Are you Glad This old Focker ain't in power any more!

[downtownv]

Former Member of the Supreme Court Wants to Add These Five Words to the Second Amendment
Feb. 21, 2014 7:00pm Jason Howerton

Pro-gun advocates will likely be relieved that John Paul Stevens, 93, is now retired and no longer serving as a member of the Supreme Court. In his upcoming book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” he argues for a slight change to the Second Amendment that would fundamentally alter its meaning.

As written by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution, the Second Amendment reads:

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.

Stevens argues that the authors of the Second Amendment were mostly concerned about being oppressed by a national standing army, not so much about the right to self-defense.

So in order to reflect the changing times, he says, the Second Amendment should be altered to add five key words:

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,” Stevens writes in his defense of the change.

Stevens retired in 2010 after serving on the nation’s highest court for 35 years.

The odds of his crusade to transform the Second Amendment has little chance of even receiving serious consideration as Americans have rejected gun control efforts at the state and federal levels.

[b4uqzme]

f him

And I'm growing very weary of those who say the Constitution and Bill of Rights are outdated. If principled behavior is out of date, then we're all damned.

[yqtszhj]

Stevens argues that the authors of the Second Amendment were mostly concerned about being oppressed by a national standing army, not so much about the right to self-defense.

And we don't have to worry about that today?????

So in order to reflect the changing times, he says, the Second Amendment should be altered to add five key words:

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.

He needs to read the dictionary on what a militia is. I've posted this before:

mi·li·tia [mi-lish-uh]
noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

[rjt123]

Are you Glad This old Focker ain't in power any more!

f him

...and the Donkey he rode in on.

[ltxi]

Well...Stevens does have his valid view and is entitled to his opinion. Just like the rest of us. Calling him names 'cause of disagreement is just juvenile wrong.

[Longitude Zero]

Well...Stevens does have his valid view and is entitled to his opinion. Just like the rest of us. Calling him names 'cause of disagreement is just juvenile wrong.

I feel the change is NOT NEEDED and his world view has always been the antithesis of Conservative views. IMHO his opinion is just that an opinion not based upon facts or reality.

[JERRY]

that SOB has been stealing oxygen for almost a century.

[muggsy]

Well...Stevens does have his valid view and is entitled to his opinion. Just like the rest of us. Calling him names 'cause of disagreement is just juvenile wrong.

Stevens view isn't valid if you are familiar with the writings of our founding fathers. Our founding fathers were concerned with self defense, and with enemies both foreign and domestic. There are hundreds of quotes to prove that point. The thing that concerned the founding fathers the most was the tyranny of power within our own government. The armed citizen is one of the checks and balances to that power written into our constitution.

[chrish]

Stevens is a moron. He couldn't argue his way out of the wet paper bag he's created with that statement. Let's break it down. According to him, the founding fathers were MORE concerned about oppression from a standing army. I'll give him that, exactly, no question IMO about that. But there are plenty of writings from the founding fathers about self defense as well. But for this news item, let's go w/ that. More of an issue w/ a standing army. Cool. Done.

Per his comment, he suggests amending the Constitution to read 'while serving in the militia'. Cool. I'll go for that too. But. And here's the big Butt you idiot Mr. Stevens. Are you suggesting serving in the militia that is the national guard? The US Army/Navy/Marines/AirForce? Both, yes BOTH, of those are standing armies maintained by the government, even the national guard. They are beholden to the federal government and state government and therefore just as much a standing military force as the official standing military. Which are the very types of organizations that Stevens says was the point of the 2A.

So, amend away and now you can just allow U.S. citizens to establish our own militias, in the face of standing military organizations run by the governments. Sweet. What we wanted all along.

How is it different to fear your federal standing military as opposed to a state run, federally controlled standing military? Answer. None.

He's an idiot. Makes no logical sense whatsoever. Glad to see one of our finest legal minds seems to have the I.Q. of a dirt clod.