Rights Are Not Granted (see the Ninth Amendment)

[JJY]

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Second Amendment. Nothing in the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, grants any right to individuals. The Constitution, with respect to individual rights and freedoms, merely affirms natural or inborn rights that exist without regard to the Constitution or any other document.

Assume that the Second Amendment means what the anti-gun folks say it means. Assume that “people” means “states” and really all the Second Amendment provides for is that states can arm their respective militias. Assume that “militia” means the “national guard.” Assume that “well regulated” means “strict government control.” Assume this and any other tortured reading they put forward. Even if this is all true … so what? All that would mean is that the Second Amendment does not address private ownership of arms by individuals.

The Ninth Amendment states: “The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Simply put, the Ninth Amendment means that the people have rights that are not specifically stated in the Constitution.

There is no doubt that prior to the writing of the Constitution or the Second Amendment, that people, meaning individuals, had the right to own and carry, and did own and carry, arms. Also, there is no requirement that a right must have been specifically included in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights in order to be protected – just read the Ninth Amendment. As a result, even without the Second Amendment, the right to own and carry guns would exist.

 

[up_onus]

personally, i believe

this to be an attrition battle. Look who votes anti-gun generally, cities. Most pro-gun types live in suburbia or further out. As "further out" begins to become city, more and more people will have less chance to fire a gun, and therefor out of ignorance become afraid of them.
This brings us to, more people in cities than suburbia and further. Who wins the vote. The BEST thing that can happen is to educate the uneducated and bring them to "our" side. (luke i am your father!)
all tyranical governments created a lack of gun ownership. PROOF is in the puddin as they say.

so, do your part and get someout shootin today!

 

[geekWithA.45]

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Second Amendment.

Quite correct. Even the Supreme Court agrees that RKBA is not granted by the Constitution, or in any way dependent on it. They then go on to say that it pre-exists the constitution, which _protects_ RKBA.

Of course, the Forces of Organized Gun Bigotry never quote that part. They only get as far as "Is not granted by the Constitution".


Welcome to THR.

 

[hugh damright]

Simply put, the Ninth Amendment means that the people have rights that are not specifically stated in the Constitution.

I believe the Ninth means that we have unenumerated rights against the federal government, not that we have federal protection of unenumerated rights. The intent was to limit the US, not to empower them.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Rightsare not granted by the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Right guarantees those rights against infringement.

well, sorta

If you can organize a 527, you have the right to free speech
in an election cycle. If you can afford Blackwater, you (well,
they) have the right to bear arms.

 

[ProguninTN]

JJY

You make an interesting point, but people as been defined as citizens by SCOTUS. See the 4th Amendment Case of United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez.

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

JJY do yourself a favor and read the federalist papers. This will help you understand the finer points and the intent of the constittution.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

 

[JJY]

What, in your opinion, have I misunderstood about the Constitution? My only point is that the right of individuals to own arms is not dependant on the Second Amendment. The right would exist without it. Therefore, any strained interpretation of the Second Amendment by anyone, can not destroy the right.

I have read many of the Federalist Papers. Don’t over rely on them – just like any act passed by any legislative body, you can look at the statements and writings of any individual for understanding, but you can almost always find contemporaneous conflicting statements by others …. what really counts is what was agreed upon and enacted by the group.

 

[HEAVY METAL 1]

Our rights are not granted by the constitution.The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions against the government. Many pro constitution people seem to not understand this. They say, "The Constitution allows us to bear arms, freedom of religion,..." That is incorrect. It stands to protect us against government intrusion of the rights we already have. The B of R says the gov't can't tell us what religion we must practice, that the gov't can't stop us from peacably assembling, that the gov't is not allowed to have its agents search us, our homes,etc. w/o just cause and so on. In other "democratic" countries that do not have the protections we have, the people are allowedto do this or that if it is written down. Here we are allowed to do whatever we want unless there are specific restrictions against it. There is a fundamental difference between the two concepts!

 

[JJY]

That is not my Quote. I think you misunderstood my point.

I wrote: “Nothing in the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, grants any right to individuals. The Constitution, with respect to individual rights and freedoms, merely affirms natural or inborn rights that exist without regard to the Constitution or any other document.”

Without a doubt, the Bill of Rights was meant as limitations of the Federal Government, not an affirmative grant of rights. The various rights confirmed by the Constitution are merely a list of the rights the drafters had on their mind and could get written down and passed. Many drafters did not want to include a list of rights because they feared the government may one day interpret the list to be all inclusive and assume that any right not on the list was not protected. That is not the case.

Relatively rcently that the US Supreme Court started interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to mean that certain parts of the Bill of Rights are applicable to states. But still, the Bill of Rights is meant to protect pre-existing rights, not grant rights.

The Second amendment does not say – “the people are granted the right to keep and bear arms.” It refers to the right as clearly pre-existing … “the right of the people”.

 

[Thin Black Line]

You have a right to about anything you want in this world until someone
with more force tells you that you don't.

Reality is it doesn't matter if you're entitlement is morally superior and you
can make a better argument to support you position.

 

[JJY]

Agree … regrettably

 

[Thin Black Line]

LOL, and if I say that "(Our deity) is with us" while wielding that superior
force, it makes it all the more righteous.

 

[Thin Black Line]

That last one looked really good with my signature line after I posted it.

Just goes to show how true it is when it comes to rights and the use of
force.

 

[hugh damright]

Many drafters did not want to include a list of rights because they feared the government may one day interpret the list to be all inclusive and assume that any right not on the list was not protected.

I think that reasoning would apply to a State BOR as well, but I don't believe any State BOR has an article such as the Ninth Amendment. I don't think the concern was that they couldn't enumerate all rights so they included a "wild card" to protect all rights .... but rather I think the concern was that a USBOR was inappropriate because it made it appear that the US had broad/general powers which needed to be limited by a BOR. And so it was declared that the first eight amendments shall not be construed so as to deny or disparage other rights against the federal government i.e. they shall not be construed so as to empower the federal government but rather to restrain them.

Many people try to construe the USBOR to give us federal protection of our rights against the States, and they construe the Ninth so that we have federal protection of all rights, which I find to be preposterous because it seems so completely antithetical to the limited federal government which the US Constitution frames.

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

To JJY and the rest of this thread I have been illuminated! Thank you.
I have been humbled by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of rights. I will continue studying them.