[William Terrell]

You said, "The 9th and 14th say nothing about drugs being legal." And I took you to say that a right is not a right unless it's enumerated.

In this post, you say having to enumerate is silly. I agree. I really wasn't addressing the article at all, just your statement.

So, then, now you're saying that because the firearm weapon is considered so important it has an amendment to itself, other rights not specifically mentioned can be abrogated by the state?
The 2nd says everything about guns being legal. I repeat, no connection.

[Roscoe]

"Some form of limitation on spirits has been part of this continent's history since the first European settlers arrived. Originally, these limitations were imposed to prevent drunkenness among the colonists."

The Making of Prohibition

[robertpaulsen]

"Specific enumeration of our rights is not needed. -- Read the 9th or the 14th for proof."

I can read the ninth. But how do the courts read the ninth?

695 F.2d 261 (google it)

The Seventh Circuit found no Supreme Court precedent to support the theory that the Ninth Amendment protects any specific right. In fact, the Ninth Amendment has not been used to define the rights of individuals or to invalidate state or federal laws.

"Since appellants do not cite, and our research has not revealed, any Supreme Court case holding that any specific right is protected by the ninth amendment, appellants' argument has no legal significance. Appellants may believe the ninth amendment should be read to recognize an unwritten, fundamental, individual right to own or possess firearms; the fact remains that the Supreme Court has never embraced this theory."

Please stop it with the 9th Amendment references. And William, I guess we'll need your list after all.