Blalron,
very crafty because myself, being a textualist, probably would have construed the amendment as I do the Ninth Amendment but I think you do go a long way in distinguishing the two with the phrase, “which may not be infringed” thereby providing more substance to it than the Ninth Amendment.
Concerning the bolded part, how would my having and arsenal increase the threat to others? I am not a criminal nor do I have any desire to harm anyone. This sounds like it’s you that would feel threatened if I had that “arsenal”.
If you start by allowing percieved threats to be used I can also see where the right of unprotected gay sex and IV drug use can be precieved as a threat. Both have a much higher HIV rate than other acts. Unless you don’t see increased HIV as a treat. Also, cigatette smoking and alcohol use can come into play as well. Both are health threats. Both to the individual that uses them and to the community at large as well.
Does unprotected gay sex have a higher risk of infection than similar unprotected heterosexual sex?
Blalron,
A carefully worded post. Including the word “similar” is a bit of a trap! 
Indeed, carefully worded.
I believe that both heterosexual and homosexual anal sex would carry the same risk of infection.
“Privacy in making personal decisions” is just too vague to be meaningful – much vaguer than “cruel and unusual punishment.” ANY law that infringes personal freedom of action in any way is an infringement of privacy in making personal decisions, like the private, personal decision to rob a bank. If we want an amendment guaranteeing the right to make the abortion decision, we will have to use the word “abortion” in it, or some euphemism for it (just as the original text of the Constitution used oblique euphemisms for the slaves – “all other Persons,” or “such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit.”) If we want to guarantee the rights of homosexuals to do their thing, we will have to use the word “homosexual” or a functional equivalent. You’re really talking about several different amendments.
I’m not so sure that’s a correct statement. The stats I’ve seen never specifically said whether anal sex was being used at all in the heterosexual numbers given. But It did say that it was more prevalent in the gay male community then in any other group. So I stand by my statement, which I noticed you didn’t address. 
Well, if it’s a circular argument, then take it up with SCOTUS because they made it such.
You assume the amendment is meant to guarantee a few specific rights.
My interpretation was that it protects the right of consenting adults to perform any activity behind closed doors, as long as it doesn’t harm any third party: the whole of Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do condensed into one sentence.
That was the proposed constitutional amendment in that book you linked to.
Somehow I think the Amendment is too overbroad. Do you actually have to physically harm a person to do damage? Something is not quite right about the amendment as proposed, although I can’t put my finger on it. I support the general idea though.
Actually, I don’t think that the proposed amendment is broad enough. I would propose something of this sort: “Governments are instituted to protect rights, and as such no government body in the US shall take any action against any person except as is reasonably necessary to ensure another’s rights”.
If you can show how is it reasonably necessary to prohibit sodomy or drug use or polygamy or bestiality to protect another’s rights, then I wouldn’t have a problem with them being prohibted. Otherwise, why do you care, and why do you think you have the right to impose your views on others? I don’t see why watsonwill thinks that providing ulimited freedom is a bad thing.
I think it should be pretty clear that prohibting such things as bank robbery is reasonably necessary to protect rights, and therefore could continue. An argument could be made that certain relationships create coercion that makes a person unable to give meaningful consent, and that it is reasonalby necessary to prohibit people from taking advantage of such situations. But the burden would be on the government show both that there is imminent harm, and that the steps taken to prevent it are reasonable, rather than having the burden on the challenger to show the government can’t do it.