Posted on 04/11/2014 2:49:57 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The reason why Stevens wants to add those 5 words to the second amendment is because HE KNOWS in his heart that without those words, the second amendment means something DIFFERENT from what he intends to change.
The actual text the term “well regulated militia” did not refer to government regulations as progressives often claim. How do we know this is the case? We know for a fact that this is the case because the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to affirm the rights of CITIZENS, not restrict or regulate them.
We also know for a fact that the Framers intended to restrict government rather than the citizens.
When the Bill of Rights was penned the term “well regulated militia” meant that given it is assumed that all able-bodied adult males within the citizenry would automatically become the militia, since there was no standing professional army, those citizens would be expected to maintain their shooting skills and keep their firearms in good working condition. “Regulated,” thus, meant “regular,” or “well disciplined,” or “regularly kept in good working condition.”
If the citizens would serve as the army or “militia,” then they had to take great care in regularly exercising their shooting skills and in keeping their firearms in regular working condition, or else the nation could not depend on the citizens to fight if it came under attack. The militia, or all able-bodied male adults, had to be ready to take up their arms at the drop of a hat in the event of a surprise attack, and to use their firearms quickly and accurately.
And perhaps one of the most crucial statements made by the Framers is that of Alexander Hamilton, who not only differentiated between a professional, standing army and a people’s militia but further insisted that this people’s militia must be able to match a standing army:
“...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . .”
How, exactly, did such a people’s militia remain able to match skill for skill a massive standing army? By being well regulated, that is, well-trained, disciplined, and knowledgeable of the tactics of warfare.
*THAT* is what liberal justices REFUSE to consider when they make their decisions.
But Stevens betrays his knowledge ( meaning he already knows the intent ). That is why he wants to CHANGE the original intent by adding those 5 words.
ping
Tyrant.
There, fixed it. (p.s., already posted)A well regulated Militia,being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Armswhen serving in the Militiashall not be infringed.
It has long been my belief that the “militia phrase” in the Second Amendment is not a limitation on who should bear arms but rather a *MANDATE* that all able bodied citizens *MUST* bear arms and be ready to use them in a militia action.
Military style weapons are therefore not something to be banned but rather encouraged.
What a moron!
EDIT TO ADD: Therefore, I am GLAD that he is not in the SCOTUS anymore. He could have done more damage if never retired.
Now, if only Ginsburg could do us the favor ( but after 2016 please ).
I am my households’ Militia. Molon Labe... 100%
Justice Stevens, a quick question: Are you currently a British subject?
No?
Then shut up.
have turned a few liberal friends to the honesty of the language used in Bill of Rights and they have conceded all 10 are inviolable and “Shall not be Infringed”.
I put the final nail in the top of it all by demonstrating the exactness of the language and “The Right of the People” was used carefully and judicially. In particular, for the first two amendments.
If they hold that that the “The Right of the People”, in the 1st amendment, is dear to them and that they are free to associate with anyone they wish, speak their mind to the point of turrets and not live in fear or intimidation of a state sanctioned/sponsored/supported religion then how do they propose to ensure what God has said is the right of a free man?
Peace is a contractual obligation between parties and has its intendancies of terms and conditions, which define how we shall act toward each other. Responsibilities as it were.
Unfortunately, The Bill of Rights doesn’t come with penalties for violating the whole of it or any part. So how do you enforce it?
By force. For whatever you think of Barrack he is correct that the United States Constitution is a “Charter of Negative Rights”. That is; The Constitution defines what the government may and cannot do to you. It is a charter unlike any other in the world.
Still, man seeks his own various avarice’s of power, property and control over others.
The framers knew the heart of man and sought to back up the most powerful in the world, thought, with another force that would equalize everyone’s opportunity for thought, expression and association.
The Second Amendment also declared “The Right of the People” to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Of course here is the full text, as I am not one to cherry pick but, language does have it’s meaning and effect or it does not:
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.
The framers envisioned limited and small central power but, didn’t want it backed up by an expensive and standing army. They recognized that should some outside force such as Britain ever deign to exert their power it would be necessary to call up competent men who quickly muster and if need be deliver accurate fire and repel the enemy.
So all free men were encouraged to have at their ready an arm for the defense of the nation.
We already had frontiersmen who, by virtue of necessity, were made competent to kill when hunting. Wasting time and money on a second shot were not options then and even today are ridiculous.
Still, there were cities where men did not have to walk into the wilderness for food but, if the nation were ever attacked all men that could be organized against foe and enemy would need to be competent.
To prove the point it need be looked no further than a mere 5 years after the ratification of The Constitution and The Militia Acts of 1792.
These two acts would lay the ground work for state militias and what would eventually become The National Guards in the several states.
Not desirous of a standing army but, well aware that there would likely rise a need to repel an invasion force or put down an insurrection, the President’s powers were expanded and centralized enabling the President to call immediately and direct troops to such actions as were permitted at the time.
Before the The Militia Acts of 1792 only the Congress could call and organize the Militia’s. A slow, cumbersome process that could be costly to the safety of the Peoples of the United States of America.
To further expedite the protection of the interests of the United States and its people the Congress also passed the National Conscription Act.
Here is a quick excerpt:
This act provides that “...every able-bodied white male citizen...of the age of 18 years and under the age of 45...be enrolled in the militia...Every citizen so enrolled...shall within six months thereafter, [color=#FF0000]provide himself with a good musket or forelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt”and...not less than twenty-four cartridges...”[/color]
So we have a Constitution
“Shall not be infringed ed the top
[b]Denny Crane on Gun Control
“Thank God for Guns” and Gun Control.[/b]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KvO-8IvoCI
[***]Devil Worshipin, Satanic inspired, Kommunists are all about control[***]
The use of the phrase ‘well regulated’ has a particular sense meaning to the time of the framers of the constitution. It certainly doesn’t mean ‘having the government all up in you knickers’ like it does today.
Excellent!!!
This is exactly why Stevens should not get away with twisting and lying about history. The second amendment dose not give the right for the state or the militia to bear arms. It gives the right to the people only. Lost on Stevens in being honest is that the Bill of Rights was written to protect the individual from the power of the state and not the other way around. This guy is an idiot and should never have been placed on the SCOTUS.
Senility is a terrible thing to see...
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This will make it simpler and less likely to be misinterpreted.
Why are you, and your fellow travelers doing this?
Is it to break down America?
5.56mm
When the oligarchs truly have the vote system completely in their control, they will have a Constitutional Convention and carve weapons possession out of your rights. Count on it. They have a well thought out agenda to conform you to.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, unless five Supreme Court justices suddenly decide that they can.
Five words: Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!
Clarifies pretty well.
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.