Skip to comments.Former Member of the Supreme Court Wants to Add These Five Words to the Second Amendment
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 nations 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 ...
Until they are dead.
What’s the meaning of “militia?”
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.
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!!
The Libs may want to be careful about tampering with the Constitution. It can cut both ways...
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
Show me in the 1st any or even a couple of the ‘claims’ they make as gospel.
Slaughter is what happens when the people aren't armed. For reference, look up various Communist regimes of the 20th century.
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.
Well as long as we’re wishing, I would like to add five inches to my........
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.
And not a moment too soon.
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.
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.
He’ll be worm food soon; maybe the worms will barf.
> 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.
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?
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.
Stevens can blow it out his senile, old...!!!
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.
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.
When only the government and its agents can possess/use firearms, you have, by definition, a police state. The issue really is that simple.
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.
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.
Tell that to the folks at the Battle of Wyoming...way back when...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.
The greatest slaughters occur when guns are only in the hands of government.
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.
It would clarify the amendment a lot more to remove everything to the left of the commas.
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?
And the Battle of Athens.
Joe-Bobs 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?
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.
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”
That one I could get behind.
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?
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.
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?
The only ‘changing times’ is that our courts no longer support our constitution.
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. <: <: <:
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.
Also just wonder how much ink this would have gotten had he AGREED with US????
I know that is a redundant question......
He should be ashamed.
Making sense is never a liberals strong point...
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).