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.
“Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands,” Stevens writes in his defense of the change.
I guess that's more proof that just because you had a high-ranking position doesn't mean you earned it.
And he is considered a top constitutional expert. I am glad he is gone,
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."
You would think since the Bill of Rights has to do with rights of the people this should be pretty much cut and dry, but as Penn Jillette said "strange they (gun control advocates) can't seem to point out any other places where those hack framers f'd up the wording."
He completely ignores the fact that citizens, by virtue of being citizens, ARE the militia.
Which, of course, entitles all citizens the right to own, should they desire and can afford them, any weapon that any military might have access to. Or any other weapon, for that matter.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
"Send lawyers, guns, and money; the $#!t has hit the fan!" - Warren Zevon
There are so many ways that I never understood the argument that the 2nd amendment applies to the militia. Besides being an individual right, did they really think that having a militia and allowing them arms was a God-given right that was so important that it should be elucidated in the constitution?
SHMIV wrote:He completely ignores the fact that citizens, by virtue of being citizens, ARE the militia.
Which, of course, entitles all citizens the right to own, should they desire and can afford them, any weapon that any military might have access to. Or any other weapon, for that matter.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(2) seems to indicate EVERYONE is in the unorganized class of the militia
Swampman wrote:We might not be getting the full context, but doesn't that say between the ages of 17 and 45?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We hear a lot about "how radically things have changed since the Second Amendment was drafted". Here's another thing that's changed radically:
The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. In the 1750s, the average person lived to be about 37 years old. So, 45 years as the age to stop being eligible for the militia in 1791 would have been 120% of the average life expectancy. In 2001, the average life expectancy in the US reached 77.2 years. 120% of 77.2 is 92.6. So I reckon you're safe at least until you get to 92.
.....................................
On another point, I might be a little fuzzy on exactly what the difference is between having a right not to be oppressed by a standing army and having a right of self defense. You might argue that the former is a subset of the latter, but surely there is no difference in principle between the two. Looks to me like it really just boils down to the fact that Stevens was a liberal activist that didn't like guns.
"The Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
Gun-crazy? Me? I'd say the gun-crazy ones are the ones that don’t HAVE one.
So, according to vonClausewitz, I was pretty right on with my definition of a militia.
Not that it matters. The first part of the amendment is just a random reason for it.
The part that says " The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the important part. One will note that is says both keep (meaning to own, possess, store, etc.) and bear (meaning to carry around).
Really, the first part could have said "Zombies are considered a threat" or "Beings from other galaxies may invade", or whatever. It's the second part of the amendment that has meaning.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
"Send lawyers, guns, and money; the $#!t has hit the fan!" - Warren Zevon
Personally I would liek to tweak john paul stevens head off his shoulds and mount it over my fireplace. How about this for a 2nd amendment: We the people of these United States have the god given right to purchase, store, and carry a firearm at anytime and anyplace we choose so as to secure our country and our freedom from tyranical opression, and any infringement on these rights shall be seen as an act of agression and met with only the harshest of justice!
You know if every US citizen who owns a firearm organized themselves into a militia it would be the largest standing army on the face of the planet. It's no wonder they want our guns because we outnumber their armies.
'Some may question your right to destroy ten billion people. Those who understand realise that you have no right to let them live!'
-In Exterminatus Extremis
Currently the US has about 1.4 million members of the DOD. There are estimates of between 150 and 160 million Americans owning over 270 million weapons. We could literally arm everyone over the age of 18 and then some... So yea... I leave that there.
If you combine the forces of the top ten countries in the world today, you would have a little over 10 million people. US gun owners outnumber the 10 largest military forces combined by 15:1
I think I covered it before. If you take all the Law Enforcement, and DOD personnel, it's about 2 million, cut half of that out for those who are "Oathkeepers", and those who just flat out won't shoot U.S. citizens based on the current definitions.
That leaves about 1 million, most of those will NOT be "combat" trained, but probably in some admin configuration, so take it down to 600k-700k people who would be willing to kill U.S. Citizens.
Now us...
There may be 150 million gunowners, with 310 million weapons (It got bumped this year with gun sales). You still have only about HALF of those being ACTIVE gunowners in politics. So that's about 75 million, most of those are older, and probably wouldn't want to get into the fight in truth...
Halve that to 25.5 Million... Only about 10-15% of those would be willing to take up arms in defense of the Constitution.
That's still 2.6 Million at the MINIMUM...
But keep in mind the Media, and the Admin are gonna villainize the living SH"T out of you! So you may not have the resources available as they do...
So you'll lose half of those in the first few skirmishes. But that still leaves.
1.3 million at the VERY least to fight off 600k-700k, ON FAMILIAR GROUND, BLENDING INTO THE BACKGROUND, AND WITH SUPPORT FROM LOYAL CONSTITUTIONALISTS.
Does the Admin, SCOTUS, and Congress want us dissarmed? YOU MUTHAFRACKIN' RIGHT THEY DO! You cannot control a country COMFORTABLY with 1.3 MILLION INSURGENTS WAITING TO TAP YER AZZEZ LIKE A FRAT BOY TAPPING A KEG!
So they're gonna quietly make up charges, and arrests folks BEFORE hand, kinda that "You like your life? Settle down!" kinda thing... try to scare folks.
Put us in with harden prisoners, and such, make us felons so we cannot own weapons.
Control the fuel, food, and funds (IE: Federal Reserve), keep us held down, so we have no choice to follow them.
The problem? You have preppers, and ex-military, and rural folk who just ain't gonna tolerate it . Keep it up guv'mint. You thought 1864 was BAD!?!? Yeah, those were SET LINES...
thekinetic wrote:Personally I would liek to tweak john paul stevens head off his shoulds and mount it over my fireplace. How about this for a 2nd amendment: We the people of these United States have the god given right to purchase, store, and carry a firearm at anytime and anyplace we choose so as to secure our country and our freedom from tyranical opression, and any infringement on these rights shall be seen as an act of agression and met with only the harshest of justice!
Okay, how many signatures do we need to get thekinetic on the court? Maybe if we all just storm the place . . .
Progressives/Liberals - Promoting tyranny and a defenseless people since 1913.
