For this discussion, I am saying that the Bill of Rights is not granting rights to the people, it is stating what is not being ceded away to the Federal Government.
If, as you say, the 2nd amendment says that the people do not cede the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a civilian militia, and there isn't anywhere else in the Constitution that forbids the people to have arms, then the 9th amendment still allows the people to keep arms whether or not they are a part of a militia.
Would you agree with that?
-PJ
Six Amendments to the Constitution
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1809847/posts
"-- The basic issue here -- between the first two answers (both of which appeal to principles of natural justice) and the third (which denies such principles) -- is the deepest, most long-standing issue in jurisprudence or the philosophy of law: the issue between naturalists, on the one hand, and positivists or legalists, on the other. --"
"-- The positivists hold that might is right. --"
--- The real issue is between those of us who live for the liberty to own & use property as we see fit; --- and those who declare they have the power to prohibit any property they see as 'unfit'.
The prohibitionists hold that gov't might is 'right'. -- The 2nd holds that an armed people are right.
Oh, I suppose you could try. You might find this to be interesting:
BEYOND THE SECOND AMENDMENT: AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO ARMS VIEWED THROUGH THE NINTH AMENDMENT