Gun Control Propagandists response to a 9th argument.

This is from a conversation I had with a gentleman on Quora.  I am quoting him, but not providing a source.  I am keeping it on file for legal purposes.  His response is verbatim other than the two attachments he added to the end.   As many people do, he loves to banter words, and mix metaphors.  The two arguments used here are, “Hasty Generalization,” and “Red Herring.”  Hasty generalization because the argument is based on repeated assertions but no proof, and Red Herring because the discussion started with the 9th amendment, but the writer quickly took it to the 2nd amendment, then to guns.  At one point he switches subjects from a gun control act that banned certain guns (in away) to confiscation when the issue was the RIGHT not a single gun.  When that doesn’t seem to be enough, he uses Hasty Generalization to show why militias are wrong, but in a way designed to confuse you and keep you from forming a coherent argument.  While he’s jumping around, he’s hoping you take something he says as truth, and adopt the argument.  It’s wrong, and a blatant attempt at manipulation.

_________________________________

“Gun control is as old as the country itself. If you look at our history you may find some interesting things that show that we have, over time, twisted a lot of things related to the 2A. Under our current gun control act, in place since 86, machine guns were banned but any weapons owned prior to the act were grandfathered in. No confiscation happened. The fear cry that they are taking away our guns in not based on anything that has happened in modern times.

Anyone who considers themselves a law abiding, responsible gun owner would know this because they actually read the laws. Especially any federal laws.

Contrary to popular myths confiscated weapons were a thing in colonial times. Times and circumstances were very different. The confiscations were not a result of nefarious intentions. It was, at the time, very pragmatic.

Reading our history gives us a better understanding of the reasons and intent on what was put in the Constitution. We have gone far away from the original intent of the 2A.

Although not enforced enough a lot of people have formed illegal militias as anti government entities.

Militias were not meant to be deployed against a sitting government, but in defense of the state, “reportable to the governor, trained and armed by the governor,” said Mary McCord, who is now the executive director at Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) and former acting assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice’s national security division. , which advises government officials on the enforcement of anti-militia laws.

Are militias constitutionally protected?

No, McCord says. The Supreme Court ruled in 1886 in Presser v. Illinoisthat the Second Amendment does not prevent states from banning private paramilitary organizations, a finding that was restated in District of Columbia v. Heller , the 2008 decision that established an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense.

“‘Militia’ has never meant ‘private militia answerable to themselves,’” McCord said. “It always meant well-regulated by the state. People focus on the Second Amendment while ignoring Congress’s Article One

powers to organize and train the militia, and call forth the militia,” she said. In other words, a private militia that deploys itself, without the permission of the state or federal government, is illegal.

With what people believe in contrast to legalities we have a lot of folks running outside the intent of the 2A in preparation for armed insurrection or civil war. Neither of these things should be condoned.

——————————————————————————————————

Gun control is as old as the country itself. Actually, you’re wrong. The country was built because of gun control. When the British demanded the colonists’ guns, the colonists say, “Um, nope.” There was some shooting and a nation was born. Is it surprising that the founders were overly protective about the right to bear arms, so much so that they were not going to let the government exist unless there was a binding limitation on a governmental power over bearing arms? The 2nd Amendment is that limitation on government powers, and a declaration that the right belongs to the people.

“The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:” “The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

You, like many before you, think that the 2nd grants or defines a right. It doesn’t. It’s a limitation on government. The 2nd has nothing to do with the right to bear arms.

Also, confiscation? Happens every day. Every single day in the USA.

I love how you use well crafted words to start one conversation – the gun control act did not lead to…. then added an unrelated remainder, confiscation. Nicely put together propaganda. Make people think they are reading one thing, then switch, magician style, into something else. The gun control act was an unconstitutional limitation on a class of firearms. It prevented the sale destroying the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS or EVERYONE from that day forward. Why? Because the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS was INFRINGED from that day forward by the government taking control of it. Even if it was but one aspect of it, it was still an unconstitutional control. And the colonists? They would not have tolerated that, at all, period. That we have for so long is disgusting to me.

Your arguments are well put together, which leads me to believe you are either totally deluded and actually believe what you just wrote, or you are a propaganda expert sent to kill a good answer and prevent my original answer from sparking a new line of defense against anti-gunners. Honestly, stop using guns in your arguments. It’s disingenuous and wrong. And it would help everyone if you stopped using red herring and hasty generalizations. Much less confusion to wade through.

So to reiterate.

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

The right to bear arms is not enumerated, because it cannot be found in Section 8, where enumerated rights are located. The right, other than in an amendment, is not mentioned in the US Constitution – and in the 2nd it’s only mentioned as a limitation on government powers. In addition, the right, according to the 2nd, is a right that was retained by the people.

“Shall not be construed,” relates back to the preamble to the bill of rights. “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:” “…the right of the people shall not be infringed.”

Construed, constructed, misconstruction. Construed means to interpret in a specific way. Constructed means to build a meaning. Misconstruction means to purposely misuse an enumerated power to take a right that is retained by the people.

The founder people and states were saying, “You will not use one of the powers in this document to take these other RIGHTS away.”

But I do get why you want it as an enumerated right, because if you get us to agree to THAT, then you can get us agree to some form of control. Because what is an enumerated right but a right that was converted to a power.

And just to say it, there has never been a case that focused on the right to bear arms. All of the cases I’ve ever read focus on the limitations of the 2nd.

The 9th amendment argument is too powerful, and would destroy gun control as we know it. But not as YOU know it, because you know the stakes in defeating this argument.