Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is releasing a new book in which he argues that the phrase “when serving in the militia” should be added to the Second Amendment.
The book is titled, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution”
The Second Amendment reads as follows: 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.
With Stevens’ proposed change: 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.
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is set to release a new book in which he argues that the phrase “when serving in the militia” should be added to the Second Amendment.
The book is titled, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” and the change Stevens has in mind for the Second Amendment would alter the language so as to render it a protection of a collective right instead of an individual one.
Moreover, it would be a right that the government–at all levels–could regulate without hesitation.
Currently, 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’ contends that this was intended as a collective right only and that it was “limited in scope to the uses of arms related to military activity.”
According to The Washington Post, Stevens claims this was changed via the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decision. He says this decision suddenly introduced protections for “a civilian’s right to keep a handgun in his home for purposes of self-defense.”
Stevens says the McDonald v. Chicago (2010) decision furthered these changes by using “the due process clause of the 14th Amendment” to limit the ability of cities to ban the possession of handguns.
He says this can all be remedied by adding five words to the Second Amendment:
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
Pay close attention to the language here as it contains the real mission of why they want to start changing amendments, which is that the government would have no problem implementing any type of gun control or confiscation they see fit. That’s not the intent of the 2nd amendment at, it is to allow the citizenry to bear arms as the people are the militia and the militia is not the government but the people who have the right to stand against that government if the constitutional laws are abused or tyranny ensues against the people by that government. Changing it would allow the government who are the guilty to control uprising of militia as their own forces which is a totally contradiction with the intend and purpose of that militia in the first place. Once they are able to decimate the 2nd amendment and disarm American citizens, nothing would be in their way of totally taking over the people, the country, and any and all freedoms and liberties of the people. It’s what stands between America and it’s freedom and the government that would steel it and there would be no way to prevent them taking over completely and turning this into the communist country they seem to headed toward doing. The constitution would become useless if indeed it could no longer protect the citizens or limit the government from anything and everything they chose to do with force, intimidation, and dictated decrees. Also once they gain control all rights and amendments will be subjected to their decisions and not the people but rather in spite of the people.
go crawl into your grave you sick sob.
A very good example of why more background information of judicial candidates needs to be made available long before elections take place. How many candidates running unopposed, have you seen on a ballot? would you consider the biography in the voter’s pamphlet enough information to cast an intelligent vote? what kind of decisions have they handed down, how many criminals have they turned back out on the streets to continue their spree?
Not safe enough Sr
That is all wrong the meaning is completely different. The meaning pertains to keeping the militia regulated, it is for our protection from a militia run a muck!
You are an absolute idiot. the Consitution is what it is and to change it would be despicable, just to suit somebody’s fantasy.
dam his stupid ass
He doesn’t get it. The second amendment is there so that we can protect ourselves from an unknown at the time, tyrannical government that was working to take our freedoms. Anybody who wants to restrain the second amendment, wants tyranny to be allowed to take over the government and country.
you’ve got no power anymore sit the hell down and shut the $#%&!@* up!!!
It has served very well for many years – why change it. It just needs to be followed .