In this post, you say having to enumerate is silly. I agree. I really wasn't addressing the article at all, just your statement.
So, then, now you're saying that because the firearm weapon is considered so important it has an amendment to itself, other rights not specifically mentioned can be abrogated by the state?
The 2nd says everything about guns being legal. I repeat, no connection.
I can read the ninth. But how do the courts read the ninth?
695 F.2d 261 (google it)
The Seventh Circuit found no Supreme Court precedent to support the theory that the Ninth Amendment protects any specific right. In fact, the Ninth Amendment has not been used to define the rights of individuals or to invalidate state or federal laws.
"Since appellants do not cite, and our research has not revealed, any Supreme Court case holding that any specific right is protected by the ninth amendment, appellants' argument has no legal significance. Appellants may believe the ninth amendment should be read to recognize an unwritten, fundamental, individual right to own or possess firearms; the fact remains that the Supreme Court has never embraced this theory."
Please stop it with the 9th Amendment references. And William, I guess we'll need your list after all.