Well, free speech alone could also theoretically be enough to cover freedom of the press, assembly, and right to petition, but I'd rather have my rights spelled out explicitly so no court decision can take them from me.
I think there should be an amendment that in essence makes it unconstitutional to ban any action which does not negatively affect another human being, with maybe a bit more specificity on what "negatively affect" means. But the anti-drug lobby will never let that pass, and the RIAA/MPAA might have problems with it too. (And it should be clear that it only refers to people, NOT corporations or organizations. They should have rights, but not the same rights as individuals-look at what the S.C. did to campaign financing.)
The problem with the 9th amendment is that it's far too vague. Without specific regulation, the court will always move in the direction of taking away rights.