Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Change 2nd Amendment to Improve Constitution

  1. #1

    Change 2nd Amendment to Improve Constitution

    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.
    Among the many problems with Stevens' idea is the often overlooked fact that the Second Amendment did not create a right when it was ratified in 1791. Rather, the Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment to protect a portion of the "certain unalienable Rights" with which man was "endowed by [his] Creator."
    The rights protected by the Second Amendment are individual rights, as are the rights that are protected, but not created, by the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, among others.
    Former Justice Stevens: Change 2nd Amendment to Improve Constitution

    They really want to remove everything that protect people, what a shame!
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  2. #2
    I read those statement from him several months ago. John Paul Stevens is wrong. The militia is not the formal military. A militia is an ad hoc quasi-military unit put together with the intention of defending the people from a tyrannical aggressor. In the case of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, the original intention was to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

    mi·li·tia (məˈliSHə/)

    noun: militia; plural noun: militias 1.a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
    The founding father recognized that government leaders have a natural tendency to become control freaks. The purpose for our Constitution was to grant rights to the people that the government could not take away.

    Read the 2nd Amendment with that understanding and it is very clear.

    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.

    It clearly says that the right of the people to bear arms is necessary for a free state. A militia is a civilian force by definition. It may assist the formal military, but it is still a civilian force.

    Obama is also wrong about the Constitution. He has in the past referred to it as "a deeply flawed document" because it does not spell out what the government must do for the citizens. He has it backwards because the Constitution's clear intention is to protect people from presidents like him, who show no respect for the Constitution. From his perspective, the Constitution just gets in his way.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    I read those statement from him several months ago. John Paul Stevens is wrong. The militia is not the formal military. A militia is an ad hoc quasi-military unit put together with the intention of defending the people from a tyrannical aggressor. In the case of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, the original intention was to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

    The founding father recognized that government leaders have a natural tendency to become control freaks. The purpose for our Constitution was to grant rights to the people that the government could not take away.

    Read the 2nd Amendment with that understanding and it is very clear.

    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.

    It clearly says that the right of the people to bear arms is necessary for a free state. A militia is a civilian force by definition. It may assist the formal military, but it is still a civilian force.

    Obama is also wrong about the Constitution. He has in the past referred to it as "a deeply flawed document" because it does not spell out what the government must do for the citizens. He has it backwards because the Constitution's clear intention is to protect people from presidents like him, who show no respect for the Constitution. From his perspective, the Constitution just gets in his way.
    In my opinion, if one day the 2A is removed, the other amendments are going to follow the same faith. I can see why many politicians and lawmakers attack the 2A, because if they make some unpopular laws or switch to an authoritarian global government, they won't have any resistance.

    We see every day the results of this policy in Europe, when the people are under great criminality threat, or often victims from all kind of crimes. I also think that the 2A is a great dissuasion against potential crimes from other threats.

    As far as the Constitution, there have always been enemies of the Constitution since its creation, if you checked the history.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  4. #4
    The people who want to make civilian use of firearm illegal ignore all of the facts related to firearm. The more restrictive the gun laws become, the more the crime rate improved because people cannot defend themselves against criminals.

    There are three factors that lead to high murder rates with guns.

    1. Restricted use by civilians. Look at what happened to the murder rate in Chicago after 25 years of highly restrictive gun laws.

    2. The more liberal the city, the higher the murder rate using guns. This is mostly due to their hatred for firearms, but tolerance for the people who commit the most crimes. The last I heard, Los Angeles and Chicago top the list for gun murder rates per capita.

    3. The higher the percentage of illegals in a city or state, the higher the murder rate. This is mostly due to the drug trade and high murder rates within the Hispanic communities.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  5. #5
    Here is more incoherent babble from John Paul Stevens.

    Ex-Justice Stevens: Founders Did Not Want Individual Right to Arms

    The purpose of the Constitution is clear. It is focused on protecting the rights of citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical, over-reaching government, which is what we are quickly approaching. I can understand Liberals being upset with the literal translation. It prevents the takeover of the country by the government, as we have seen happen in so many other countries around the world.

    "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."

    The part that says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is pretty clear. It doesn't says "the right of the Military to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The 2nd Amendment clearly focuses on people, which is the citizenry.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  6. #6
    Just take a look at the Federalist papers

    Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 29
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  7. #7
    If you take the example of the French Francs-Tireurs during the Franco-Prussian War 1870 -1871, it was the same spirit of the NRA, a civilian militia, the civilian resistance, the civilian in arms. You can relate this to the figurative meaning of my screen name - someone acting in total Independence compared to others following strictly the rules, similar to a straight-shooter. My wife suggested me to add this: A maverick, a free thinker, nonconformist...

    Francs-tireurs were an outgrowth of rifle clubs or unofficial military societies formed in the east of France at the time of the Luxembourg crisis of 1867 (see History of Luxembourg). The members were chiefly concerned with the practice of rifle-shooting. In case of war, they were expected to act as militia or light troops. They wore no uniforms, but they armed themselves with the best existing rifles, and elected their own officers.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •