What Good is the Second Amendment Without the Other Nine? »
Posted By jovial 1 year, 4 months ago in News
Wrapping up their 2008 session with a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court ended 200 years of silence on a fundamental constitutional issue by striking down the Washington DC handgun ban.
Read Full Story at opednews.com »
2178 Views Share Story 29 Comments Report
Submitted By:
jovial
Grew up In Brooklyn. Joined the Navy in 1976 stayed in 10 years. Aircraft Electronics tech. Worked for Major Govt. contractor then settled in California ...
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 90 of 92 Comments (view all)
-
-
67%
nightcrawlerX1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll tell you what good the Second Amendment is without the other nine is, it is totally wicked! You get a slick awesome gun and can shoot it and stuff. Awesome! Guns! YEAH! WHOOOO! Lets put more weapons in a city that had suffered one of the highest murder rates in America. GUNS!
Reply-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
-
Luis-CiferComment removed: Abusive1 Reply
-
-
92%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All the Amendments are important and should be protected, including the Fourth.
"If the founders meant to confer an individual right to bear arms, why did they begin by highlighting how important a citizen militia is to a free state, and conversely what a danger large standing armies (like we have today) pose to liberty?"
I stringently disagreed with this logic though it had little to do with the Op-Ed as a whole. Actually, I find the whole logic in this sentence to be self defeating. The author was venting here, I think.
Overall, I agree. Those who support the Second Amendment should also wonder why the government gets to outlaw drugs if they can't outlaw guns... neither ban works and it seems awfully presumptuous of the government to state what I can or cannot put into my body or possess. Or other activities the government engages in.
Reply-
88%
willottica1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"If the founders meant to confer an individual right to bear arms, why did they begin by highlighting how important a citizen militia is to a free state, and conversely what a danger large standing armies (like we have today) pose to liberty?"
I think the author intended this as a rhetorical... but it's not, there's a simple answer.
Reply
They conveyed the importance of a citizen's militia precisely because they knew this particular right would need defending. They knew that some lawmakers over the years would take issue with people having and carrying weapons. And wanted to ensure that there was sufficient reason laid down that the Amendment would not be stricken at a later date. -
67%
mesodude1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You know how I feel on this, Mdiar. I don't think people as violent as Americans need to be giving themselves greater access to weapons. More access= more Columbines, more toddler deaths, more domestic work and traffic disputes that might have ended with perhaps slaps, punches or broken bones (at worst) ending in massive internal injuries, paralysis, and death. I really don't want more right wingers with guns. OMG. ;-( Just look at our warring ways...Just LOOK at us!
Reply
;-(
-
-
100%
jsimeon11 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
DID YOU BUCKLE UP TODAY ?? How many new laws and bans are we to expect because of the ignorant or or sophomoric? Maybe the fathers of this country were dummies trying to impress England and each other? Are you impressed with our nation? Or are you still finger pointing and belly-aching waiting for the non-existent "System" or the fictitious Government to resolve all your problems? How many times do you need to hear that where citizens have guns, crime is lower ? Maybe the news of All the unarmed, innocent, law-abiders that have been murdered haven't reached you yet! Where are the "Jedi" when you need them? Ridiculous!
Reply -
88%
Charlson1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Admendments to our Constitution were made too insure Americans certain rights beyond that described in the Bill of Rights. Congress, allowing warrentless wiretapping, is just as guilty of shredding our Constitution as the President.
Reply-
82%
jeffery11 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Technically, the Ninth Amendment was added to ensure unenumerated rights were still acknowledged rights. It must be noted that the right, including Scalia, Thomas, et al, who consider themselves "originalists" do not agree with the Founding Fathers' concept that the government does not grant rights. Contrary to popular ignorance these right-wingers believe that the only rights that exist are those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. They, like Bork, perceive the Ninth Amendment as an "ink blot" that is to be ignored because it does not specifiy rights.
The greatest threat to this nation is from the right because rather than seeing the constitution as constraining government power they see it as something that supports a unitary president, the most powerful of three unequal branches of power, supporting the tyranny of the majority through majoritarian democracy, and constraining rights through the Bill of Rights. The right-wing is not "originalist" but relativist that interprets the constitution in a way to confirm their world-view.
Reply -
Neutral
Wolfie20071 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Bill of Rights were the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution. Amendments made since have not all been to insure rights, like for instance, the 16th Amendment, so tell us how collecting taxes on income protects anyones rights?
Btw, this amendment is in direct violation of the Constitution. In section 8 of the Constitution it states, "No capitation or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
What this means is that all taxes were to be equally accessed, not by income.
Reply
You see our founding fathers knew how easy it could become for politicians and others vote money out of other people's pockets.
-
-
60%
willottica1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The article seems mostly focused on the fourth, but Mr. Fried fails to explain his conclusion that wiretapping falls under Fourth Ammendment protection.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
In a wire-tap. No "persons, houses, papers, nor effects" are being searched nor seized. The ammendment does not cover communications. Obviously, this was a non-issue at the time it was ratified... but that's the whole point of ammendments, you can add more when a need arises.
The Eleventh Ammendment: "The Fourth Ammendment shall also protect against wiretaps and listening devices" has never been introduced.As much as you may WANT phone-calls to be protected by the Fourth, it doesn't specifically (or even implicitly, IMHO) protect them.
The message here: don't assume you have privacy in information you broadcast through public means. What the Fourth SHOULD do, is guarantee your freedom from harassment if they overhear something embarrassing (but non-criminal).
Reply-
88%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It would have to be the 28th Amendment. However the 9th and 10th Amendments are actually the ones violated the most. Not to mention the whole Congress shall not fund a standing army thing...
Here is the 9th:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Here is the 10th:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Technically speaking a state could wiretap but the federal government cannot as the state can take any power unto itself that it wishes to that the Constitution does not specifically prohibit them from doing. However, without amending the Constitution the federal government is specifically limited from doing anything beyond what the Constitution states. The 9th and 10th Amendments are still on the books and should still apply. However, they do not, by and large. Its sort of like this section of the Constitution:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"
They've been pretty much ignored.
Reply -
90%
sinophil491 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
willotica - In colonial days, there was no mass electronic communication. They communicated through letters, messages, documents. Transmission was via courier, messengers, wagon, or coach.
Reply
The 4th Amendment clearly states "papers" are given constitutional protection.
What are those "papers" ? The Bible? Books? Recipes? Lists of things to buy at the general store?
Of course not. Papers in those days meant letters, diaries, the thoughts you wrote down to yourself and what you wanted to send to others that you couldn't talk to face to face. This was their communication.
So, yes. Personal communication was protected.
If you wanted to be a literal, strict constitutionalist and say only paper communication was protected, then you would have to say that only breech loading muskets and cannon are protected constitutionally. The founding fathers had no conception of automatic weapons, machine guns, etc.
If all modern methods of communication are not protected constitutionally, then ALL MODERN WEAPONS are not rpotected either.
You can not have it both ways.
-
-
100%
cowboygrandpa1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The founding fathers knew well the reasons for citizens to be armed. Not only for self protection and hunting, but for protection against the Tyranny of the Government as well.
They had seen the powerful British rulers impose their wills and beliefs upon their subects without a thought of the rightness of it.
We are very fortunate to live in this country. But our freedoms need constant vigilance against those who would steal them from us. The ones I fear most are our own messed up leaders.
We need the right to bear arms as well as the right from illegal search and seizure.
When we lose either we lose a part of freedom we will never get back.
Reply -
80%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jeffery-
The right wing does not put forth the idea of the Constitution granting you rights and only those rights. The right wing puts forth the idea of free market economics and the left wing puts forth collectivist economics. However, the current batch of right wingers in the US (with a few exceptions) are also of a harsher totalitarian bent then in the past and totalitarianism is the idea you put forth which is something separate from the economic ideas of right/left. Its totalitarian/libertarian, I suppose.
Reply-
71%
jeffery11 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ther right-wing certainly does put forth the idea that rights exist only if they are enumerated int he Bill of Rights. You should read how Scalia, Bork, Thomas, and other right-wingers interpret the constitution and rights. The government's role in the economy is simply a component of the debate. The right's free-market ideology follows directly from Calvinism, which holds that those that have deserve it and those that do not have deserve it because a person is awarded in accordance with his righteousness. And, because god rewards, no man can act contrary to god's will.
Because the constitution was seen as granting explicit powers to government, it was seen as dangerous to enumerate any rights because the government was not granted any power to grant rights. The government and therefore the majority that controlled it could then make the claim that Scalia makes today. The Bill of Rights was not originally part of the constitution. It was added to ensure that the concept of rights was part of the constitution and the Ninth Amendment added to ensure that unenumerated rights existed.
Reply
-
-
71%
Spinward1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To be honest, I have to admit mixed emotions on this issue.
Terrorists are clearly using our own constitution against us and this is having the added benefit of dividing us over an issue that we would normally be united on.
First, warrentless searches don't thrill anyone... liberal or conservative.
Second, watching a major city vaporize when it could have been prevented is also not a thrill to anyone... liberal or conservative.Liberals scream, "They're violating my right by trying to find terrorists before they strike!"
Conservatives scream, "Dead men enjoy no rights anyway and our first job is to protect your life!"The question is, what do we want to do about it?
Is there a compromise? I don't care if they listen in on SUSPECTS, provided they can later, if necessary, document "cause". If it's for other reasons (political), then impeachments would be in order.
Reply-
60%
Spinward1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I, for example, travel back and forth every couple of months to a "terrorist" country and am a party to huge transfers of cash to and from that country. If the government suspects my activities and wants to pry, I'm not too worried as I see it as their job.
Reply
Once their suspicions are dismissed, I would expect to go on enjoying my "privacy", even if it's not quite as "private" as it was before.
I believe that most of the liberal screamers are not doing anything nearly as suspicious as I am and would never be suspected of anything anyway and are simply trying to make political waves.
Liberals, ask yourself how you would feel if Obama was listening in in an effort to love and protect you. There, feel better?
-
-
-
-
75%
willottica1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
After mdiar pointed it out, I think this article misses the point. "What good is the 2nd Amendment without the other 9?" He then only discusses the ambiguous 4th, and ignores flagrant abuses of the 9th and, most especially, the 10th.
Reply -
-
acloveComment removed: Spammer
-
-
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.