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 ...
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.
So what he's really saying is that Fort Hood soldiers shouldn't be captive in a gun free zone. /sarc/
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.
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.
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.
Burn in Hell, Stevens, you tyrant. We will not comply.
Ministry of Flipping Fingers!!!
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.
“All citizens of the United States are hereby automatically serving in the militia,” by order of Driftless H. American.
The 2nd amendment is just fine.
He argues those five words need to be inserted in order for his interpretation to prevail - 2dA applies only to members of organized militia.
It is therefore logical to conclude that since those five words are not now included there is no basis at all for his interpretation.
Well, you know what I mean...
A Well Regulated Militia?
Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an "AMENDMENT". No "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.
In this Light:
"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." What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to "amended"?
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA". The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. "(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)
What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States?
First understand that the word "militia" was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the "Militia" was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word "militia" as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of "Militia" that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend "People" today:
"Militia" in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power:
"To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress:
"To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Any "patriot" out there still want to be called a member of the "MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution?
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" The only way the States would accept the "MILITIA" as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED". The States realized that "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" required that the "MILITIA" as originally created in the Constitution be "WELL REGULATED" by a "restrictive clause." How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED"? By demanding that "restrictive clause two" better know as the "Second Amendment" be added to the original Constitution providing:
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The States knew that "PEOPLE" with "ARMS" would "WELL REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA"!
Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth:
"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."
For those still overcome by propaganda:
The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."
The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
How unusual for our Founders to have insisted on a Bill of Rights which would have prevented the very Revolution for which they risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
What utter nonsense.
That made me pretty G-damn mad to see him contrive to re-write history and intent with “5”, only five, peculiar words of his Fascistic and Globalist elites...
Fkr...
Agreed, mabarker1; KUDOS, VENDOME!
One change to your fantastic rant...”If your skull was a vessel,” I’d use it as a chamber pot ‘cause it’s full of SHIT!
As I am sovereign, my five words of change are as follows; I am my households’ Militia.
Molon Labe...
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
He’s already retired from the USSC, thankfully.
We had the voice of one and a Revolution created a New and Free Country! That voice was a King which will not be tolerated. The Constitution shall not be tampered with in it’s original form. England calls you Stevens!
Tyrant or Black Robbed Bozo? You decide.
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.