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.