Skip to comments.Justice Stevens: The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment
Posted on 04/11/2014 2:49:57 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
--snip-- As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were well regulated, has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read: 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. Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment. The amendment certainly would not silence the powerful voice of the gun lobby; it would merely eliminate its ability to advance one mistaken argument.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The amendment is fine. This tyrant is what needs to be fixed.
Who is the ‘militia?”
That has already been answered and I am sure the WP will not be happy about the answer.
Well, Justice Stevens, you would sure like to unilaterally just put those words in yourself, like you did while you were on SCOTUS huh? That’s called judicial activism. It’s also called unconstitutional. The Constitution, not Justice Stevens, lays out how to amend the Constitution.
You can GFY.
There is no way you will get the necessary votes...
FreepU John Paul Stevens!! We have not yet begun to fight!!
Anyone want to ask this dumbass if an unarmed militia is original intent? Because why would you need a constitutional ammendment to arm your freaking army? Doesnt the entire concept of an armed force require...I dunno...ARMS?
I have a better idea for amending amendments, how about adding one based on Thomas Jefferson’s quote. Talk about freedom and liberty forever.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots
here’s five words for that old domestic enemy:
Get Out Of America Now
Instead of adding 5 words that the founders never intended, how about we delete four words? Delete: “A well regulated militia” Now it becomes Being necessary for a free State, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
For correctness let me restate the original correctly. being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Wow ... so the patriots who would defend life and liberty against criminals and tyrants merely make "emotional claims" ... but the tyrants and criminals who dislike armed citizens have "intelligent debate".
Nice use of propaganda there, Stevens ... too bad some of us are capable of reading ... and thinking ... and can see through your crap.
The problem with this is not that it unfairly limits the right, but that it dangerously restricts the militia.
But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia; that is, as I understand it, particular corps or bodies of young men, and of men who have but little to do at home, particularly armed and disciplined in some measure, at the public expence, and always ready to take the field. These corps, not much unlike regular troops, will ever produce an inattention to the general militia; and the consequence has ever been, and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenceless; whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.The Federalist Farmer
So, in the 220 or so year existence of the US Constitution, and 220 years of private gun ownership, no one knew that the second amendment was not being interpreted as intended until John Paul Stevens came along?
It’s amazing how these leftist nutcases can claim with a straight face that rights that have been exercised by citizens since the founding really weren’t what the founders intended.
That was also not the original intent. You dishonest SOB.
Farmers and frontiersmen were called upon by Congress and Mr. Washington to shoot anything, irregardless of rank, that wore red.
You are a lying traitor.
I can’t wait for your funeral.
How dare you promulgate a bald faced lie!!!
You’re offspring be damned.
Can’t have any more of your blood damaging the gene pool.
You are lower than a grave diggers boots and now demonstrably an intellectual sieve.
If your skull were a vessel, only a fool would depend on it as it leaks....No spurts stupidity....wait .....Sprays liquified effluence with no regard for where it lands or the infectious disease your thoughts spread.
You are vile and putrid slime.....
No one who loves their personal freedom should want to associate with your blithering idiocy.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
Why waste time modifying it?
Just throw the Bill Of Rights away like you want to, stevens.