Liberal Logic: Second Amendment vs. Ninth Amendment

In the wake of the repeal of Roe v. Wade, I've noticed a lot of Democrat posters talk about the apparent penumbras and emanations inherent in the Constitution, citing such landmark cases as Marbury v. Madison and the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights that supposedly clearly indicates the undeniable right to abortion. I could not help draw a comparison about how these same posters will deny the right to own a firearm, even though it says it clearly--or at least more clearly--than any supposed right to abortion that was apparently not seen by the scores of justices of the Supreme Court from the late-eighteenth-century early republic to 1973.

Text of the Second Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Liberal logic: There is nothing in the Constitution that says Americans have the right to own a gun!

Text of the Ninth Amendment

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Liberal logic: Clearly, abortion is in the Constitution. It's right there in the Ninth Amendment. Can't you see!?

 

Yep, right there where it says JUST BECAUSE ITS NOT WRITTEN DOWN DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T EXIST.

 

The insight post that I expected.

 

Easy - all women have to do is form a "Well Regulated" militia to deal with any conservative who tries to force them to carry their rapist's baby to term.

 

Are you all intentionally missing the point? The point that I am making is that the Constitution clearly phrases that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." And yet you all argue that the right to own guns is not in the Constitution. Simultaneously, you will say that abortion is in the Constitution, even though there is no phrasing or implication within the scope of the Constitution. You all will cite the Ninth Amendment, which reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That amendment does not have the word "abortion" nor its variants in it, nor is there any implication of it, nor did the founders speak of it during the Constitution Convention, nor did a majority of justices for almost the bicentennial of this country think that it was ingrained in the Constitution, but yet you all vociferously contend that it is in the Constitution and then bitch and moan about it repeal.

In summary, like Biden's underwear at the Vatican, you all are full of crap.

 

Where did I argue that right to keep and bear arms wasn't in the Constitution? I support the right to own arms ... but there are plenty of "rights and
privileges" that aren't specifically spelled out in the Constitution that are recognized today - from health procedures to pollution to education ... I was
merely pointing out that it's the right of women to refuse to be vaginally inspected and they should use "2nd Amendment solutions" to deal
with any conservatives who try and force such upon them.

 

9th amendment? Try 14th, 4th and others.

Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship, Equal Protection, and Other Post-Civil War Provisions

• Section 1 Rights Guaranteed
  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

So here we see rights are extended to the born, not the unborn.

4th: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

This and many other parts of the constitution support a right to privacy. There is no more fundamental privacy than controlling what happens to your own body. And if the mindless fetus has no rights, the only relevant rights are those of the mother.

Good luck with your well-regulated militia.

 

From the SC:heller

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

Or they could spend $260 on a return bus trip to a blue state.

 

the point that you are missing is that denial of unenumerated rights, such and privacy and autonomy, is totalitarian beyond the capability of the founders to imagine.

 

Since 1973 the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was a constitutional right. That changed a few days ago. Don't rewrite history.
By the way I have never heard your about owning guns before. Liberals have claimed that there are limits to owning guns which appears tro be true because felons cannot own guns and you cannot own a machine gun.
Your logic appears to be if I say this is what liberals believe it is true.

 

Do you understand that both the 2nd and the 9th originated at the same time?

 

Prior to 1973, for over a century, that "right" did not exist; it was borne out of the so-called constitutional revolution, which started in the 1960s, of the Warren Court. There is no explicit nor implicit right to abortion in the Constitution; and, almost to the bicentennial of this country's founding, the Supreme Court never said it was a right. In fact, abortion was never a discussion of the Constitutional Convention or the Federalist Papers that followed thereafter. And when Madison crafted the Bill of Rights, unlike with firearms, there was no explicit or implicit right of abortion declared. And there was no mainstream movement of the Anti-Federalists to have it in there. That is why Roe v. Wade was struck down, because it was based on a false premise. But the point I am making on this topic is that there are Democrats on this forum who make whole threads about how the right to own firearms is not an actual right, but will write passionately about how abortion is ingrained in our national charter.

 

9th.

 

I have literally not seen anyone make that claim.
I have seen people state 2A is not unlimited, which is true given the number of weapons civilians aren’t allowed to own. We even had a ridiculous federal “assault weapons” ban at one point from 1994-2004. What a joke that was.

 

+
People believe what people believe. for almost 50 year the courts ruled that that right did exist. That is the fact I was pointing out. During that time many people, perhaps including you disagreeed with that. Now that has changed and many people disagree with that. You seem to be unwilling to let those people state their disagreement as those on the other side did before the latest decision. You seem to be angry that they are doing so.
If a conservative can argue that there is an absolute right to have arms, surely it is OK for a liberal to disagree that the right is not absolute and has limitations.
I see almost no people say that gun rights do not exist as you infer, but you oversimplify the issue by telling liberals what they believe and then arguing against that whether that is accurate or not

 

It's called cultural rot that started 50 years ago. Right now, de jure systemic racism in the form of affirmative action is still protected, and that, too, happened in the so-called "Constitutional Revolution" of the Warren Courts. Disagree though you may, the country did not start in the 1960s. Earl Warren was not a founding father. For almost 200 years, abortion was not established as a right by the Supreme Court.

The two sides don't have equal merit: there is explicit phrasing in the Constitution to the right to bear arms. There is nothing in the Constitution, explicit nor implicit, that guarantees the right to an abortion.

The Second Amendment reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The word "infringed" is the key word. How would having limitations on a right not be an infringement? To infringe is to encroach, which is "to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another." Now a mere limitation is not necessarily infringement, I agree; but you people don't stop at just basic limitations: you keep passing laws to gradually encroach upon the fundamental right to own a firearm. Take, for example, the New York gun control laws at the center of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which effectively criminalized concealed carry of a pistol, which is, last I checked, not an AR-15 or another so-called "assault rifle." Hell, even Biden wants to ban 9mm handguns. Again, 9mm, not a member of the so-called "assault rifles." Thus, Democrat limitations on the Second Amendment is clear infringement, which the Supreme Court recently established.

@Golem, do Americans have a right to own guns?

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I still think you should allow others to do the same.

 

The right to keep and bear arms is not an opinion. The right to not have that right infringed upon is not an opinion. The Supreme Court establishing that a gun control measure in New York was unconstitutional, violating the Second Amendment, is not an opinion. Joe Biden wanting to ban 9mm guns is not an opinion. These are facts. What is an opinion is the "right" to abortion in the Constitution. That is an opinion.

And I am allowing others to share their opinions. I just think the opinions of those on your side are either poorly thought out or just flat-out hypocritical. That's all. And that is the crux of my argument.

 

From SC:heller

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

My point is you don't know my opinions unless I state them. So don't assign opinions to other people and then go after them for the opinion you have assigned them. I never said, ever, that abortion was guarenteed in the constitution. I never said people should not have guns. I did say people have the right to disagree with the courts decision. I did say that there were some limits to the right to bear arms and there always have been.

 

The reason Roe was poorly reasoned is that the decision attempted to find the right by way of the Due Process clause. That was an error and many have talked about it for decades. The recent decision corrected that error.

 

Yes! But not because of the 2nd A. It's because a very activist Supreme court issued legislation by what we now know as the "Heller Decision".

 

Thank you.

So, just to be clear, you are saying that the right to own a firearm is not in the Constitution. Is that correct?

 

Yes. That's correct.