9th Amendment right to self defense

[mr.72]

I found this article extremely compelling.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/51nj9th.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I debated whether to put this in Political Issues, but I figure since it is talking about the 9th Amendment, it is off topic.

Here's a quote from page 25:

"A practical rationale supporting disarmament is that some citizens cannot be trusted to act wisely or prudently in their use of firearms. This justification, though, raises the related question: can such a population be entrusted to make informed democratic decisions? Once we reach the stage where we advocate individual disarmament, we may have departed substantially from the framers' design--so substantially that, perhaps, we will no longer seriously be able to contend that government is either controlled by and serves citizens in a way that is responsive and accountable, or that citizens possess the capacity to meet their responsibility as masters of their agents in government."

Whammo.

Translation: If we don't trust the public to own or use firearms, then we shouldn't trust them to vote either. And if we can't trust them to vote, then the government is not representative of or controlled by the people. In this case, we have abandoned the framers' vision for our country at the most basic level.

[dewayneward]

I think the fact that the majority of people voted for Obama would prove that the population shouldnt be trusted (allowed) to vote. I think we have fallen a long way from the framers. Our population has gotten, well, stupid is the only word I can use. They no longer use rational thought to determine, but what feels good or a good sound bite on TV.

Without going off too much here, but I (and apparently a lot of other people) got clued in to just how dumb the population is with this most recent election and the reasons why he was voted in. I, for one, never thought that I would own a gun. Not because I thought that there was anything wrong with them, but I was lulled into this false sense of security that people are good, etc. This election, for me, as smashed the rose colored glasses that I have been wearing. I have now come to realize that the population has dumbed down to the point where they:

1) believed the lies of Mr Obama with respect to guns and abortion
2) that people will imprison someone who defends themself in their own home (Mr Obama's home state of IL has this
3) that the general population is so clueless that they would be taken in by his lies

This realization, for me, made me go down and purchase a gun, get my CHL, purchase door bars (highly recommended), clasps for my windows, and ensure that 24/7 I am carrying with an extra clip (just in case).

And the final one is when you have a population CONVINCED that the constitution is a living document, that they should elect a president that thinks it should be lawful to murder babies up through delivery in certain instances, that gun control and signs will keep us safe, that negotiating with terrorists and freeing all the people at Gitmo (hmmm, freed one guy and he has already killed 12 people...way to go "O"), etc. makes sense, I know that the country is in trouble and the sane people need to arm themselves.....

[mr.72]

Did you read that 9th Amendment doc?

IMHO, this is a way more compelling case to be made for individual firearms ownership, carrying, and use for self defense under the 9th Amendment than the 2nd Amendment. This whole argument on the 2A easily gets mired in the "militia" language but no such quandary exists for the 9th. Self-defense is a basic, unenumerated right, and the means to accomplish that self defense is included in such a right.

[Purplehood]

that negotiating with terrorists and freeing all the people at Gitmo (hmmm, freed one guy and he has already killed 12 people...way to go "O"), etc. makes sense, I know that the country is in trouble and the sane people need to arm themselves.....

I was kinda following along with the rest of your post and saying "Amen" and all that, but the statement about either Oprah or Obama freeing a guy threw me off. Has he been in long enough to free someone and that someone go and kill folks? You sure it wasn't the prior administration?

I ask because I am not sure what you are referring to.

[dewayneward]

I was talking about "O" as in Obama. Oprah is a whole other issue

Yesterday, splashed on the front page of Foxnews, they referenced a terrorist that was just freed and he went out and murdered 12 people. I should dig up the link....did some digging and found it: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483764,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And in actually reading the article (and becoming increasingly disatisfied with how foxnews is sensationalizing its headlines to almost be misleading), I discover that the person that did this WAS released in 2005 (obviously under Bush's watch) and then promptly blew up 12 people in april '08. the way the headline read and with what "O" just did and the freed people saying that they hate the US, I assumed that this "just" hapened, my bad

I am starting to get to the end of my rope with Foxnews and its assention into glitzing up its headlines. I cannot watch CNN (oberman anyone) or MSNBC and the like, so I have been a Fox news person, but I am seeing them do some weird stuff. Maybe I'll start checking out reuters more.

[cling]

I found this article extremely compelling.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/51nj9th.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I debated whether to put this in Political Issues, but I figure since it is talking about the 9th Amendment, it is off topic.

Here's a quote from page 25:

"A practical rationale supporting disarmament is that some citizens cannot be trusted to act wisely or prudently in their use of firearms. This justification, though, raises the related question: can such a population be entrusted to make informed democratic decisions? Once we reach the stage where we advocate individual disarmament, we may have departed substantially from the framers' design--so substantially that, perhaps, we will no longer seriously be able to contend that government is either controlled by and serves citizens in a way that is responsive and accountable, or that citizens possess the capacity to meet their responsibility as masters of their agents in government."

Whammo.

Translation: If we don't trust the public to own or use firearms, then we shouldn't trust them to vote either. And if we can't trust them to vote, then the government is not representative of or controlled by the people. In this case, we have abandoned the framers' vision for our country at the most basic level.

That's true. If someone can't be trusted with a firearm they definitely can't be trusted with voting. We should do a full background check before giving someone a license to vote and I guess it's allowed to deny the vote to people who don't pay their taxes or student loans in Texas.