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

Skip to comments.

Justice Stevens: The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment
Washington Post ^ | April 11, 2014 | By John Paul Stevens

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: alreadyposted; banglist; guns; johnpaulstevens; scotus; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last

1 posted on 04/11/2014 2:49:57 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The amendment is fine. This tyrant is what needs to be fixed.


2 posted on 04/11/2014 2:51:17 PM PDT by Psalm 144 (FIGHT! FIGHT! SEVERE CONSERVATIVE AND THE WILD RIGHT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Dear Justice Stevens, you have been entrusted to interpret the Constitution, not amend it. The Second Amendment is just fine the way it stands.
3 posted on 04/11/2014 2:51:55 PM PDT by Amagi (Lenin: "Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Who is the ‘militia?”

That has already been answered and I am sure the WP will not be happy about the answer.


4 posted on 04/11/2014 2:52:25 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
John Paul Stevens served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. This essay is excerpted from his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”
5 posted on 04/11/2014 2:52:33 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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.


6 posted on 04/11/2014 2:53:19 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

You can GFY.

There is no way you will get the necessary votes...

Faggot


7 posted on 04/11/2014 2:54:13 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

FreepU John Paul Stevens!! We have not yet begun to fight!!


8 posted on 04/11/2014 2:55:03 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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?


9 posted on 04/11/2014 2:55:37 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart (How's that 'lesser evil' workin' out for ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
and tyrants.”


10 posted on 04/11/2014 2:56:24 PM PDT by InsidiousMongo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

here’s five words for that old domestic enemy:

Get Out Of America Now


11 posted on 04/11/2014 2:56:27 PM PDT by kingattax (America needs more real Americans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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.


12 posted on 04/11/2014 2:57:08 PM PDT by mistfree (It's the media stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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.”


13 posted on 04/11/2014 2:58:48 PM PDT by mistfree (It's the media stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
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.

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.

14 posted on 04/11/2014 2:59:19 PM PDT by NorthMountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
This implies that individuals who are not members of a militia, as organized and controlled by the state, have no right to keep and bear arms.

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

15 posted on 04/11/2014 2:59:44 PM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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.


16 posted on 04/11/2014 3:01:02 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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.

Frenchy chump.


17 posted on 04/11/2014 3:01:09 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
The standing army was sometimes called the militia back then. So it says in effect, "Since we have to have a standing army, the right of the people to own weapons will not be infringed."

Anyway, that's how I see it.

18 posted on 04/11/2014 3:01:14 PM PDT by TangoLimaSierra (To win the country back, we need to be as mean as the libs say we are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
NO!
19 posted on 04/11/2014 3:01:26 PM PDT by mabarker1 (Please, Somebody Impeach the kenyan!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Why waste time modifying it?

Just throw the Bill Of Rights away like you want to, stevens.


20 posted on 04/11/2014 3:01:38 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Fight Tapinophobia in all its forms! Do not submit to arduus privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mistfree

Much better! And you weren’t even on the Supreme Court!


21 posted on 04/11/2014 3:01:59 PM PDT by the_Watchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Stevens does not know what he's talking about. He needs to read the Federalist Papers, specifically Federalist #46 by James Madison:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

22 posted on 04/11/2014 3:02:05 PM PDT by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

I would like to point out to “Justice” Stevens that he decries the slaughter by guns in PRIVATE hands.
I strongly resent his idiotic inclusion of ME and those millions of us who have guns held in LEGAL HANDS.
For a Supreme Court Justice, I’m angry that he publicly shows his own bigotry when he accuses ALL gun owners of being complicit with the horrendous deeds of an evil few.
If he is so concerned with the misdeed of an evil few, when will he call for the elimination of the slaughter on our highways by the “FEW” drunks by outlawing the private ownership of deadly, pain causing AUTOMOBILES?
I believe that more deaths are caused by autos than by guns.


23 posted on 04/11/2014 3:02:06 PM PDT by CaptainAmiigaf (NY TIMES: We print the news as it fits our views.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

One of the reasons a constitutional convention worries me is that it could be hijacked by the left for their agenda and things like this are just as likely as, say, a balanced budget amendment. Then there’s the wildcard of men like Soros who can bribe attendees at $10 million apiece for their votes. We don’t have enough principled men to resist that kind of money.

The left has successfully hijacked almost every conservative venue. The Annenberg Foundation, for example. Walter Annenberg was as conservative as they come but look at what it finances today.


24 posted on 04/11/2014 3:02:28 PM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Here’s is my five word response:

Justice Stevens, go f*** yourself.

L


25 posted on 04/11/2014 3:05:41 PM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome; Chode; SgtBob
I'll bet You 2 have a similar response...

Much more eloquent than if I had done it;)

Vendome, Kudos to You!

26 posted on 04/11/2014 3:06:11 PM PDT by mabarker1 (Please, Somebody Impeach the kenyan!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

There’s no fool like an old fool.


27 posted on 04/11/2014 3:07:26 PM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Justice Stevens, let me say this as politely as I can. Fuck you. Fuck you and every one of your liberal cronies. Not the most eloquent response that I can think of, but sometimes crass language is exactly what is called for.


28 posted on 04/11/2014 3:09:52 PM PDT by gop4lyf (Are we no longer in that awkward time? Or is it still too early?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Check the state Constitutions written contemporaneously with the Federal Constitution, and some quite recently. They are almost universal in their reference to citizens, not to their own state militias.

Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1819, art. I, § 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling changed 1901).

Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1912).

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).

Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Art. I, § 20 (enacted 1987).

Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Art. I, § 32 (enacted 1851, art. I, § 32).

Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Bill of Rights, § 4 (enacted 1859, art. I, § 4).

Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ... Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. § 1 (enacted 1891). 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.

Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. Art. I, § 16 (enacted 1987, after a collective-rights interpretation of the original provision). 1819: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned." Art. I, § 16.

Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1963).

Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Art. III, § 12 (enacted 1890, art. 3, § 12). 1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23.

Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. Art. II, § 12 (enacted 1889).

Nevada: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. Art. I, § 11(1) (enacted 1982).

Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1907).

Oregon: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.] Art. I, § 27 (enacted 1857, art. I, § 28).

South Dakota: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. Art. VI, § 24 (enacted 1889).

Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876). 1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power." Declaration of Rights, cl. 14. 1845: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defence of himself or the State." Art. I, § 13. 1868: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." Art. I, § 13.

Utah: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1984). 1896: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law."

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

West Virginia: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. Art. III, § 22 (enacted 1986).

Wisconsin: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Art. I, § 25 (enacted 1998).

Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21). 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1842).

29 posted on 04/11/2014 3:09:57 PM PDT by Teacher317 (We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
I have better words to add: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when used to destroy tyranny and tyrannical bastards shall not be infringed.”
30 posted on 04/11/2014 3:10:30 PM PDT by Fledermaus (I support Joe Carr in the TN GOP Primary against Lamar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

He would fix the 2A in the same manner that one fixes a dog.


31 posted on 04/11/2014 3:12:01 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Those are fighting words.


32 posted on 04/11/2014 3:13:20 PM PDT by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
There is no way you will get the necessary votes...

There is no way they would have gotten ratification to start with. Stevens' five words would have removed a preexisting right of the colonists to bear arms.

It is unfortunate the 2dA is viewed as a part of the "Bill of Rights" because it confers no right at all. It does, however, preserve a right that existed prior to ratification and damn few were about to give that up.

33 posted on 04/11/2014 3:15:03 PM PDT by frog in a pot (We are all "frogs in a pot" now. How and when will we real Americans jump out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
I trust the founding fathers and their wisdom rather than a credentialed black-robed tyrant.

Go soak your head,Stevens. Or better yet, go emigrate to Cuba.

34 posted on 04/11/2014 3:18:36 PM PDT by bkopto (Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Stevens, you are an idiot.


35 posted on 04/11/2014 3:21:21 PM PDT by mulligan (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

All that could be encapsulated by simply saying “You...LAWYER...you!!!” ;) ;)


36 posted on 04/11/2014 3:22:54 PM PDT by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mabarker1
i got two words for that FPOS and they aren't happy birthday...

37 posted on 04/11/2014 3:22:56 PM PDT by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain
Yeah Just Us Stevens, because guns in government hands have never slaughtered anyone...rigggght.
38 posted on 04/11/2014 3:24:26 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad and lived with his parents .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Dear Justice Stevens. Here are five words for you.

YOU ARE A FREAKING BOOB!

39 posted on 04/11/2014 3:24:45 PM PDT by prisoner6 (I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered! I AM A FREE MAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Dear Mister Stevens,

You are no longer a Justice.

Thank the Lord.

Love,

Laz

40 posted on 04/11/2014 3:25:00 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Gosh, the retired old liberal says he knows BETTER than the Founding fathers. Ain’t that somethin’?

Well, J.P., you couldn’t destroy the Constitution while you were sitting in your black robe on the SCOTUS, though you tried mightily....and we won’t let you do it now.


41 posted on 04/11/2014 3:25:16 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
. . and bear Arms when serving in the Militia

So what he's really saying is that Fort Hood soldiers shouldn't be captive in a gun free zone. /sarc/

42 posted on 04/11/2014 3:25:30 PM PDT by aimhigh (John 14:21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Justice Stevens is a big part of why we are in such a mees right now. And, dear justices, your job and authority is NOT to interpret the Constitution. It is to evaluate the Constitutionality of cases brought before you.


43 posted on 04/11/2014 3:26:08 PM PDT by Thom Pain (If you like your country you can keep it. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Justice Stevens is a big part of why we are in such a mees right now. And, dear justices, your job and authority is NOT to interpret the Constitution. It is to evaluate the Constitutionality of cases brought before you.


44 posted on 04/11/2014 3:26:26 PM PDT by Thom Pain (If you like your country you can keep it. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
I can’t wait for your funeral.

Be careful what you ask for. A Stevens funeral within the next three years will mean a 5-4 court overturning favorable decisions going back over 20 years. Should Hillary win in 2016, the risk will be extended for another 4 or 8 years.

45 posted on 04/11/2014 3:27:31 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia

Burn in Hell, Stevens, you tyrant. We will not comply.

46 posted on 04/11/2014 3:29:14 PM PDT by backwoods-engineer (Blog: www.BackwoodsEngineer.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chode

Ministry of Flipping Fingers!!!


47 posted on 04/11/2014 3:29:43 PM PDT by mabarker1 (Please, Somebody Impeach the kenyan!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

OK I propose we pressure our State government to declare all citizens who are eligible under state law to own fire arms to be part of the state militia. That includes all weapons the present National Guard are allowed to have. Sorry blue states.


48 posted on 04/11/2014 3:30:25 PM PDT by Starstruck (If my reply offends, you probably don't understand sarcasm or criticism...or do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“All citizens of the United States are hereby automatically serving in the militia,” by order of Driftless H. American.


49 posted on 04/11/2014 3:31:34 PM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The 2nd amendment is just fine.


50 posted on 04/11/2014 3:32:56 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 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