# The right to bear arms **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 17, 2017, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056 "2017-02-17T15:12:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/181 "2017-03-09T19:44:27Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Those of us who have been drafted know that citizens are ultimately the property of the government. > > Rights are only and always a function of government. > > Crane You say that like it’s a good thing. You approve of being owned? And, through your representatives in government, owning others? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/182 "2017-03-09T19:46:40Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > The Founders were required to give homage to the religious beliefs of the time. Even the emerging discipline of science was required to accommodate the flood myth for another half century. So, we should not distort our view of the Constitution to conform with a few rhetorical flourishes. When the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. That sounds like a bit more than a rhetorical flourish, at least to me. > [@](#): > > Our rights were created by, and are only protected by, the Constitution of the United States. The Ninth Amendment mentions rights that are not created by or protected by the Constitution. So the Constitution says explicitly that there can be rights not created by the Constitution. > [@](#): > > If the history of jurisprudence has added a mystical aura to ‘rights’ causing them to be natural or somehow divine, we have a problem. History didn’t add anything - the idea of natural rights is right there at the founding of the Republic. It’s right there in black and white, and all the signers of the DoI attested to their consent. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/183 "2017-03-09T19:51:06Z")
DrCube, I simply state it as a fact (that can be independently confirmed). Crane ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/184 "2017-03-09T19:55:32Z")
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Regards, Inigo Montoya ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/185 "2017-03-09T19:56:44Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > In our modern culture the term ‘fact’ refers to information that can be independently confirmed. Independent observers can confirm that our legal process was established, and is governed by, the Constitution. They can also observe that rights have been created and abolished by our Constitutional processes. That makes those actions fit the definition of fact and eliminates the concept of immutable ‘rights’. No. You’ve created a definition of the word “fact” that is nonsense. A fact isn’t dependent upon independent confirmation. A fact is simply something that is true. This isn’t Schrodinger’s constitution after all. You also make the mistake of equivocating between all of the rights contemplated by the constitution and our laws. Some rights are natural rights, and some other rights are legal rights. Concluding that certain legal rights are created by statute does not eliminate the concept of natural rights that are pre-existing. > [@Crane](#): > > Our rights were created by, and are only protected by, the Constitution of the United States. You say this again, and again it is false. This is not true and it never has been true. You are wrong. For example, here is the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It doesn’t say, _The people **are granted** the right to peaceably assemble_. It simply says that Congress shall make no law respecting the right… The right that already existed. SCOTUS has said regarding the 2nd amendment: _The right to bear arms_\* is not granted\*\* by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. \* This directly contradicts your false statement. Until you recognize this fact, all other analysis you conduct will be tainted by this misunderstanding of constitutional jurisprudence. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/186 "2017-03-09T20:23:35Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > DrCube, > > I simply state it as a fact (that can be independently confirmed). > > Crane Yes, I agree that our government has failed to do its job of protecting rights many times for many people throughout its history. That doesn’t change the fact that our nation’s founders wrote a constitution that was firmly based in the concept of natural, god-given rights. Nor does it mean that such human rights aren’t worth fighting for. This is Great Debates, you can stake out a moral position here even if history shows it hasn’t always been followed. ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/187 "2017-03-09T20:50:17Z")
Originally Posted by sear According to the 9th Amendment, if it was legal, a right on Dec. 15, 1791 it should be legal & a right today, unless otherwise specified. > [@Shodan](#): > > Actually the Ninth Amendment says pretty much the opposite of this. > > Regards, > Shodan I will quote our 9th Amendment in its entirety. > [@](#): > > B. O. R. ARTICLE #9: Ratified December 15, 1791 > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Yet S claims: > [@Shodan](#): > > Actually the Ninth Amendment says pretty much the opposite of this. > > Regards, > Shodan ? The meaning of the 9th Amendment is unambiguously clear, and is precisely as I initially stated it. Your reason for posting your unsupported contradiction remains a mystery to me. But perhaps the more important question is why (to my knowledge) the 9th Amendment has seldom if ever been used as a Constitutional law basis for a law suit. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/188 "2017-03-09T21:09:04Z")
DrCube, Then rights are God given and cannot be abridged, amended or denied by men even when serving in the military. Crane ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/189 "2017-03-09T21:11:08Z")
Bone, OK, then by what process do you determine that something is true? Crane ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/190 "2017-03-09T21:24:10Z")
> [@sear](#): > > Originally Posted by sear > According to the 9th Amendment, if it was legal, a right on Dec. 15, 1791 it should be legal & a right today, unless otherwise specified. > > I will quote our 9th Amendment in its entirety. > > Yet S claims: > > ? > The meaning of the 9th Amendment is unambiguously clear, and is precisely as I initially stated it. > Your reason for posting your unsupported contradiction remains a mystery to me. Because the Ninth says that rights are not brought into existence by being enumerated in the Constitution. They belong to the people whether they are enumerated or not. The Ninth is not a source of rights. It is a rule on how rights are to be understood in the United States. That’s why it is not used in lawsuits - it talks about rights that aren’t enumerated. Only enumerated rights are under the protection of the federal government. The power to define other rights is assigned to the states, or the people, in the Tenth Amendment. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/191 "2017-03-09T21:28:26Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Bone, > > OK, then by what process do you determine that something is true? > > Crane I’m not **Bone** , but the process by which it is determined whether or not a right exists belongs to the states, or the people, if the right exists without being enumerated in the Constitution, or to the Supreme Court if it is. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/192 "2017-03-09T21:38:32Z")
The question is: how do you determine something is true. Crane ---
**Author:** ![ckalli1998](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a3d4f5/32.png) [@ckalli1998](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ckalli1998)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/193 "2017-03-09T21:39:46Z")
A person’s right to bear arms is as fundamental as the person’s right to vote and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. I believe the American people agree, and the results of the 2016 election showed that the rowdy, ultraliberal members of Congress and their backers among the anti-gun lobby, progressive constitutionalists, and hard-left, militant base activists had overreached. ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/194 "2017-03-09T21:45:52Z")
Quote: Originally Posted by sear “According to the 9th Amendment, if it was legal, a right on Dec. 15, 1791 it should be legal & a right today, unless otherwise specified.” s > [@](#): > > “The Ninth is not a source of rights. It is a rule on how rights are to be understood in the United States.” Nor is any other legal right in the U.S., enumerated or not. > [@](#): > > “That’s why it is not used in lawsuits - it talks about rights that aren’t enumerated.” Not exactly. Instead, it merely makes the point that the rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are NOT to be construed as a comprehensive list. > [@](#): > > “Only enumerated rights are under the protection of the federal government.” If you were right, Article #9 would be the one Article in our Bill of Rights that is not enforceable law. My legal consultants informed me the Constitution’s Preamble is not enforceable law. They did not mention the 9th Amendment in that exclusion. It would be quite peculiar to include ONE article in the entire amended Constitution that is not enforceable law, if all the rest of it is enforceable. It would be illogical to add one article to our “supreme law of the land” (Art.6 Sect.2) that is not enforceable, if all the rest is. The 10th is fine. But it does not negate the 9th. The Founders would not have included it in our list of laws, if it had no bearing in law. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/195 "2017-03-09T21:47:06Z")
I am going to take a completely different tack on the 2nd Amendment. I believe that it is more of a state right than in individual right. (Theoretically) States are in their own way sovereign entities and as such can enforce laws on [treason](http://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-18-criminal-code/co-rev-st-sect-18-11-101.html) or [insurrection](http://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-18-criminal-code/co-rev-st-sect-18-11-102.html). The second amendment allows the state to have a militia and arm them, thus it would be unconstitutional for the Federal government to disarm the militia. It sounds archaic now but it makes a lot of sense (IMO) given that the second amendment can be interpreted as the State protecting itself from the tyranny of DC threatening “the security of a free State”. The bottom line is that the second amendment allows any state to define what its militia is and protect their rights to bear arms as appropriate. So for example Kansas has a law that declares every man 18 or over as a member of the militia so the Feds should not be allowed to say “No that only applies to Natl Guard units.” and implement Federal regulations in Kansas. Yes I am a Federalist. ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/196 "2017-03-09T21:52:48Z")
Sc #195 > [@](#): > > in order to argue your point of view you have to say 3 things. > 1st of all that only the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights does not protect individual rights, it protects the rights of the government. > 2nd you have to say that george mason widely called the father of the bill of rights was wrong when he said by the militia we mean the whole people. > 3rd you have to say the founders were clumsy framers of the constitution because if they wanted to do what you say they did with the [2nd] amendment which is say, states can have militias, all they needed to say was, congress shall have no power to prohibit state militias period. They didn’t. They talked about the rights of the people. George will abc-tv this week 02/05/12 ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/197 "2017-03-09T21:55:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The Ninth is not a source of rights. It is a rule on how rights are to be understood in the United States. That’s why it is not used in lawsuits - it talks about rights that aren’t enumerated. I think using the right to privacy re: _Griswold_ and _Roe v Wade_ did create a right to birth control and abortions with the Ninth Amendment as a source. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/198 "2017-03-09T22:27:13Z")
Bone, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” Bone#185 OK - please demonstrate that your statement is fact or as you put it “true”. Crane ---
**Author:** ![standingwave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@standingwave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/standingwave)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/199 "2017-03-09T22:56:20Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Some rights may be violated, but the fact that they are violated does not mean the right was taken away. I’d suggest not relying on Carlin as your source of information on constitutional jurisprudence. Got it. The government reserves the right to violate these divine inalienable rights when it gets really scared. And the difference is…? FWIW, I wasn’t citing Carlin as a source. It’s just that I happen to share his cynicism. But I’m sure you knew that. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/200 "2017-03-09T23:00:17Z")
> [@standingwave](#): > > Got it. The government reserves the right to violate these divine inalienable rights when it gets really scared. And the difference is…? The fact that rights exist doesn’t mean they can’t be infringed. And vice versa. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056.md?page=11)