Re: 9th Amendment: a dead letter?

Larry wrote:
> In article <Ap-dnTAhj-cdzYfVnZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>  "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:x-5F8C5E.18550401052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> In article
>>> <56634f83-2a6b-40a1-9169-b7462535f992@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> RichD <r_delaney2001@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When was the last time the 9th was
>>>> cited in any court decision?
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking of the recent DofC v. Heller
>>>> case, not yet decided.  Both sides split
>>>> hairs over the meaning of 'well regulated
>>>> militia', for the 10000th time.
>>>>
>>>> Why not make an appeal to the Ninth,
>>>> arguing 'right to life' implies 'right to self
>>>> defense', inalienably?  Is this not bulletproof,
>>>> is anyone honestly going to argue the
>>>> contrary?  It's certainly more solid than
>>>> dickering over the 2nd Amenment.
>>> There is a right to self-defense.  However, self-defense only applies
to
>>> the use of force in a given situation; it doesn't apply to the
>>> possession of weapons.
>> And how do you defend yourself without the appropriate tools ?
> 
> I'm not giving you my opinion; I'm telling you what the law says.  
> 
> The Bernie Goetz case was the perfect example.  He was found not guilty 
> of shooting people because they jury believed he was acting in 
> self-defense.  He was, however, convicted of illegally possessing a gun,

> because self-defense wasn't applicable to that count.
> 
> By your logic, anyone should be allowed to own anything that could 
> possibly be used as a weapon.  Where can I get myself a couple of hand 
> grenades?

For the law abiding and moral citizen, what is the problem of owning 
hand grenades?