A few days ago I wrote Re-writing the Constitution to our demise to address the latest attack on the 2nd Amendment rights of American citizens. Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens who is 93, and I’m not sure if all his oars are hitting the water now that he’s retired, suggests the 2nd Amendment be re-written or amended to read …
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.
Now anyone can understand what, if that were to happen, would be the result; immediate confiscation of privately owned firearms and disarming of the American public, ie. anyone not serving in the ”militia”. And then we have the highly intellectual far-left liberal who takes it a step farther …
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of any of the People who are members of an officially recognized militia, who are engaged directly in the business of an officially recognized militia, to keep and bear arms while engaged in duties pertaining to the performance of the mission and objectives of an officially recognized militia shall not be infringed – – but duck hunting and taking excessive advantage of “Stand Your Ground” laws is not included in the aforementioned definitions.
Asinine at best.
In Justice Stevens’ view the authors of the 2nd amendment were mostly concerned about oppression from a national standing army and were not concerned about the right to self-defense.
Think about what that intellectual giant is suggesting. If the authors were mostly concerned about oppression from a national standing army wouldn’t Justice Stevens’ re-write of the 2nd Amendment create that precise possibility? The “militia” would be the only armed people … the oppression which concerned the authors of the 2nd Amendment is exactly what Mr. Stevens’ proposal makes possible.
Original Post: Cry and Howl