Thank You, O.A.! -- j
.

Thank You, TRB! -- j
.

Thank You, blar! -- j
.

Thank You Much for the advice! . very astute observations,
and it does beg the question::: "Should we not begin
to more fully enumerate those things which the feds
may NOT do?" . I vote that they may not use
regulations to enact law on the sly. . dissolve the
TLAs like the IRS and the EPA. -- j

p.s. TLA = three-letter-acronym.
.

yes, and contagious diseases which killed many.
inappropriate care could turn them into weapons. -- j
.

Egad! A Federal Judge who has read and understood the Constitution. What a refreshing change.

CK, I think you nailed it!

No argument here. I've got a CCW my reason is I want to.

Precisely.

Hello TheRealBill,
Correct. Jefferson supported a bill of rights as did the majority of anti-federalists.
He eventually persuaded Madison and others.
Please see my reply above/below(?) to blarman.
Regards,
O.A.

Hello blarman,
Hamilton too. “Why,” asked Alexander Hamilton in “Federalist 84,” “declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”
The solution was to make clear by virtue of the ninth (Madison) and tenth amendments that the list was not an enumerated and restrictive list of rights reserved to the people.

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

Regards,
O.A.

...one step at a time...

Nice win for the 2A!

Correct. It was why Madison originally didn't want to include a Bill of Rights.

There was actually a debate about adding the Bill of Rights. Some of the original framers of the Constitution argued that since the Constitution was crafted as a document of what the government COULD do, there was no reason to document what it COULD NOT do. In fact, their argument was that by listing what the government could not do (Bill of Rights), you were implying that if an action was not prohibited then the government could take that action, which was not what the intent of the Constitution was. In the end, the States did not feel comfortable without the rights explicitly enumerated.

It is an interesting thought experiment about whether it would have been better to not have passed the Bill of Rights and just insisted that since there was no power to limit speech in the Constitution, that the government could not do it, or whether the Bill of rights has been an important bulwark against government overreach.

Weapons of mass destruction did exist at the time, it's simply a matter of scale. Much of he period's WMDs we wouldn't recognize today as such, but in an era where the population was much smaller the threshold for "mass" is lower. We had biological and chemical warfare in middle-ages Europe and before.

If I recall correctly there was a concern at the time that if you enumerated any rights it would be construed as a complete list - that rights which were not enumerated would be deemed non-existent.

I can't say such a concern has been shown unwarranted. Instead of "show me that right in the constitution" - what we hear today - it should be "show me where the constitution gives the government the power to breach the right". Enumerating rights also creates a belief these rights come from the enumeration, rather than the enumeration referencing them as pre-existing.

While reading the article, a reason for carrying a firearm that popped into my head was the Second Amendment.
While reading the comments, I began to recall being required to write down a reason when I applied for my first Alabama pistol permit way back during the mid-70s.
I simply wrote the word "protection."
For what other basic reason would an honest law-abiding citizen carry a weapon?
Why be required to write down a given?

I also like to recall critical point too often left out of 2nd Ammendment conversation. Namely, that the critical concern of many of the Founding Fathers in the right to bear arms was, not primarily self-defense in the common interpretation of that in this context; rather, it was as a check against government power. And therefore, it not only allows for, but intends, that "the people" stay as well armed as the government (short of WMDs, IMJ, which didn't exist at that time).

The Constitution only covered the trappings of government itself - how it was to be "constituted", its powers, its formation and continuation, etc. But in order for it to be adopted by the States, many demanded an explicit "Bill of Rights" enumerating specific rights and reservations. Many of these individual rights were debated vigorously over the course of the months it took to develop the Constitution. So even though they are listed as "amendments", the first Ten actually were included with the Constitution for original adoption.

Excellent! Just excellent!

I just wonder why they had to amend the constitution --
like these were afterthoughts? -- j
.

Me too.... I think that was my point in my first comment, but you said it better than I did. It's amazing to me how the very people who should understand individual rights the most, and the necessity of protecting these rights are the ones who try to undermine them. Then again, I used to think teachers were smart and had children's best interests in mind too. Up is down. :(

I wish more of our judiciary were. It seems like they view their job usually as how to find loopholes in the Constitution to allow the government to do as it pleases.

Yes, I'm quite aware of that.

The "reason" predates the 2nd Amendment because the most fundamental right of a human, by nature of being a human, is self defense. The 2nd Amendment merely serves as a reminder/guarantee of this right that predates and takes precedence over the Constitution.