"Fix" the Second Amendment, huh?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by clr8ter, Apr 12, 2014.

  1. clr8ter

    clr8ter New Member

    4,015
    0
    0
    <a href='http://www.newser.com/story/185223/judge-stevens-5-words-can-fix-2nd-amendment.html?utm_source=newser&utm_medium=embed&utm_campaign=story' target='_blank'><img style='width:240px;border-width:0px;' alt='' src='http://img2-cdn.newser.com/square-image/185223-20140411185224/judge-stevens-5-words-can-fix-2nd-amendment.jpeg'></a>

    I ran across this in Newser just now. I wasn't aware that there was anything wrong with it. Re-reading it just now, the 2nd doesn't appear to be very clear as to it's INTENT. Maybe back when it was written, it was, I don't know. Are there any other supporting texts that clarify whet, exactly they were thinking about when the wrote it? As I understand it, they meant for the people to have guns if they wanted, and to form Militias, if they wanted, in order to keep the Federal Govt. from getting out of control. But the actual text doesn't really say that....

    Opinions?
     
  2. Overkill0084

    Overkill0084 Active Member

    4,910
    2
    38
    I remember this from some time back. I think Stevens published a paper or did a speech, but whatever. He was wrong then, he's wrong now.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?hpid=z1

    He may have a wall full of fancy sheepskins, but he don't know jack about militias in the context of the founding.

    That aside, even if one looks at it and thinks the militia is some sort of dessert, the final phrase "The right of the people to keep & bear arms, shall not be infringed" should shut the door on any further shenanigans.

    Douchenozzle's revision actually reverses the intent of the founders.

    The founders considered "a well regulated militia" to be a necessary evil, thus an armed populace was considered necessary to prevent oppression by said "well regulated militia."
    Local militias prior to the revolution were pretty informal affairs. Show up after church, drill a bit, talk some smack and finish up with a couple pints before heading back home. As I understand things, "well regulated Militia" is founder-speak for an army or probably more correctly, what we would consider the national guard. Which by any reasonable standard is an arm of a potentially oppressive government.

    Modern Liberalism attempts to change the meaning of what seems like a fairly simple phrase.
    If I were to have the opportunity to edit the 2nd amendment, I would simplify it so that even a liberal supreme court justice could understand it:
    Note: I don't have an Ivy league law degree (or any constitutional law training for that matter. Hell, I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night), so take it as you will.

    Edit - Another take on the issue:
    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/12/john-paul-stevens-helpfully-rewrites-the-constitution-for-you/

     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2014

  3. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    12
    38
    The well regulated militia gives each individual state the gaurantee the federal government cannot disarm the state. The section about right of the people to keep and bear arms ensures the federal government and states cannot disarm we the individual people.

    It does two things preserving the rights of the states and the rights of the citizen to keep and bear arms.

    Nothing ambiguous about it. Its clear as crystal and only the worst stripe of oppressive totalitarian sees any ambiguity there.
     
  4. kryptar19

    kryptar19 New Member

    1,774
    0
    0
    Never been said better.
     
  5. TekGreg

    TekGreg Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,000
    0
    0
    The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms by Stephen P. Halbrook was one of two books used by the Supreme Court in overturning recent legislation meant to change the intent of the Second Amendment. It is a highly fascinating read with references to other documents written at that time that were clear to the intent of the Founders when the Bill of Rights was written.

    To be clear, the term "Militia" as the Founders referred to is every able-bodied (not senile or unable to hold a gun) man and boy (old enough to function a gun, generally considered to have a minimum age around 12-14) able to fire a weapon and capable of understanding commands. It had nothing to do with state-formed militias or state's rights to form a guard unit, and it most certainly NEVER was to be a power controlled by the federal government.

    It's primary purpose was to make the largest defensive force available to defend the colonies from invaders. However, its secondary purpose was to overthrow a corrupt dictator should he gain power in America and, as such, not under government control. The Founders felt that the second amendment would keep a King from ever getting into power and installing a government that was dictatorial in nature. The term "militia" was used to refer to organized units that would take orders from a just command structure, not to refer to discontented bands of marauders just shooting politicians for fun and profit. "Militia" differentiates between criminal activity and an organized overthrow of a corrupt government.

    For these reasons, The Second Amendment was kept intentionally short so as not to be misinterpreted or ambiguous. Therefore, all these attempts at "clarifying" the Amendment are just more gun control propaganda to erode the rights preserved for us by the Founders.
     
  6. -06

    -06 New Member

    134
    0
    0
    "They" can interpret it anyway they like but in the end the meaning comes from the smoking end of a firearm. That is the reason it is there---not for hunting rights, not for national guard/etc., but for the militia(those able to carry a rifle and have the guts to use it).
     
  7. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,127
    114
    63
    Justice Stevens was a "moderately conservative" justice. Stevens was appointed to SCOTUS by president Ford.

    Changing the BOR requires a Constutional Amendment. Thankfully, it won't happen any time soon, if ever.
     
  8. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    1
    0
    notning complicated to interpret behind the words. clear as a bell.

    rather funny that children have no problem understanding something that adults can't comprehend.:rolleyes:

    so what part needs fixing? nothing!
     
  9. toroboy

    toroboy New Member

    130
    0
    0
    The "fixing" part that's needed would require "neutering" anyone who thinks the 2A is in need of being rewritten...


    You can't be a pimp and a prostitute too...
     
  10. John_Deer

    John_Deer New Member

    6,624
    1
    0
    People need to get over the idea that morality can be legislated. We can keep an orderly society but we can't make people behave.

    I dunno with the way the war on drugs is working maybe we should let guns be outlawed. Then everyone will have a gun and the price will drop by half.
     
  11. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    1
    0
    WTH?

    what does morality have anything to do with the 2nd amendment?

    what does the war on drugs have to with the 2nd amendment?

    please stay on topic JD.
     
  12. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    These gun control lib ninnies keep

    sewing themselves into a tighter and

    tighter bag.

    Do they ever think, BEFORE they speak?

    Sooo, now, as a GC measure, they want to

    train us all as militiamen?

    Hey, eff it, where do I sign up? Do we

    get meals, uniforms, and ammo?
     
  13. Mercator

    Mercator New Member

    11,337
    2
    0
    I would have taken the militia out of 2A altogether. That passage has obscured the meaning of RKBA just enough to keep it under relentless assault since before I can remember. The Founders were very smart, but they weren't palm readers. They did not foresee the rise of a parasitic underclass with no desire for responsibility as individuals.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2014
  14. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member

    4,586
    86
    48
    An extremely intelligent friend of mine, gun owner, corporate exec type honestly believes the bill of rights was designed by the founding fathers to be adjusted over time.
     
  15. WonderingMind

    WonderingMind New Member

    295
    0
    0
    I agree that our understanding of our Natural Rights evolves as we grow as a species. The founders even included a method by which we could include that deeper understanding in our founding documents. It is the Amendment Process. However, at this point I will accept NOTHING that comes out of DC unless it fits with MY understanding of Original Intent. If they attempt yet more curtailments of our Natural Rights in such an aggressive manner they will fail, even if they attempt to use the Amendment Process. I feel that the Citizenry is tired of the government pulling Wacos and Ruby Ridges. They provoke us at their peril.
     
  16. eatmydust

    eatmydust New Member

    4,360
    0
    0
    The Founding Fathers fixed it just fine during the drafting and final revision of our Bill of Rights.
     
  17. Yunus

    Yunus New Member

    5,250
    0
    0
    Thomas Jefferson supported that view as well.

    http://www.omg-facts.com/History/Thomas-Jefferson-believed-the-Constituti/56097

     
  18. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    7,510
    0
    0
    Do not fold, spindle, mutilate or Fetter it, I like it just the way it is! Simple, Direct and Clear about the right and purpose of that right. Republicrats and Lawyers dont like absolutes cause they leave no room for purchasing unction from them. As Jon pointed out, the comma wasnt a mistake, it was there to justify the second part, because we will have one (an organized military commanded by our government), we must have the other (the capability to prevent them from tyrannizing us if they try).

    Dont change a thing, its fine. Change minds that think you can require all humans to reason appropriately at all times. Humans are imperfect, were not programmed like a PC, were all capable of good and bad, some do one more than the other.
     
  19. RJMercer

    RJMercer New Member

    519
    0
    0
    What these revisionists know full well but will never admit is that the founders never even considered limiting the liberty of the individual to do as he pleases as long as that activity didn't encroach on the liberty of another. The entire bill of rights -except for the 9th amendment- were put in place as preexisting basic fundamental human rights and codified limitations on government power.
    Telling our founders at the time of the founding or even before the revolution that they couldn't have the same equipment that the standing military had because they might hurt themselves or others would have got you laughed out of town or declared to be the town loon.
     
  20. Eagle1803

    Eagle1803 New Member

    1,273
    0
    0
    The 2A has already been re-written and they change it quite offten as we speak, the gun grabbers and libtards are working it Now on Capital Hill.

    In case you didn't know it, your Gun rights are slowly disappearing before your eyes.

    Our President Just signed a 1.1 billon dollar gun safety bill that stinks like a dead rat, further alowing the fight to band Semi-auto rifles, High cap Mags, Smart bracelet guns, etc......

    re-writing the 2A will do no good for the simple fact that Washington does not follow it to begin with. They just change and make up the rules as they go and keep bring it back to the table, one day it will pass:D