Even if the second amendment is not interpreted as guaranteeing a right to keep and bear arms, it does not follow as a logical consequence that you do not have such a right.
As has been pointed out by others, the tenth amendment specifically says the list is not exhaustive, and there are other rights retained by the people that the government cannot infringe. A very convincing argument can be made that historically, regardless of the 2nd amendment, the people have a right to keep and bear arms implied implicitly, by the fact that they did so before the constitution was ratified.
Frankly, I think those pushing the 2nd amendment are barking up the wrong tree. Let them interpret it however they wish (i.e. that the fed cannot interfere with a state militia), and instead push the idea that, having just come out from under what they considered a tyrant, it seems absurd that people would consent to a government that would hamper their ability to do so again. Hence, the right to keep and bear arms was one of the rights that it was felt was unnecessary to explicitly list at the time.

This article (h/t Dr. Helen by way of Instapundit) may shed some light on this. Money quote:

Part of the problem is that our civilized society holds firmly to the notion that violence between people must not be countenanced (except in the commercial media!) This axiom applies even to [law enforcement officers] who use any level of force, and most certainly deadly force, in the line of duty. The individual who must resort to taking the life of another person, even for the protection of self or others, has been reinforced to feel guilty and rendered incapable of finding psychological resolution of the relevant conflicts.

To which Dr. Helen adds:

If even police officers are made to feel guilty for protecting the lives of citizens by our “don’t defend yourself or anyone else” culture and media, I can’t imagine how civilians who had to use force are made to feel after an incident in which they had to protect themselves or others.

Self-defense and preserving liberty… so uncivilized.

Amendment IX

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

Somehow, the enumeration of rights has had precisely the opposite effect…now we have ten…well, 8 since the last two don’t count…narrowly defined rights.

The moral argument advanced to claim that governments are legitimate is that people have consented to the government and delegated to it certain powers.

According to that argument, if a policeman has a gun, it is because he has been granted that power by the citizenry.

If the citizenry do not have the moral right to carry a gun, they cannot delegate it to the police. If you are correct, and no individual has a right to carry one particular class of weapon, than every policeman and soldier is acting immorally by carrying fire-arms.

It does not matter how badly they “need” them, just as it is irrelevant how much a battered woman “needs” a firearm to defend herself. If the battered woman has no right to keep a snubnosed handgun into her bag, then no soldier has the right to lug around an M-16 either, no matter how much they want to have it.

Last but not least, you say that the government is not approving anything, but somehow, passively the constitution is being interpreted. Interpretation is done by human beings. The people whose interpretation matters, the ones whose decrees then are made reality by men with guns, are members of the judiciary. The last I checked, these guys were drawing pay-checks from the United States treasury.

In effect, they are government officials, and when they decree that only people that the government approves of may carry guns, it is precisely the same act as the the head of the Gambino crime family decreeing that only truckers he approves of can make deliveries to the garment district.

Update: I cleaned up the numerous grammatical errors and misspellings in my original posting.

Sorry but, as Penn would say, that’s f**kin bullshit!.

A quick reminder: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

If Parker goes to the USSC and they go with the collective view of the 2nd Amendment then the reactionary left gun controllers will take that as a sign to say, “Okay all you gun nuts, time to turn them in.” The proper response will be, “No, you come and take them.”

I have a problem with the insane people should be denied guns argument. It is not that I think insane people should have guns, it is that I know some people will twist with the definition of ‘insane’ in order to grab more guns. Such as someone saying, “It is insane to think you need an assault rifle to deer hunt.” or “It is insane to think you need to carry a conealed hand gun.” and so on. Some people will see the fact that you own a gun as a reason to call you insane. And since insane people can’t have guns, the catch-22 is in place.

To say “..if there is no right to carry weapons … no soldier or policeman should carry” allows for no middle ground. Soldiers are de facto protectors of our country from invasion. Policemen are de facto enforcers of the law; some folks resist lawful enforcement and the weapon is an enabler for the officer, just as tasers, tear gas, and handcuffs assist in function of his duties.

But, as you stated – there are no rights in the Constitution, which means there is no right to carry a firearm for self-defense. This is distinct from the right to defend oneself – you may defend yourself, but you may not use a firearm to do so. I’ll say it again – no one disagrees with the right to self-defense, but one does not have the right to use a firearm for that purpose, nor are firearms the only method by which one could defend themselves, either.

I completely disagree with your interpretation of ‘well-regulated’ to mean ‘regular’ militia vice irregulars. I lack the time at the moment to delve further into this point, however.

As for ‘the government approving’ – it is not the government approving anything. It is the interpretation of the second amendment that is the crux; does the 2nd amendment allow an unalienable right to possess firearms or not? If that right does not exist, the government isn’t taking away something that was never there at all.

Two comments, the Constitution does not declare what rights exist and what do not. Even supporters of strong centralized government like Hamilton admitted this.

Secondly, the words regulate and milita in the 18th century had a very different meaning to the one it is now assigned.

Back then, regulate meant to make regular or, in the case of skills, well practiced and a militia was defined as all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 regardless of whether they had been hired by the local government.

So, translating into modern English, in order to ensure that all men are skilled at handling weapons, the right of people to carry weapons will not be interfered with.

Of course, this is an academic argument. Just as I have no right to prohibit you from having sex without a priest’s say so, I have no right to prevent you from carrying a weapon on anything other than my own property. Oh I may have the power to do so, particularly if I have lots of people helping me threaten you, but might makes right is not an acceptable system of morality.

If there is no right to carry weapons, then the most straightforward way that the government can respect this is to unilaterally disarm. No soldier or policeman should be permitted a weapon denied to the meanest of men. Until that day comes, I wish they would stop pretending that their attempts to disarm everyone but those whom government officials approve of is in any way morally defensible.

I believe the NRA has done a disservice to its community for years by perpetuating “a right to bear arms” by ignoring the first four words: “A well regulated militia” … which implies that a legislative body at least has some right to levy some restrictions on ownership.

If a legislature can restrict some ownership, it’s not a reach to see that all ownership could also be banned.

I believe that the NRA has known this for years, which is why the DC gun law went unchallenged for nearly three decades. The NRA, as I’ve seen them, vehemently opposes restriction at the state level because once enacted, the restrictions pass muster and don’t violate the 2nd Amendment. They’ve had ample opportunity to challenge over the years – a near total ban – and yet did not. Have you ever wondered why not?

I know that remarks such as this are heretical to gun owners but if this case goes to the Supreme Court, it may result in a rude awakening that the gun ‘right’ never existed.

Majority does not make right.

There is NO circumstance under which society can legitmately say, for any reason, that you do not have the right to defend yourself from harm.

Either we are free men, with rights, who grant the state some measure of authority; or we are the property of the state, granted some measure of autonomy by it. There is no middle ground.

- Josh

Sorry but, as Penn would say, that’s f**kin bullshit!. No i mean, i dont think there’s such a thing as inherently rights, as long as there are lot of thing in our environment that will easily take your life away (other people included).

I can see your point, but ,eventually, going against law is not the solution. Rights develop from a compromise among people, and you will gain from those rights as long as there are enough people who stand for them.

Given a choice between imprisonment and death on one hand, and a slightly more constrained life, all but a tiny handful will chose the latter.

No politician will send police or soldiers confiscating weapons. They’ll just continue to use the Fabian system of making little changes in the law, demonizing those who protest as crackpots, and let time do its trick.