Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Former Member of the Supreme Court Wants to Add These Five Words to the Second Amendment
The Blaze ^ | 22 Feb 2014 | Jason Howerton

Posted on 02/22/2014 10:25:10 AM PST by mandaladon

Pro-gun advocates will likely be relieved that John Paul Stevens, 93, is now retired and no longer serving as a member of the Supreme Court. In his upcoming book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” he argues for a slight change to the Second Amendment that would fundamentally alter its meaning.

As written by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution, the Second Amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Stevens argues that the authors of the Second Amendment were mostly concerned about being oppressed by a national standing army, not so much about the right to self-defense.

So in order to reflect the changing times, he says, the Second Amendment should be altered to add five key words:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.

“Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands,” Stevens writes in his defense of the change.

Stevens retired in 2010 after serving on the nation’s highest court for 35 years.

The odds of his crusade to transform the Second Amendment has little chance of even receiving serious consideration as Americans have rejected gun control efforts at the state and federal levels.

(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; guns; scotus; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last
Libs never give up.
1 posted on 02/22/2014 10:25:10 AM PST by mandaladon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mandaladon
Ok, then.
2 posted on 02/22/2014 10:28:58 AM PST by logi_cal869
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

Senile dementia.


3 posted on 02/22/2014 10:30:38 AM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

Until they are dead.


4 posted on 02/22/2014 10:31:22 AM PST by Noumenon (Resistance. Restoration. Retribution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

What’s the meaning of “militia?”


5 posted on 02/22/2014 10:32:15 AM PST by goodnesswins (R.I.P. Doherty, Smith, Stevens, Woods.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

That would make the amendment essentially meaningless. It would simply assure that those who are in a sense part of the government can carry weapons, which is the case everywhere.


6 posted on 02/22/2014 10:35:12 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon
“Emotional claims that . . . . distort intelligent debate

Ah yes. When a Lib loses the argument, its because emotional claims are distorting intelligent debate. If the yahoos would calm down and listen to reason, we'd all agree that banning guns is smart!!

7 posted on 02/22/2014 10:35:24 AM PST by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon
Nominated to the Supreme Court by a RINO...

The Libs may want to be careful about tampering with the Constitution. It can cut both ways...

8 posted on 02/22/2014 10:36:07 AM PST by Cowboy Bob (They are called "Liberals" because the word "parasite" was already taken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

Love the way ‘they’ all claim the 2nd is ‘poorly written, hard to understand, not meant the way it was written, yesterdays ‘words’ and meanings don’t equate to today’s times’, etc....
(I truly believe the last one...(yesterday’s words) GAY...)

Now I may start to consider taking some of these guys(gals/its) seriously once they show me the CLEAR INTENT that Abortion, Same sex marriage etal are ‘spelled out’ or even hinted at.

My right to bear arms is pretty much spelled out in the 2nd even if I grant it may not be entirely clear
BUT
Show me in the 1st any or even a couple of the ‘claims’ they make as gospel.


9 posted on 02/22/2014 10:36:32 AM PST by xrmusn (6/98 --When you have them by the short hairs, the minds and hearts soon follow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon
“Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands,” Stevens writes in his defense of the change.

Slaughter is what happens when the people aren't armed. For reference, look up various Communist regimes of the 20th century.

10 posted on 02/22/2014 10:37:28 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon
Let's not get stuck on stupid. The Bill of Rights covers protection as a whole....i.e., includes all people and includes an obligation.

But, there's more...shooting game, protecting home and family...

It's a Natural Right!!! Stop pretending the Constitution covers all natural rights. They stand alone.

11 posted on 02/22/2014 10:38:02 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

Well as long as we’re wishing, I would like to add five inches to my........


12 posted on 02/22/2014 10:38:21 AM PST by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
“Senile dementia.”

I don't think so. He was that screwed up even as a young man!

I think genetically brain dead, or by its proper medical term - liberal, is more appropriate.

13 posted on 02/22/2014 10:39:16 AM PST by I cannot think of a name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon
Stevens retired in 2010

And not a moment too soon.

14 posted on 02/22/2014 10:39:32 AM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x

Stevens and other Libs everywhere want to have 2 Constitutions: The one we have and honor now when Conservatives are in power (enter prayer here) and the “Pen & Phone” constitution (Titled “The United States of Chicago”) when Libs and Rinos are in power.


15 posted on 02/22/2014 10:39:43 AM PST by Thom Pain (If you like your country you can keep it. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

The left will not be happy until you are disarmed, and unable to speak your mind. They want little pawns they can move around at their whim.


16 posted on 02/22/2014 10:41:10 AM PST by TheGipperWasRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

He’ll be worm food soon; maybe the worms will barf.


17 posted on 02/22/2014 10:43:40 AM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

> John Paul Stevens, 93, is now retired... In his upcoming book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” he argues for a slight change to the Second Amendment that would fundamentally alter its meaning.

Thanks mandaladon.


18 posted on 02/22/2014 10:45:42 AM PST by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/~mestamachine/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
Ah, there's the rub.

Not just the meaning of "militia" - there are myriad questions like who can establish, who authorizes, who can join (or who must/can be excluded).

Who can "call out" the militia and to what purpose? Can militia members act individually? Who is liable for members' actions?

19 posted on 02/22/2014 10:45:50 AM PST by ZOOKER (Until further notice the /s is implied...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

This is why we prefer our SCOTUS to stick to interpreting, and not rewriting, the Constitution. Spare us the emanations from penumbras.

(sigh) I miss the old days.


20 posted on 02/22/2014 10:46:43 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon
Stevens argues that the authors of the Second Amendment were mostly concerned about being oppressed by a national standing army, not so much about the right to self-defense.

Bull****!

Stevens can blow it out his senile, old...!!!

21 posted on 02/22/2014 10:49:02 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Communism kills!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon
No way in H E double hockey-sticks.

I will fight for it to stay exactly as it is. No gun grabbing socialist/communist changes. Our guns protect us from the slimes who would have us on our knees.

22 posted on 02/22/2014 10:49:47 AM PST by oldenuff2no
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

Why not just change it to..... The right to bear arms shall be determined solely by the whims of whoever is in power and gun liberties can only be taken away and never given back.


23 posted on 02/22/2014 10:51:00 AM PST by BRL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

When only the government and its agents can possess/use firearms, you have, by definition, a police state. The issue really is that simple.


24 posted on 02/22/2014 10:53:11 AM PST by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

I don’t care if the whole amendment is repealed.

I still have a God-given right to effectively defend myself against those more-numerous, more-powerful and less-principled than myself.

Every human being ever born had that right.

Those choking their lungs out in the showers of the Reich had that right; they just didn’t have the means to exercise it.


25 posted on 02/22/2014 10:53:20 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon
Yoda: "Advance Senile dementia/Liberalism,
this one has..long-abandoned intelligence"

26 posted on 02/22/2014 10:54:52 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun..0'Caligula / 0'Reid / 0'Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

The better a country echoes God’s will, the better it will be blessed.

So yes it does matter. You might not care until you discover that God cares.


27 posted on 02/22/2014 10:55:06 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Tell that to the folks at the Battle of Wyoming...way back when...


28 posted on 02/22/2014 10:55:49 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ..

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

29 posted on 02/22/2014 10:56:04 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Good hay could be made out of a Stevens’ized amendment yet. Let’s sign everyone up for a militia... problem solved. Posse comitatus, maximus.


30 posted on 02/22/2014 10:57:02 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

The greatest slaughters occur when guns are only in the hands of government.


31 posted on 02/22/2014 10:58:08 AM PST by Ray76 (How modern liberals think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Ultimately, that’s true.

The essence of my point, though, is that the right to defense is not granted, controlled and limited by the government.

While it’s preferable said right be formally recognized, the right exists even without that recognition.

A point which is lost on Justice Stevens.

Or willfully ignored.


32 posted on 02/22/2014 10:59:57 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: xrmusn

It would clarify the amendment a lot more to remove everything to the left of the commas.


33 posted on 02/22/2014 11:03:08 AM PST by Hardastarboard (The question of our age is whether a majority of Americans can and will vote us all into slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: x

Not exactly. Now there would be an incentive for 2nd Amendment supporters to form militias! After all, “Joe-Bob’s Fundamentalist anti-demonRat Militia” does fit the definition of “a militia,” so members of the JBFadM would get to “keep and bear arms”!

So who here thinks the government would go for encouraging people to join militias? Anyone? Anyone?


34 posted on 02/22/2014 11:04:24 AM PST by lcms rev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

And the Battle of Athens.


35 posted on 02/22/2014 11:06:18 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: lcms rev

“Joe-Bob’s Fundamentalist anti-demonRat Militia”

That’s really scary.

Better it should be called “Joe-Bob’s Fuzzy Bunny Militia”.

Surely, nobody could object to that, right?


36 posted on 02/22/2014 11:08:50 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

The language used on this gun grabbers dream makes absolutely no sense. Why would anyone include in the Bill of Rights an amendment that states the military has a right to bear arms. What government in the thousands of years of recorded history has disarmed its own military. I say military because that is what the liberals mean by militia. I would have more respect for this old coot if he just said that all civilians cannot posses arms, that would be more honest.


37 posted on 02/22/2014 11:09:56 AM PST by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Communist sympathizers want to disarm the populace because they fear the same thing Yamamoto did...

Yamamoto, “I would never invade the United States, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass”


38 posted on 02/22/2014 11:10:20 AM PST by Bobalu (Happiness is a fast ISR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard
It would clarify the amendment a lot more to remove everything to the left of the commas.

That one I could get behind.

39 posted on 02/22/2014 11:15:18 AM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.

Only if the following language is also added: All non-incarcerated males over sixteen years of age, and all similarly qualified women who so choose, are automatically considered to be part of and serving in the unorganized but well regulated militia.

Well regulated means that the rules say you belong. Did I overlook anything?

40 posted on 02/22/2014 11:15:47 AM PST by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed & water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

Sorry, Justice Stevens. You lose. Thanks for playing. Your suggested change to the 2A effectively does nothing. Why? Because “militia” is not defined in the Constitution. So guess who gets to define it? Not SCOTUS. That power is reserved to the States and the People.


41 posted on 02/22/2014 11:19:59 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon
The militia was the general citizenry, but organized by a local officer in times of need.

The added words would not change the original expectation, but it would give today's liberals more fodder for reinterpreting the amendment.

Where Stevens' idea fails is where those "serving" in the militia will get their arms, if they are not allowed to keep them when not formally organized. Is he suggesting that each locality keep a public armory where the citizens go to get their arms when called up to serve?

-PJ

42 posted on 02/22/2014 11:20:34 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

The only ‘changing times’ is that our courts no longer support our constitution.


43 posted on 02/22/2014 11:21:58 AM PST by CodeToad (Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard

It would clarify the amendment a lot more to remove everything to the left of the commas.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
But that would be ‘amending the amendment’ even though it is for good. <: <: <:

Like
The judge said the lawyer was crazy.
throw in a comma or two
The judge, said the lawyer, was crazy.

A comma here and a comma there and pretty soon you have a whole new meaning of the same words.


44 posted on 02/22/2014 11:23:27 AM PST by xrmusn (6/98 --When you have them by the short hairs, the minds and hearts soon follow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
"And the Battle of Athens. (iirc,1946)"
precisely...scares any/all the Establishment
Marxists in power or out..including GOP/e.

45 posted on 02/22/2014 11:24:35 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun..0'Caligula / 0'Reid / 0'Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: xrmusn; Hardastarboard; All

Also just wonder how much ink this would have gotten had he AGREED with US????

I know that is a redundant question......


46 posted on 02/22/2014 11:26:37 AM PST by xrmusn (6/98 --When you have them by the short hairs, the minds and hearts soon follow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon
The man's an idiot. His edit essentially renders the 2nd down to: "Only government employees may be armed." And of course, that has nothing to do with "rights", and besides, the federal government's few powers are already enumerated in the body of the Constitution.

He should be ashamed.

47 posted on 02/22/2014 11:29:51 AM PST by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gusty
The language used on this gun grabbers dream makes absolutely no sense.

Making sense is never a liberals strong point...

48 posted on 02/22/2014 11:30:56 AM PST by Popman ("Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God" - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee

bttt


49 posted on 02/22/2014 11:33:59 AM PST by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

No they don’t. It seems that the momentum is usually with those pushing against the foundation, rather than those trying to maintain the foundation in place. Just think of all the “progress” we’ve made in the last few decades, or even since the advent of this administration. It’s more diffucult for us conservatives because we’re trying to conserve, to maintain, to hold in place, while they’re always trying to push us (push us right off the edge of the cliff).


50 posted on 02/22/2014 11:36:10 AM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson