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...
Faggot
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?
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.
Frenchy chump.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
Why waste time modifying it?
Just throw the Bill Of Rights away like you want to, stevens.
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.
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.
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.