Posted on 01/11/2003 10:15:11 AM PST by tpaine
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.
And a good job he did, which you have been unable refute. Specific enumeration of our rights is not needed. -- Read the 9th or the 14th for proof.
Drugs were not given such an amendment. And, if the 9th and 14th amendments say so much about protecting the freedoms you so copiously listed, why list guns separately?
Answered previously, - and again, you were unable to refute.
Comparing the freedom to do drugs with the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, elevates drug use to a level it does not deserve.
89 -robertpaulsen-
And it discredits the right to keep and bear arms. Not that they care. 92 -roscoe-
Typically inane comment roscoe. --- Why does comparing violated rights 'discredit' either one of them?
"bring over" = incorporate
The Constitution and Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Although the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment may limit action by state and local governments, they have rejected the notion that the 14th Amendment incorporates the entire Bill of Rights.
Today, only three provisions of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd, 5th and 7th Amendments, remain unincorporated.
"listen to yourself supporting the 'right' of states to ban anything"
The right of California to ban guns says nothing about my position on the issue.
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"Since appellants do not cite, and our research has not revealed, any Supreme Court case holding that any specific right is protected by the ninth amendment, appellants' argument has no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.
-?- Can you explain the meaning of this line of gibberish?"
"bring over" = incorporate The Constitution and Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868.
So the south claimed, refuted by the supermacy clause of Art VI. The 14th was passed, in part, to resolve that issue.
Although the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment may limit action by state and local governments, they have rejected the notion that the 14th Amendment incorporates the entire Bill of Rights. Today, only three provisions of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd, 5th and 7th Amendments, remain unincorporated.
'Incorporation', in my opinion, is just a shysters dodge, used to gain more power to the 'justice' system.
--------------------------
"listen to yourself supporting the 'right' of states to ban anything"
The right of California to ban guns says nothing about my position on the issue.
It says it all. You do not support our inalienable RKBA's, if you believe states have the 'right' to ban them. The NRA should revoke your membership, imo.
Absolutely. Limitations. Not eradication. We tried eradication, remember?
Again, if I state a fact it doesn't mean that I support that fact. It's just a fact.
False. Local prohibitions predate our Constitution.
A shyster's dodge? That's your argument?, Why oh why do I waste my time?
Indeed, why do you waste your time calling my clearly labled opinion an argument? Are you daft, or duplicit?
Again, if I state a fact it doesn't mean that I support that fact. It's just a fact.
And I didn't argue about your fact, I gave my opinion of those facts.
Get a logical grip.
False, sourceless, meritless, mindless.
The court is not saying that the 9th amendments does not protect unenumerated rights held by the people, it's saying that it checked the SC rulings and couldn't find one that enumerated the rights to be protected under the 9th. It probably found several where the SC said the 9th protects rights not otherwise named in the Constitution.
To read it any other way is nonsense. If the 9th amendment doesn't protect unenumerated rights fo the people, why is it there and why is the wording as it is?
Certerori was denied to the SC because the point that the 9th protects what the 2nd protects was argued. Cert was not denied because the SC refused to rule on the fact the 9th protects unenerated rights.
The wording of the 9th is clear, unambiguous and to the point. No cigar. Try again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.