Skip to comments.Constitution Check: Does the Second Amendment need to be amended?
Posted on 04/15/2014 9:29:18 PM PDT by ForYourChildren
Constitution Check: Does the Second Amendment need to be amended?
THE STATEMENT AT ISSUE: As a result of [Supreme Court] rulings, 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 ti unambiguously conform to the original intent of the 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.
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in an opinion column posted online April 11 by The Washington Post. It is excerpted from his new book, ..the article was republished in The Post on April 13.
WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND There is an old saying about the Constitution that, like a lot of old sayings, is at least partly an exaggeration: The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. However, that is very close to the truth about the Second Amendment.
From its inclusion in the Constitution in 1791 until 2008, it was not understood to give Americans a personal right to have a gun. And then it changed, in a profound way.
Prior to 2008, there was a public conversation often, in academic writings funded by the National Rifle Association about whether the Amendment should go beyond protecting the arming of state militias, to allow Americans to arm themselves for personal use....
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
From its inclusion in the Constitution in 1791 until 2008, it was not understood to give Americans a personal right to have a gun.
Yes, take out the term “well regulated militia”
Hey .. newyahhoo.com ... y’know like, the new KJV, or the neo (new) orthodox, or the new ______________ (fill in the blank)
FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!
That wording has been bastardized for a long time. I understand, that wording was only included to placate members that did not want the Federal government to have a standing army. They believed militias should be responsible for the safety of the country. I have to believe they would have been even more alarmed at the rate of Federal law enforcement.
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.)
Go ahead and try mother ****ers. See what happens when you go down that road.
The Bill of Rights doesn’t “give” rights; it guarantees them.
The 2A needs to state that the right of any individual to bear whatever arms said individual sees fit is a God-given right and cannot be taken away or infringed upon in the slightest by any state, local, or federal government entity. Ever.
I recommend that we delete “A well-regulated militia...” and insert in its place “A well-armed and free citizenry...”
When I saw the Yahoo source, I knew where this would go.
Doesn’t matter. The McDonald vs Chicago decision is now law and gave individuals 2nd amendment rights. Perpich vs Department of Defense in 1990 (before 2008) indicated states have a organized militia (National Guard) which is subject to Federal callup and an unorganized militia. This unorganized militia would be covered by the 2nd Amendment too.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Before the Civil War, the SCOTUS ruled, in Dred Scott VS Stanford, that if negros were given the same rights as whites, one of those right would be the “RIGHT TO KEEP AND CARRY ARMS WHEREVER THEY WENT.”
After the Civil War, and the slaves were freed, then the SCOTUS discovered that it only meant the “militia”. Yeah, that’s what it was! Can’t have blacks running around with guns shooting up klansmen now can you?
They are technically right: the Bill of Rights does not confer rights, it guarantees them — but the assumption that they push, that it gives rights, is very, very dangerous; for if it gives the right, it can be amended to remove the right.
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
nope. intent is clear.
""Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)"
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.... 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." (The Federalist, No. 46)
Both of the following quotes are from George Mason - the man who wrote the Second Amendment:
I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776
From Sam Adams:
And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions. Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Richard Henry Lee (Anti-Federalist)
A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle. Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788
At a time, when our lordly masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprivation of American freedom, it seems highly necessary that something should be done to avert the stroke, and maintain the liberty, which we have derived from our ancestors. But the manner of doing it, to answer the purpose effectually, is the point in question. That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment, to use arms in defence of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion."
(You could just replace the words "Great Britain" with "Washington DC" if you feel the need to update anything.)