However the right to bear arms is specifically addressed in the 2nd amendment. It is upon this specific address that private gun ownership is based.

Upon the 9th amendment everything is cut loose. Everybody that wants to do anything (hey my right to murder is protected by the Constitution) can claim 9th amendment protection.

Private gun ownership has a more specified protection under the Constitution. Attempts to defend this right under the 9th are weak. If the 2nd amendment fails us we are not going to find shelter from the 9th.

And Jack is right that I am delighted that gun control ceases to be a policy question and becomes a question only when sufficient cause exists to limit a basic right.

I do not understand that the general 9th amendment overules the specific rights of the 2nd. The 9th only opened the doors to rights not specifically addressed previously. The 2nd (in my opinion) gives us enough guidance that we need not also pull the 9th into the debate.

I do not understand that the rights of law abiding citizens to bear arms against the criminals that will bear arms in spite of the laws is a bad thing.

Our rights exist with or without the Constitution, or government’s purpose is to secure our rights, it does not grant them.

The Heller decision turns firearms legislation on its head. The presumption now will be that bearing arms is the norm and special considerations must be present to regulate that right.

Lawyers are going to be busy till this gets sorted out.

All “well regulated” means in 18th century usage is “well trained.”

I’m glad we agree, though. If anyone thinks the founders protected gun rights of the people solely for military service, I’d send them right back to Civics class.

I agree with you. However that pesky “well regulated militia” aspect keeps rearing its head.

It is my opinion that the “need” for the citizens to be able to raise up a well regulated militia from amongst the gun owning populace to defend itself from a tyranical government is part of the reason for the Second Amendment being included in the Bill or Rights.

The “need” for a well regulated militia is not what is addressed for in the Second Amendment. The “need” addressed is for the ability of the citizens to defend themselves against tyrants.

Just because people argue a position does not mean the position has any merit. If the Supremes did not have the power of Judicial Review, there would be nothing to stop Congress from passing an unconstitutional law, making the constitution unenforceable and provding no protection whatsoever.

The “need” in our society is not a “right” unless it is guaranteed in the Constitution.

Fortunately for me (and you, and all of us) the Constitution addresses this need and makes it a right in our society. Glenn Nye seems to understand the “need” for the right when he praises the Supreme Court decision.

There are some that argue the Supreme Court decision does not guarantee the right to keep and bear unless one is a member of a well regulated militia. Glenn Nye does not seem to be one of them.

A right is a right, regardless of “need” for it.

“The Second Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms and today, in a decision that was crucially important to the people of Virginia and all Americans, the Supreme Court affirmed that right. I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and in Congress I will make sure the rights of responsible gun owners are protected.”

I am pleased that the fellah I am probably going to vote for in November seems to understand the need for citizens to be able to “keep and bear arms”.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Marshall eloquently makes the case in Marbury v Madison that without judicial review, the protections and remedies afforded by our constitution, and the constitution itself, would be unenforceable.