US Supreme Court Judge wants to change wording of 2nd Amendment.

This is what he wants it to say.

"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."

www.sltrib.com...

Hmm. Sounds like theres some corruption abroad. But that goes without saying.

reply to post by txinfidel


If it happens everyone join said militia, and boom we win. But seriously though, F@ck this!

reply to post by txinfidel


I stopped reading here...."high-powered automatic weapons" when the author can;t understand simple facts there is no point.. Until the anti-defense crowd gains a small understanding of weapons and our current laws....I can not have an intelligent discussion.


I spoke too soon perhaps.....I read this as gun regulation being a state issue.....I can agree with that.

eehh....until the bottom.....

ParanoidAmerican
reply to post by txinfidel

 

I stopped reading here...."high-powered automatic weapons" when the author can;t understand simple facts there is no point.. Until the anti-defense crowd gains a small understanding of weapons and our current laws....I can not have an intelligent discussion.


I spoke too soon perhaps.....I read this as gun regulation being a state issue.....I can agree with that.

edit on 16-4-2014 by ParanoidAmerican because: (no reason given)

I am going to say something that many on here will not like and will probably find hard to handle.

One reason the Second Amendment was written was so that the people of the states could challenge the government if the need ever arose.
This would mean that the people would in fact need the same fire power as the government.
Of course we can not afford most of the "arms" the government has at their disposal but we should be able to own whatever we can afford.
The Constitution was written to protect the American People, not the Government.
Quad

Why isn't this judge under arrest?!!!!!!!

reply to post by Visitor2012


Because he's no longer a supreme court judge as of 2010. He is the longest standing US supreme court Judge in History and is probably lying in his death bed right now.

en.wikipedia.org...

The day they change the 2nd amendment to deny the right, there WILL be an armed uprising. You can mark my word on that one.

reply to post by madmac5150


That day may come sooner rather than later my friend.

if they can change the bill of rights can we not change the fact that he cant be voted out of office?

That sh$% works both ways doesn't it?

The supreme court justices are protected by some law? but the same supreme court justices think they can change the bill of rights?

reply to post by tinner07


You probably didn't read my comment above. But he's already done and could care less if he gets prison time or hung because he's so freaking old he probably wouldn't suffer very long at all.

As an American I declare:

I am my own personal Militia


and anyone with strong Patriotic feelings duty and honor are welcome.

reply to post by HanzHenry


I agree with your sentiment but you could not be your own militia. If you got shot in the leg or the arm you would not be able to muster enough power or leverage to stop the bleeding.

You would fall in the category of lone wolf.

But you also raise a good point. An active militia, not to be confused with the military and being active in the militia or serving could constitute as taking up arms. When the time comes that someone would try to disarm you, which actually renders the above proposed wording change meaningless. Because obviously if you were armed and resisting those who would try to infringe on your second amendment rights to disarm you, you would be active militia in the broad sense of the term. Rendering that wording completely useless.

Quadrivium
I am going to say something that many on here will not like and will probably find hard to handle.

One reason the Second Amendment was written was so that the people of the states could challenge the government if the need ever arose.
This would mean that the people would in fact need the same fire power as the government.
Of course we can not afford most of the "arms" the government has at their disposal but we should be able to own whatever we can afford.
The Constitution was written to protect the American People, not the Government.
Quad

I agree with you.. I dont understand why people have an issue with this amendment...

I believe the same thing you do I will go as far as to say if some yahoo wants to own a nuke fine.. The rules back then apply the same as today.. The 2nd amendment was designed to help the common man defeat a tyrannical government..

What we are seeing today is the start of it.. But the key words are Militia, free, shall not be infringed..

I think this is being blown out of proportion.

No, i'm not American, but that is no reason to write me off...

The Second Amendment has always been contested, as to whether or not the right to bear arms pertains to the average citizen or civilian militias. The majority believe that the 2nd Amendment covers the individual's right to bear arms, but many also forget that the amendment pertained to 'well regulated militias'. There was no statement made about an individual's right to bear arms, but rather the people's right. Now as to whether or not those people must be apart of a militia is something which is still unclear today.

"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."

I quote the following from Academia.edu:

According to a 2003 Gallup/NCC poll, most Americans believe that the Second Amendment protects individual firearm ownership. Points in their favor:

• A clear majority of the Founding Fathers unquestionably believed in a universalright to bear arms.

• The last time the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the civilian militiainterpretation of the Second Amendment was 1939–almost 70 years ago, at a timewhen policies enforcing racial segregation, banning birth control, and mandatingrecital of the Lord’s Prayer in public schools were also considered constitutional.

• The Constitution is a document, not a piece of software.
Regardless of why the Second Amendment justifies its own existence, the fact remains that it stillexists as part of the Constitution.

• The Eighteenth Amendment established Prohibition; the Twenty-FirstAmendment overturned it. The American people have the means, through thelegislative process, to overturn the Second Amendment if it is no longer considered worthwhile. If it’s obsolete, why hasn’t this happened?

• The Constitution aside, bearing arms is a fundamental human right. It is the onlymeans the American people have to reclaim control of their government, should itone day become irredeemably corrupt.

Cons:

The same Gallup/NCC poll cited above also found that 28% of respondents believe that the Second Amendment was created to protect civilian militias, and does not guarantee the right to bear arms. Points in their favor:

• While the Founding Fathers may have supported the ownership of slow,expensive powder-loaded rifles, it’s doubtful that they would have been able to conceive of shotguns, assault rifles, handguns, and other contemporary weaponry.

• The only U.S. Supreme Court ruling that actually focused on the Second Amendment,
U.S. v. Miller (1939), found that there is no individual right to bear arms independent of national self-defense concerns.
The Supreme Court has spoken only once, it has spoken in favor of the civilian militia interpretation,and it has not spoken since. If the Court has held a different view, it has certainly had ample opportunity to rule on the matter since then.

• The Second Amendment makes no sense without the prospect of civilian militias,as it is clearly a propositional statement.

• If you really want to overthrow the government, bearing arms probably isn’t enough. You’d need aircraft to take the skies, hundreds of tanks to defeat ground forces, and a full navy. The only way to reform a powerful government in this dayand age is through nonviolent means.

• What the majority of Americans believe about the Second Amendment is unsurprising, because
Americans have been misinformed about what the Second Amendment accomplishes and how federal courts have traditionally interpreted it.

Put simply, the same article states that:

The individual rights interpretation reflects the view of the majority of Americans, and more clearly reflects the philosophical underpinnings provided by the Founding Fathers, but the civilian militia interpretation reflects the views of the Supreme Court and seems to be a more precise reading of the text of the Second Amendment.

www.academia.edu...

reply to post by Acousticsasylum

If it happens everyone join said militia, and boom we win. But seriously though, F@ck this! - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Fully agree with the sentiment - the problem with that though, is who then gets to decide what "well regulated" means exactly...

Nifty timing on this one.

November elections. Primaries ongoing "quietly".

This is designed to preach to the choir of supporters.

In full sync with Bloomberg too !!

How quaint.

Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, high-powered automatic weapons have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents.

As Josh and others noted, not only were automatic weapons not used at any recent high-profile mass shooting, they’ve been essentially illegal in the U.S. since 1934 and since 1986 they’ve been almost impossible to come by. Justice Stevens also repeated his error a few paragraphs down:

Thus, even as generously construed in Heller, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years.

The Washington Post Quietly Corrects Justice John Paul Stevens’s Grievous Error about Gun Laws

Uh Huh.

reply to post by madmac5150


Well apparently, enough states have voted in favor of a Constitutional convention, where the Amendments can be changed.

So we the people have to be UBER vigilant.

I would also like to change the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

Here is its current form:

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.

May I suggest the following:

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Simple.

I thought the Supreme Court settled this for like the millionth time. Second Amendment states: Leave our guns the hell alone.

It doesn't say ONLY the militia can have arms. It says the people. Which implies individuals, can have arms. Because people having arms would make a militia easier to raise. However, no where in that amendment does it say only militias get weapons.

Grammar and context. It's important.

Even IF the 2nd Amendment had been written to clearly state that the right to keep and bear arms on applied to members of a militia, the feds would want to change that.... because the militias would represent a threat to them.