It would seem that some of you are ignoring my point completely, instead using this as a forum to spread your tired rhetoric. I did not bring up this thread to debate what the second amendment means. I’m saying that even if you judge that the second amendment is completely irrelevant and void, the right to bear arms is still garunteed by the ninth amendment.
And I said you’re wrong. So there.
This coming from one of the most willfully ignorant people I have ever had the displeasure of being in contact with. Your “fact-based, enlightenment-oriented debate” consists of you ignoring every fact that disproves your theory and reiterating your mindless drone-like mantra over and over again.
You’re right. My bad. I thought you were going to be one of those “Well, it was for hunting, now you don’t need to hunt your own food” types.
I was (apparently) wrong in saying that the ninth amendment was a determing factor in several court trials. However, how did you attack my main point?
With cite to secondary authority that demonstrates quite clearly that the Ninth Amendment is not a source of any constitutional guarantees.
And take it to the Pit, Demise.
What IS it, then?
Instead of trying to convince each other of what the FFs intended, why don’t we just ask them?
Here is one site that has a lot of information. Obviously it is a pro 2nd amendment site, but quotes are quotes. Most of the answers to the questions being raised her as to the intentions of the wording can be found in the Federalist Papers, the collected writings of some of the Founders explaining what they meant when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
http://www.guncite.com/
Here is the google search I did. Anything you want to know about the second amendment and its original intentions can probably be found in one of the links from here.
[URL=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=federalist+papers+gun+rights]
Alright, ElvisLives, I’m interested in this. What part of the second amendment actually requires arms to be “well-regulated”? The second amendment does state that a ‘well-regulated’ militia is required for a free state, but also states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I don’t see any way in which someone could honestly read the text of the second amendment and believe that the phrase ‘well-regulated’ applies to ‘arms’, but I’m willing to wait and see what you have to say about it.
You’ve gotta love that “militia to resist government oppression” excuse. If the founding fathers really believed in that, why did George Washington supress the Whiskey rebellion? Where were the armed insurrections during the Alien & Sedition Acts, the Trail of Tears, the Japanese Internment camps, the Sacco/Venzetti Executions, the McCarthy era…
The 2nd Amendment was around at all those times.
Oh yeah, and I forgot the worst of all: Slavery? Where were the gun toting freedom fighters standing up for the obvious case of oppression? John Brown? So basically you can either abandon the whole “militia” idea, or admit that he is what you have in mind.
Uh, the people that were being oppressed, the slaves, were forceably disarmed. And after the war, the first gun control laws were set in place to keep them from being armed, so they could be further oppressed by the KKK and such.
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.
Second, even if these quotes are true as they stand, some of them are from lobbyists, much like the NRA, and they have the right to their opinion. There is no harm to be done in organizing ones side to force, or to block change. Thats the way the country works. Agree with it or not, special interest groups pretty much run things.
Finally, sur the constitution grants you the right to bear arms. The constitution doesnt say guns cant be legislated. 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 dont need hollow tip or explosive rounds to hunt for food. If you own a handgun, fine, if you have one at home, keep a trigger lock on it. The masses have proven that as a populace, we cant handle guns safely. If you are a responsible gun owner, what fear do you have of registration? So what if the government knows you own a gun. A lot of good that 12 guage is going to do if the government runs your house over with a tank to get it.
It’s a truism. It just says that the enumeration of certain rights doesn’t deny others. The amendment itself does not guarantee anything at all. The substance of whatever rights it may be referring to must derive from some other source, whether by statute, natural law, the Priests of the Temples of Sphyrinx, or William Howard Taft’s toe jam.
Are you suggesting we throw a violent, bloody revolution everytime an uneasy social condition pops up? That’s a lot of dead people.
Rebellion requires 2 things: A means, and a will. In none of those cases were the people, in general, willing to rebel - however, that does not justify removing the ability to rebel, should things become so bad that it was a viable plan of action.
I also like how you refer to it as an “excuse”. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said “Well, I really want to include this silly right to bear arms thing, but we all know that guns only kill cute children. But… hey! I’ll use protection from government tyranny as an excuse! Woo! Guns for everyone!!!”
I’ve always read the ninth being interpreted as “The rights of the people aren’t limited specifically to this list”. Of course, I’m not a Constitutional scholar.
Are you saying, then, that the only natural rights we have are those specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights?
Okay, so how do you get from (your words) “The rights of the people aren’t limited specifically to this list” to showing that any alleged right not on the list is in fact guaranteed? I am not saying that “he only natural rights we have are those specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights,” but I am saying that you don’t find any of those rights in the Ninth Amendment.
As I stated before, it seems the only practical way to determine what the founding fathers recognize as our natural rights would be to simply read what they’ve said and wrote.
Clearly, they support widespread ownership of firearms. I’ve never even seen a writing from any of them that didn’t advocate that.
The ninth doesn’t specifically enumerate any rights - but it clearly protects other natural rights we have. What exactly they are… that’s up to debate. But if you want to hunt down some gun-control ideas from the founding fathers, have fun, and I’m perfectly willing to discuss.