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.
More @ The Blaze
Anyone who knows one damned thing about the colonial period would never question the Founder's meaning. No way no how would any man, woman or child question the very need for a firearm in just about everyone's daily life, at least a freeman's daily life. The very concept of not having arms was alien to 99% of them.
ReplyDeleteUntil the concept of cradle to grave nanny government came along.
Would it be too horrible to suggest that someone, some God fearing American, should just shut that little perverted man up for good? His type of tyranny will only result in hardships and death of millions.
ReplyDeletePrecisely.
DeleteI like how the one world order protesters at Kiev are using mainly air rifles to provide counter sniper fire in the streets of Kiev.
ReplyDeleteThere may be some, but there is no reason they shouldn't have regular weapons.
DeleteInfo.
Civilian Possession
Estimates of the number of guns in private hands range from 2.2 to 6.3 million. These suggest a median rate of 6.6 firearms per 100 people, although the higher figure would yield a rate of 13 per 100. In 2005, Ukraine ranked 84th in the world for the number of civilian firearms per capita.5 2
In response to a United Nations study, Ukraine’s Ministry of Internal Affairs reported a national total of 722,739 registered civilian firearms in 1997.6 This leaves uncounted a national stockpile of 1.5 million to 5.5 million undocumented, illicit small arms.
The average asking price for an AK-47 assault rifle in the Ukraine rose from US$250 in 1991-95, to US$350 in 2001-05.7
Gun Control Law
Regulation of private firearms in Ukraine is ranked as permissive, rather than restrictive.18 Rifles and shotguns are allowed for hunting, target shooting, collection, protection of person or property and private security.6 Although Ukraine reported to the United Nations that civilian possession, import and export of handguns is prohibited for any use,6 ‘revolvers and pistols’ — and in one example, ‘sporting revolvers and pistols’ — are subject to regulation, but apparently not banned in Ukrainian firearm legislation.
www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cp/ukraine
Whew sure glad I am an active member of Badger's Freedom Fighters.
ReplyDeleteBadger
What are the yearly dues.......?:)
DeleteStevens knows EXACTLY what the founders intended and what the true meaning of
ReplyDeletethe Second Amendment is....So does Sotomayor, Ginsburg and the rest of the commies infesting the SCOTUS. The issue isn't that they don't get it....they DO.
The issue is they don't believe in the Constitution, they don't believe in freedom and
they want to be part and parcel of the movement to destroy America and enslave
society under the auspices of our "betters'...and they believe they are among those
"betters". What Stevens NEEDS is a rope around his neck and the application of
gravity for his treasonous efforts to destroy this country.
101%!
DeleteAbsolutely! I'd like to counter his argument with my own. Remove the subordinate clause from the front of the amendment and shorten it to simply say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
DeleteThe so called experts make such a big deal about a supporting statement about the militia. It has no bearing on the operative part of the amendment. If I were to say: Because of the union workers, a 57 Chevy is a beautiful car. We could argue forever about the issue of the union having anything to do with it. It would not, however, change the fact that a 57 Chevy is a beautiful car.
Good point, teacher. :)
DeleteThe founders had it right, the 2nd Amendment is for citizens to protect themselves and the country from those who who would trample their rights.
ReplyDeletePrecisely.
DeleteAnyone who follows baseball knows that it is generally accepted that "the tie goes to the runner" meaning if a call at a base is to close to call it is decided in the base runners favor. The constitution was written based on the fact that all rights are granted by God to the individual and the constitution is designed to instruct the government on what they are allowed to do. Any right not specifically allowed to the government by the constitution is assumed to reside with the people. In other words the tie goes to the people. If there is any misunderstanding about the meaning of the 2nd amendment it must be decided in favor of the rights of the people.
DeleteThe government can not read into it what they want it to mean.
I haven't heard that stated before and it is indeed excellent.
Deletewell it's just my opinion and understanding of what the document says but the constitution is up to the individual to interpret since we are the holders of the rights
ReplyDeleteand the constitution only allows the government to do a few things. Obama said it himself. From the governments point of view the constitution is a document of negative liberties (or something to that effect)
Yes, I agree.
Delete