Read the 2nd amendment as intended.
A well regulated Internet, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Modems shall not be infringed.”
Or perhaps ...
A well regulated Carpentry, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear hammers shall not be infringed.”
How many people are actually favoring this read?
A well regulated Internet, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Modems when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
I like it the way it was ratified.
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.
And now we have yet another example of how prescient the Founding Fathers were...
It’s true that the second amendment is poorly written, but any student of that historical period should intuitively realize what they were driving at. Guns were a part of everyday life, especially in rural areas. The idea was that every man would keep his everyday arms in good working condition, so that they could be used not only for hunting and defense, but also when he acted as a member of the militia. I truly believe that Stevens’ interpretation, that guns were to be carried only as part of a militia, would have made our Founders keel over in astonishment.
That old Nazi turd Stevens should have been run through Nuremburg and properly disposed of.
and that is the reason why our forefathers are great men.
Stevens is not either of these
Completely negates the meaning.
An uncommon, but very sensible, interpretation of RKBA:
The founding fathers wanted the population at large to handle national defense. They disliked the notion of a standing army, but recognized its necessity. “A well regulated militia being necessary the the security of a free state...”: to wit, “we realize a standing army is necessary”. That explanation of having a standing army does not obviate the need & right of an armed populace. “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”: to wit, “just because we have a standing army doesn’t mean the population at large may be disarmed to any degree.”
Upshot: just because you’re not in the “organized militia” doesn’t mean the government can limit your personal arsenal.
And thus the proposed change completely reverses the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment: replacing “right to arms even if not in the standing army” to “right to arms ONLY if in the standing army” (which is a preposterous ‘right’: soldiers are under orders to the arms they do, or do not, have). There is no point of enumerating a right if it may only be exercised under limited government-approved and -defined conditions.
This statement in and of itself made by Justice Stevens, is and should be grounds enough to IMPEACH HIS STUPID ASS, Where is Congress?? When a Supreme Court Justice OPENLY defies the Constitution as written, should he be removed?? Once again Where is Congress?? why do we have them if they REFUSE to do their Job as defined in the Constitution?? Where is Congress??