The 9th Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America is the one that is NEVER talked about in legal or political circles. It's the one [they] don't want you to think about.
It preserves ALL rights that ALREADY existed before the Constitution was created, with the only exception being those rights that were delegated to government by the Constitution.
The 2nd Amendment is about We the People fighting off enemies, foreign or domestic.
But the right to self-defense, gun ownership in general, and all the rest are in the 9th Amendment.
Remember: All of the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) are to LIMIT THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and NOT to "create" any new rights of the people.
Most people do not know there even is a preamble to the Bill of Rights, much less have ever read it. Here is the Preamble:
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.
Catch that? RESTRICTIVE.
The Bill of Rights are ALL restrictive, as to what the federal government is NOT permitted to do.
The 1st: Congress shall make NO law ...
The 2nd: ... shall NOT be infringed.
The 3rd: NO quartering of soldiers ...
The 4th: ... shall NOT be violated ... (btw: "unreasonable" search or seizure means without a judge's signed warrant)
The 5th: NO person shall be held/compelled/etc. ...
The 6th: The government SHALL provide several protections to anyone accused of a crime.
The 7th: Anyone involved in a civil case SHALL have certain rights preserved.
The 8th: Excessive bail shall NOT ...
The 9th Amendment says that ALL rights of the People, that ALREADY existed BEFORE the government was created, were STILL IN EFFECT AFTER that government was created. Here is the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Get it? RETAINED.
Originally, Madison wrote 17 amendements, mostly modeled after George Mason's work on the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He scaled that down to 12. He did not omit anything, but merely rearranged them so that some of them were consolidated from two or three into one. The 5th, for example, has several restrictions of the federal government included within one amendment, rather than having them each in their own separate amendments.
The 12 amendments were presented to the States, and 10 were approved. The other 2 had to do with the number of representatives in the House, based on population, and congressional salary increases not taking effect until after the next legislative session. Those 2 did not pass. However, the one on salaries was given new life more than 200 years later, and was ultimately ratified in 1992, to become the 27th Amendment.
The 9th Amendment is KEY. It preserved ALL rights that humans had before the government was created.
https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/billofr_.htm
As the Declaration of Independence stated (which was written just 13 years earlier), certain truths are SELF-EVIDENT. Namely, that we have rights that existed BEFORE the government existed, and for which the government shall never be permitted to violate (inalienable/unalienable). And ...
... to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Government does not grant fundamental rights. Those rights existed before the government existed, and those rights were used to CREATE the government in the first place.
Once created, government CAN create "civil rights," which are rights that are really privileges, and can be regulated by their creator (the government). But the government cannot create civil rights that supercede natural/God-given rights, because those rights are inalienable/unalienable (untouchable).
2/2
I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.
The Constitution is a Social Contract. It was signed by people. It was not signed by ALL people, and that was a fraud, but the Federal Government was intended to be mostly powerless excepting only in The Common Defense, other foreign affairs, and Interstate Commerce. Internal affairs, other than at the borders between Sovereign States (travel, commerce, etc.), were not to be addressed by the Federal Government at all.
The State Constitutions were also a Social Contract, and should have been signed by all people. There must also be an exit clause, or it is fraudulent, and does not respect the Sovereignty of the Individual. The Social Contract is the set of laws that one can choose to live by if one joins society. If not, then one lives under Natural Law alone.
You seem to believe that a person who chooses not to live under a Social Contract would be a bad person. Let me give you an example of a Social Contract. Let’s say there is a town. In that town there are local laws, for example: no shooting your gun off in town except to defend yourself. If a person chooses to go into that town, local laws apply. They can always choose to not go into the town, or choose to leave the town (exit clause). Within the town, you follow the rules or face the consequences, written by law. Such laws must be clearly stated before entry (see The Postman (movie) as an example, you see exactly such a social structure within the various towns, and it works really well.) This is in fact exactly how our whole world is constructed, as is the United States internally, with multiple levels of jurisdiction, and different laws between them. The problem is, the laws aren't clearly stated, and a whole mess of them are violations of Sovereign Rights, on every level. There is also no clear exit clause (though it does exist, but it is obfuscated by fraud).
You are seeing things under the scope of past actions which I assert are not what they appear to be. Our history has been rewritten. The word “Anarchy” itself is completely misunderstood. It only means without ruler. A "Ruler" is a Sovereign. If we have a Ruler, we are vassals. But we are not vassals, we are Sovereign (jurisdiction defined above). Anarchy has nothing to do with “no laws” or “no social contract” or “chaos” etc. Those are what we have been told the term means, because if people really start to think about what it means to live without a ruler, they will want to live without a ruler, and the rulers would lose power.
I think you also may think that I mean because a thing is "allowed" under Natural Law as an act of war, that means there are no consequences. On the contrary, there are always consequences and what would happen is exactly what already happens.
When a person commits murder, for example, they may be violating civil law, but that is irrelevant. Whether there is civil law against it or not, it is that they have declared war under Natural Law, through that act, that ensures the consequences.
Society might murder them back for example. Doing so has nothing to do with civil law per se, even if it is also in compliance with it. The person who committed the murder doesn't have to agree with the consequences. That particular consequence of "murder in return" (or jail in return, or whatever the consequence is, assuming it is against the persons will) enacted without the approval of the murderer, is a direct violation of their God Given Right to pursue the path of their own life.
Such action as murder (or jail against a persons will, etc.) is always an act of war no matter what (no matter who is doing it or the justification). We say "it's the law" (by which we mean civil law) but that's not what's really going on. What's really going on is that we are, through our own justification of law, declaring war on the person who committed the murder, to remove them from this plane of existence against their Right to remain here. All acts of murder (or other such direct violations of another's God Given Rights) are acts of war according to Natural Law. Whether it also has a civil law to back it up is completely irrelevant except in how we (the murderers of the murderer) justify the response.
Nor does such an action bypass due process, or all that other jazz. The point is, when it comes down to brass tacks, it is identical in all ways. It is identical in all ways BECAUSE it all comes down to Natural Law. Whether a person agrees to the social contract or not, the results, on all levels, are the same for direct violations of a persons Inalienable (God Given) Rights (i.e. those crimes that are "against the law" regardless of what Civil Law has to say about it).
See my newest post as my response to you.