Posted on 02/22/2014 7:37:33 PM PST by Altura Ct.
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has released a new book focused, in part, on "improving" the Constitution through amending the Second Amendment--by making the rights protected therein applicable only to a militia instead of the citizenry at large.
Stevens' book is titled Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.
As written, the text of the Second Amendment is: "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."
According to Bloomberg Businessweek, Stevens believes recent court decisions--notably District of Columbia v Heller (2008) and McDonald v Chicago (2010)--placed too much emphasis on individual rights, rather than on what he believes was the Founding Fathers' primary goal: namely, to answer "the threat that a national standing army posed to the sovereignty of the states."
His solution is to amend the text of the Second Amendment so that it reads: "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."
In other words, the protection of the right becomes collective and is only protected for those serving in the militia.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I actually was not sure he is of the living. There is a high school named for him in of all places San Antonio, TX. Ditto Sandra Day O’Connor. Two of our failed Republican appointees to the bench
More proof that libs have no clue on the founding of the country, or if they do, they despise it.
People like him have been a curse on this nation.
Good riddance to that cadaver.
Lunatic
It was written in the manner it was with the Declaration of Independence as its imprimature.
OBVIOUSLY he has SOME sort of dementia, thinking that HIS ideas of changing our Constitution would be good.
Uh...No. Your service is completed, sir. Go in peace, and shut-yer-pie-hole.
The belief that the Second Amendment was in response to the perceived danger a standing army would present to states’ sovereignty is already a reality. WE have that standing army, sir.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
At least he threw out his first draft: “The people must be dis-armed so that they may be more thoroughly enslaved by the all-powerful State.”
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts
See what happens when you spend your life living a lie? What a POS. Is it wrong to wish painful cancer on evil people?
US law defines all persons not in the National Guard to be members of the militia.
So he would transform it from an individual right to a state right. Ooh, the nat’l guard gets to have weapons.
The idea and reasoning is lame and without merit. It is in fact, and obvious rationalization for a power grab.
Problem is (besides the proposal as I’m all for the individual right) without explicitly denying the Federal government the right of regulation and oversight, it’s useless.
The potential upside is an arms race between the 50 states. That be cool.
There are schools named after these idiots?? Well, we have schools named after our moronic leader in the White Hut so this doesn’t surprise me..
At least he is honest enough to admit that to get his way the Constitution would have to be amended. The Michael Moores and Sarah Bradys don’t.
I wish he was, but we should wait for him to die when a republican(tea party) is President to nominate a replacement.
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.
