Posted on 04/11/2014 2:49:57 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
--snip-- As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, 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 it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its 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.”
Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands. Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment. The amendment certainly would not silence the powerful voice of the gun lobby; it would merely eliminate its ability to advance one mistaken argument.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Somebody needs to tell this old commie fag that the Second Amendment DOES NOT NEED TO BE “FIXED.” Americans know why it was written the way it is. It was written in its present form to make government bureaucrats like Stevens and his commie ‘RAT pals squirm. For the last time, the Bill or Rights was written for the American people. It was not written to guarantee the government the right to have a National Guard.
OK if:
It also clearly states that all citizens are members of the militia and thus REQUIRED to keep and bear arms (like the Swiss) so as for the federal govt to provide training (replace the word regulate, which back then meant trained)
I have a response for Stevens but its way too potty mouth for FR. :-)
They refuse to go back to the owners manual (Federalist, Anti-Federalist Papers) to read what the founders meant.
Yea well John Paul Stevens can go spoon a goose. He is
a great example why we need a second amendment in the first
place.
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior to a maximum of 12 years.
This gives some continuity while assuring that black robed totalitarian philosopher kings either don't develop, or are limited in the harm they do. Other phrases could be even better and should be given due consideration.
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.
Yes indeed but the nonsense has a silver lining in the form of facts.
Fact : Justice Stevens agrees the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
Perhaps even more important.
Fact : Justice Stevens agrees the 2nd Amendment does not require a citizen to be in a militia in order to exercise his 2nd Amendment right.
That old Nazi turd Stevens should have been run through Nuremburg and properly disposed of.
LOL!
I don't think that is necessarily true. Anti-gunners would just claim that the Constitution was not a suicide pact and it is obvious that our Founders never intended for the people to have "assault weapons" or weapons of war. In fact, they have already done this.
There's something quite ludicrous about locales where an otherwise legal rifle can be made illegal due to the presence of a bayonet lug. Not a bayonet; just the little piece of metal that allows one to attach a bayonet.
It's also quite ludicrous that we have laws favoring the disabled requiring businesses, sometimes at great expense, to install wheel chair ramps. Yet at the same time we outlaw pistol grips on rifles because they would allow one-armed operation.
and that is the reason why our forefathers are great men.
Stevens is not either of these
The devil's greatest accomplishment is convincing people he doesn't exist.
Those that are calling for a Constitutional Convention have a few surprises waiting for them. A Constitutional Convention will result in further restricting our rights and freedoms. Best to leave it alone, it's worked for 200+ years.
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??
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.