[gallo]

Quote by: zynner People tend to look at the 2nd Amendment and ignore the 9th Amendment. That's a mistake.

That presumes that there is a direct connection.

Quote by: zynner The fundamental question is: Does an individual have a right to self-defense? Yes.

I think that the courts would agree with that.

Quote by: zynner Does that individual have a right to use tools in his attempt at self-defense? Yes.

As long as those tools are held and used in conformity with the laws of the federal, state, and local governments in which the citizen lives.

Quote by: zynner He therefore has a right to a firearm for use in self-defense.

Not a 2nd Amendment question. It is actually a 14th Amendment question, as to whether someone can be deprived by anyone of privileges and immunities without due process.

Quote by: zynner Does an individual have a right to eat? Yes.

Probably, but I have never heard of that being affirmed as a Constitutional right. Since it is not specifically mentioned, then if it is a right, it is retained by the people.

Quote by: zynner Does he have a right to shoot an animal for food (as thousands of men did, no doubt, in 1787)? Yes.

Just try shooting one of my cattle as see how that works out for you. In fact, if I shot you exercising your right, it is unlikely that I would be charged with a crime in my state/county.

Quote by: zynner He therefore has a right to own a firearm for survival, as well as self-defense.

Actually not true. While Congress may not infringe on the right of "the people", i.e., the states to bear arms, that doesn't seem to apply to the right of the states to limit your ownership of arms. For example, I believe that it is illegal to own a handgun in New York, whereas in my state I can carry a concealed weapon with proper licensing, and where I grew up it was legal to carry a non-concealed weapon.

Quote by: zynner The founders understood this fundamental principle.

I can't say if they understood it the way you seem to since they don't seem to have addressed that issue. And since they didn't, those questions are subject to legislation by states.

Quote by: zynner They also understood history. History is full of examples where a king or other government person claimed a right to rule over other men. They understood that would-be tyrants always demanded that the people disarm. They also understood that foreign invaders might be able to surprise attack somewhere before a military could be organized to defend the territory.

And history is full of cases of civilians falling before such invasion forces. Rarely were invading armies repelled except by regular military. Can you give an example of where it may have occurred? I recognize that it may be possible, I just don't know of any case off hand.

Quote by: zynner So, in writing the US Constitution, they defined the powers of the federal government and split up the powers of the federal government and the state governments.

You should have stopped when you got to the "and." They went farther in specifying that "...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." If that's what you meant, then you are entirely correct.

Quote by: zynner The Bill of Rights were demanded by many people to amend that document because many people were suspicious of this new federal government. They wanted it made clear that the feds' powers were in fact limited. Each item is a limitation on the feds' powers. They knew from history that the nature of government is to abuse power.

I think that you are correct in this. The calls for a bill of rights came in the Constitutional Convention before it was finished. James Madison promised to make it the first priority if the Constitution should be ratified. He fulfilled that promise.

Quote by: zynner The 2nd Amendment was a limitation on the powers of the federal government, disallowing it to prohibit firearm ownership of militia members.

Well, yes. A limitation on the powers of the federal government (but not state governments). But it doesn't specify the right of ownership to individuals but to "the people."

Quote by: zynner This did not in any way kill off the fundamental right of self-defense or of taking actions to secure food for survival.

I don't think that anyone has claimed that it did.

Quote by: zynner The 9th Amendment is the most overlooked amendment but it is the most important to individual liberty.

For those who don't know it off the top of their head, the 9th Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Again, there is no mention of individual liberty but liberties of "the people," as in "We the people..."

Quote by: zynner I would argue that it is the most overlooked because it is the most important to individual liberty -- which means it is the most vile to would-be tyrants, whether they are elected to office or appointed to a bench (or live in bureaucrat land).

Except that you would have to show that the 9th Amendment is somehow a guarantee of individual liberty.

Quote by: zynner Every individual has a fundamental right to own the tools of self-defense and survival.

Except as limited by legitimate governmental powers.

Quote by: zynner These are fundamental rights that existed way before the Constitution.

I guess.

Quote by: zynner In addition, each individual also has a fundamental right to join a militia.

I think that you will find that you must meet certain qualifications of age, physical ability, mental ability, and criminal record, so I would think that it isn't a right.

Quote by: zynner The only restriction is that the federal government is expressly prohibited from prohibiting militia members from bearing arms (which is exactly what tyrants attempt to do).

Actually, the federal government is expressly required to provide for the organizing, arming, and discipline of the militia, as well as to prescribe training to be carried out by the states.

Quote by: zynner Any government that does not respect these basic principles is a government that does not respect liberty.

Except that I think that there may be some differing views about whether these are basic principles of government. I suspect that you might have a problem if you were attempting to exercise your right to hunt your food in the City of New York.