrictive. It does not mean, in my opinion, and the opinion of many others - including legal scholars, “The right to bear arms is limited to the militia.” > [@](#): > > \*\* > > That then leaves him with the duty of explaining why the hell the framers would even have bothered with it. If that was “standard practice”, they didn’t see a need to follow it anywhere else. \*\* Except, of course, in the several examples stated in the link I gave, as an example of the lingual use of the time. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Perhaps it makes more sense that they saw a need to be particularly clear about what that single-sentence amendment was intended for, knowing there would be those who would be unwilling to accept it? If so, they were apparently right. \*\* Yes, they quite possibly were, but not for the reason you’re thinking. You’re obviously implying that I’m some whacko whose trying to justify his love of big evil guns to compensate for my small penis. I think the reason the first clause is specified is because they want to be clear that the right (and duty) to shake off tyranny and the right to bear arms are intertwined - and that the second amentment “aint about duck hunting”, so I think, in that analysis, it’s _you_, rather than me, who is unable to accept it. They’re not being clear in saying “You need to be in the militia to own weapons”, or it’d be worded differently. It’d say “The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” They’re saying “The militia is important to freedom, and for that reason, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” If they didn’t throw in an explanatory clause, people might think - and they do anyway - “well, we don’t need to hunt buffalo anymore, let’s do away with guns.” or similar thoughts. And they were right, and I think they put in the first clause as protection against that sort of logic. And it failed, since people can be as willfully ignorant as they want to be. I’m just speculating on that, of course. > [@](#): > > \*\* > SB, you cannot pick and choose what parts of the Constitution to revere and what parts to ignore. It’s a package. Pretty obviously, the framers meant what they said, the way they said it, and meant _all_ of it. \*\* I agree completely. It’s not me who is trying to declare some US Code and the second amendment to be null and void due to changing social fads. The people - the same “the people” in the other amendments, have the right to keep and bear arms. The primary reason for this is the preservation of the militia. But it’s not restrictive. The people - all individual citizens - have the right to bare arms, not simply the militia. If it was simply the militia, “the militia” rather than “the people” would be used. Feel free to disagree with me, but you continue to insult me by insinuating that I am simply ignoring part of the Constitution. It’s ironic, too, since I’m not the one attacking large parts of it. I am not willfully ignorant of the first clause in the second amendment. I don’t side step it as a thorn in my side. I embrace it. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, primarily because a militia is necesary to a free state. This isn’t self delusion, I’m not ignoring the clause, this is my view, and the view of many, many others. ---
**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 30, 2002, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/130 "2002-03-30T00:37:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*To prevent the federal government from denying any “nonenumerated right” on the basis that it is not enumerated. If they’ve got other reasons for denying that nonenumerated right, then they may have a leg to stand on. It doesn’t have much practical effect, but it does express a belief that other rights may be recognized, even if they are not explictly enumerated. It’s the recognition part that’s so tricky. \*\* This analysis seems reasonable to me, although I don’t think the founders gave any less importance to unenumerated rights relative to enumerated ones. You seem to be implying that they’re “second class rights”, and I disagree with that assessment. You’re right, in that figuring out exactly what these rights are is the tough part. ---
**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 30, 2002, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/131 "2002-03-30T00:41:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > As for Minty Green’s fallacy of the excluded middle… I just love how you paint Gun Owners as believing that there should be _no_ restrictions on gun ownership. Cite, please? I cannot recally making any such argument, though _some_ gun owners cetainly ascribe to such position. ---
**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 30, 2002, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/132 "2002-03-30T00:42:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > \*\* > In short, the instances you brought up were not injustices caused by the Government… they were injustices caused by the People. Injustices which, may I add, ultimately righted themselves _without_ bloodshed. > \*\* Thank you, Spoofe. This is what I meant to express, but didn’t manage to. Most of the examples he listed were examples of common citizens enforcing “injustice” on other people. And that’s debatable, because many didn’t consider it injustice, given the social climate at the time. It wasn’t a big, overbearing rogue government acting on it’s own to oppress citizens, but citizens collectively mistreating non-citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Qwertyasdfg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/ecc23a/32.png) [@Qwertyasdfg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qwertyasdfg)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2002, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/133 "2002-03-30T00:55:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > \*\*It doesn’t go “Government does something bad, causing an army of armed citizens to rise up against them”… it’s the other way around, going “An army of armed citizens acts as another check and balance to Government doing something bad”. > > As for Qwertyasdfg’s instances where citizen militias _should_ have gotten involved… well, Buckaroo, you’re looking at it all ass-backwards. You’re viewing these events from a modern-day perspective. Slavery? You _are_ aware that a good number of people - citizens, if you will - were greatly in favor of that act, aren’t you? > > In short, the instances you brought up were not injustices caused by the Government… they were injustices caused by the People. Injustices which, may I add, ultimately righted themselves _without_ bloodshed. > \*\* Right… The point is that even with an “armed militia” supposedly acting as a check, atrocities were still committed. They were righted to varying extents without the militia, as you say. So what do we need it for? Nothing. And yes, I do realize that slavery was approved of, which makes the concept of “militia” so bad. People would have, and did fight in the name of protecting slavery. Especially now, since it’s impossible to scare the strongest armed forces on earth which uses stealth fighters, aircraft carriers, tanks, highly trained soldiers, etc. with your colt .45 or ak47. ---
**Author:** ![Qwertyasdfg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/ecc23a/32.png) [@Qwertyasdfg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qwertyasdfg)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2002, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/134 "2002-03-30T01:01:00Z")
And by the way, are you saying that: The House of Unamerican Activities, the Trail of Tears enforced by Federal troops, the Alien and Sedition acts, Japanese internment camps are not the government’s fault? ---
**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 30, 2002, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/135 "2002-03-30T01:11:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Qwertyasdfg \* > \*\*And by the way, are you saying that: The House of Unamerican Activities, the Trail of Tears enforced by Federal troops, the Alien and Sedition acts, Japanese internment camps are not the government’s fault? \*\* Do you believe that a violent overthrow of the US government, resulting in many, many deaths, a disruption to the common way of life, and a large risk of death was worth causing over these incidents? A guy in maine will leave his family, risk death, in protest over “those damn japs” in interment camps? Some “dirty redskins” being relocated? To overthrow the government because of McCarthy, in the middle of the Red Scare? Clearly, those who lived at the time didn’t think so… enough that’d revolution was a desirable approach. You’re trying to ascribe “The Militia” as one single thinking entity, rather than the collection of people that it is. However, that doesn’t mean that in the future, something won’t come up that will cause people to take up arms against their government. Is it worth it to remove their option, because we haven’t needed a violent revolution in a while? ---
**Author:** ![Qwertyasdfg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/ecc23a/32.png) [@Qwertyasdfg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qwertyasdfg)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2002, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/136 "2002-03-30T01:44:26Z")
The point is that the militia has not, and never will act as a “check” against the government acting irresponsibly. Look at how an armed population still permitted the wholesale violation of actual human rights. Seems like we’re just going in circles now. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2002, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/137 "2002-03-30T01:44:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*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.] \*\* Hate to tell you this, but apparently you’re not a legal scholar either. You did _ **NOT** _ give effect to every word in the amendment; notable in their absence are the words, “the people.” I find it insulting that you would try to pass that sorry attempt to give effect to “every word” as valid. Let’s look at it again. You said: > [@](#): > > **The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed if it interferes with a well-regulated militia.** For one thing, I think you meant to say “unless”, not “if”. For another, this restatement places the militia in a place of primacy. Once the militia is “interfered with”, the right granted in the first half may be shut down completely. As it is worded now, the Second Amendment simply states that a militia is a good thing and that the right to bear arms aids the aim of a well-regulated militia. It does NOT say that the militia is supreme and the right must bow to it. Moving on. I’m assuming here that you’re basing your opinion on _U.S. v. Miller_, one of the few Supreme Court cases involving Amendment Number Two. I’m sorry to be the one to break it to you, but you’re reading it wrong. Nowhere does the _Miller_ decision state that a person bears the burden of showing that he or she is a member of a militia. So, there’s no need to break out the “everyone’s in the militia” argument, because showing that one is a member of a militia is not a prerequisite. What the Court _did_ want to know in _Miller_ was the status of a short-barrelled shotgun. They asked the district court to take evidence concerning whether the gun could contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. So, two things of note: 1. The item, not the person, must contribute to the efficiency of a militia; 2. In asking for more evidence, the Court effectively stated that one has the right to own militia-type weapons. Too bad Miller croaked before SCOTUS heard his side of things; _Miller_ was a grossly one-sided fight, and it _still_ didn’t result in a ruling in favor of the anti-second amendment crowd. The decision might’ve been even more lopsided if someone had argued for the "pro"s. ---
**Author:** ![nobunaga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5a626/32.png) [@nobunaga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nobunaga)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2002, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/138 "2002-03-30T02:44:49Z")
> [@](#): > > The Second Amendment, read in its entirety, including the reason that’s right there in that same sentence, says it is. It doesn’t say you can’t have a firearm if you’re not in the militia, only that you can if you are. Then how can you explain the fact that three jurists who were contemporaries of the Founders, and wrote commentaries on the Constitution did not read it the same way you did? For example: St. George Tucker - “The right of self defence is the first law of nature.” William Rawle - “The prohibition is general.” These two quotes were specifically addressing the Second Amendment. After examining the text, laws and customs of the time, and the words of the Founders and their contemporaries, the narrowest plausible reading of the Second Amendment is that it was meant to preserve and guarantee an individual right for a collective purpose. (That does not transform the right into a “collective right” or the right of a “collective.”) The militia clause was a declaration of that purpose, and the clause following ("…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia. I challenge anybody to provide an authentic quote from a Founder or contemporary, or a 19th century Supreme Court decision indicating that the right to keep arms was meant to apply solely to members of a well-regulated militia. (Here’s the source of the above abreviated quotes in a larger context: [http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcom.html](http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcom.html) . You can see for yourselves the full context.) ---
**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:** [March 30, 2002, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/139 "2002-03-30T02:51:30Z")
Geez, I go to work all day, come home and take a nap, and now look at this thread! > [@](#): > > Well BF, lets see, I would be willing to bet that most of those quotes are taking out of context, however I have neither the time nor the resources to examine each one, so frankly, I will consider the source. By offering a pro-gun website as proof, you do little to advance your cause. So cites are provided; but since you don’t agree with them, you “don’t have time” to consider them? > [@](#): > > You can have them, fine. You dont need an assault rifle for protection. You dont need a Desert Eagle to protect yourself from a mugger. You don’t need a Ferarri to drive to work, but you can have one and misusing one is a crime. You don’t need a Rolex to tell the time, but wearing one may invite a crime to be committed upon you. We have a thing in this country called “Freedom”. It means that people are free to choose. Just because you don’t agree someone should have something doesn’t make you Arbiter of What People can Have. > [@](#): > > You dont need hollow tip or explosive rounds to hunt for food. What’s an “explosive round”? Have you ever seen one? Have you gone into a gun store and tried to buy one? Do they exist at all? And “hollow tip” bullets (called hollow_points_) are preferred for hunting because they do not go through the game (a _point_ to consider if you ever have to shoot someone in your house). Furthermore hollowpoints, since they resist going through the game (or the baddie) deliver more of their power to the target. It is much more humane to _kill_ a deer than to shoot a hole in it so it runs off and dies hours later. Geez, I know this and I’ve never hunted! I don’t mean to offend, but you seem not to know much about guns or ballistics. It sounds as if you’re parroting what other mis-informed people have told you. (And I really _don’t_ mean to offend. I just think that if you’re that concerned, you should get facts and stop relying on hysteria.) > [@](#): > > If you own a handgun, fine, if you have one at home, keep a trigger lock on it. Why? No children ever come into my home. People who do come into my home to not look at my guns. My collection is not accessable to anyone. There is absolutely no reason for me to have trigger locks. > [@](#): > > If you are a responsible gun owner, what fear do you have of registration? So what if the government knows you own a gun. If you are a responsible gun owner, why should you have to register your gun? > [@](#): > > _by Gorky’s Park:_ > On a point of information. There’s no such thing as a “natural right” that is a very out dated 18th Century idea. As a concept it only works if you believe in God. There is no way to prove a “natural right” exists. Are you seriously saying that there is no right for an organism to try to stay alive? You should tell that to cockroaches and dangerous viruses! Just tell them, “You don’t have a right to exist! Be dead, because you’re bothering me!” As I said at the beginning, _every_ living thing has a survival stratedy. _Every_ living thing uses its survival strategy. That sounds like a “natural right” to me. If you agree to that, then in effect what you are saying is that _every_ living thing has a right to defend itself _except_ humans. Who made _you_ god? > [@](#): > > _by nobunaga:_ > I challenge anybody to provide an authentic quote from a Founder or contemporary, or a 19th century Supreme Court decision indicating that the right to keep arms was meant to apply solely to members of a well-regulated militia. Welcome, and good luck. Look, people, it’s really simple: 1. As has been cited before, the Second Amemdment applies to the _people_. 2. “People” means the same thing in the Second Amendment as it does in the other Amendments. To-wit, it means the indivual citizens of the United States. 3. The Second Amendment carries with it the responsibility of the people to come to the defense of the nation. [Cite, _U.S. v Miller:_](http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/miller.txt) > [@](#): > > The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. **These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.** “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily when called for service **these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.** 1. Natural law provides that each organism has a right, indeed a responsibility to its kind, to try to survive. Each organism on the planet is provided with just the right survival tools it needs to survive. Since human predators are armed, it follows that human prey whould be similarly armed to protect themselves from their own kind. So we have a right as organisms to protect ourselves. We have a right to use the same tools against our enemies, whether internal to our society or external to it, as they use against us. Our laws have stipulated that we have this right. Our courts have agreed that this interpretation is correct. ---
**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 30, 2002, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/140 "2002-03-30T06:37:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Max Torque \* > Hate to tell you this, but apparently you’re not a legal scholar either. You did _ **NOT** _ give effect to every word in the amendment; notable in their absence are the words, “the people.” I find it insulting that you would try to pass that sorry attempt to give effect to “every word” as valid. Let’s look at it again. You said: > > > [@](#): > > > > The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed if it interferes with a well-regulated militia. Ah, yet another firearms fan with highly developed powers of selective reading. In point of easily demonstrable fact, I have repeatedly acknowledged in this thread that the right to bear arms, limited though it is by the well-regulated militia clause, extends to “the people,” not just “the militia.” (This point, **Elvis** , is where you and I diverge somewhat.) For instance: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by minty green_ > My point is that the right of **the people** to keep and bear arms may be infringed unless [_sic_] it affects the well-regulated militia. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by minty green_ > The right of **the people** to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed if the infringement interferes with a well-regulated militia. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by minty green_ > 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. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by minty green_ > 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. Bolding provided for your ease of reading. I assume your apology will be forthcoming? > [@](#): > > Nowhere does the _Miller_ decision state that a person bears the burden of showing that he or she is a member of a militia. I never said it did. Fact is, I haven’t given the tiniest bit of thought to _Miller_ in this entire discussion. As I explained several times on the first couple pages, I am proceeding from the basic rule of statutory and constitutional interpretation that you give effect to _all_ the words of the provision, not merely the ones you happen to like. That is, incidentally, more or less what the Court did in _Miller_ to reach its holding that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect saawed-off shotguns. If, as you assert, the “well-regulated militia” clause was free of any substantive content, the Court never could have reached its holding that the defendant had no constitutional right to possess such a weapon because it was not a firearm suitable for use by any militia. Oh, and whining about the defendant’s failure to show up and argue the case does nothing whatsoever to negate a precedent you clearly find distasteful. > [@](#): > > _Miller_ was a grossly one-sided fight, and it _still_ didn’t result in a ruling in favor of the anti-second amendment crowd. Yeah, Sarah Brady and I are still _terribly_ disappointed by the holding that certain types of commonplace firearms may be constitutionally regulated right out of existence. :rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732.md?page=8)