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

Hey, that's just grand. If I'm not mistaken, re-writing the Constitution is a big involved process that requires the people approve. Apparently this judge is way behind the times. probably hasn't heard that ll you need to make a law is a pen and a phone. Sure wish people would read the memos! But it's the supreme court. Just like lawyers. Always trying to get people NOT TO READ THE FINE PRINT. Kind of raises the question, why do the supreme court judges consider the 2nd "fine print"? I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with the fact, they are POLITICAL NOMINEES. !

Oh no you don't.

Keep your grimy hands away from the 2nd amendment.

originally posted by: txinfidel
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.

I am glad one of these numb skulls actually came out and said this. Why? Just look at what a sharp contrast this new wording is to the original intent of the 2nd amendment. The original intent is actually magnified by the lack of the wording in several ways.

1st. Look how stupid the statement is. Of course a person would be allowed to carry a weapon if they were in the military regular or militia. In fact it is so obvious that a legal clause wasn't even made to cover it.

2nd. So whats a militia? Well as described in the argument for the 2nd, as given in the Federalist Papers, which by the way have been used by members of the SOTUS in arguments for definition, the militia is an ad hoc assembly of citizens that take their weapons from their personal and private store.

3rd. The foundation for the right to keep and bear does not even reside with the state or the federal government. Its the peoples right. Even the right to a militia resides with the people as necessary for a free state. Folks that like to carp negatively about states rights haven't noticed the concessions made here to the anti federals in the term "free state". This term "free state" in our constitution demonstrates the fear expressed to the idea of federal power. It is also little noticed here how even the constitution in regards to bearing arms further separated the establishment of the federal powers from "the peoples right". In once fell swoop the 2nd amendment separates the peoples right to keep and bear and the states rights to martial power from the legal bounds of federal jurisdiction with the prior wording and then finally with the maxim "shall not be infringed". Let there be no misunderstanding as there was none when this was written as to who the people are. "We the people" are the people.

This right was no more given into the hands of the federal government or its courts than the right to speak and to breathe!

originally posted by: tencap77
Hey, that's just grand. If I'm not mistaken, re-writing the Constitution is a big involved process that requires the people approve. Apparently this judge is way behind the times. probably hasn't heard that ll you need to make a law is a pen and a phone. Sure wish people would read the memos! But it's the supreme court. Just like lawyers. Always trying to get people NOT TO READ THE FINE PRINT. Kind of raises the question, why do the supreme court judges consider the 2nd "fine print"? I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with the fact, they are POLITICAL NOMINEES. !

Hear hear my friend. And one must ask, if our founders were such freedom loving students of the most liberal political experiment, liberty, how is it that they missed the dangers of appointing life long party affiliates to supposedly decipher our own constitution to the point of having the last freekin word? Who would have ever dreamed that the political class would ever appoint anything but strong guardians of the peoples rights to the court?

America was born of fire, lives by it and every major change has come out of the barrel of a gun.

You will not change the culture that supports the unfettered ownership of firearms with anything other than another armed conflict. When cultures that share kinship and alliance with America (Britain, Canada, Australia, NZ) try to make sense of how their "Cousin" views guns so completely differently to themselves and tries to engage in a discussion with Americans about the difference, they are almost always dissatisfied with the results.

Because for the most part, the reason is: Because that is the way it is.

The discussions about it being in the Constitution isn't anywhere near as meaningful as either side make it out to be for the simple reason that the Constitution can - and often has - been significantly changed in the past and likely will again in the future. There is no reason why the 2nd Amendment cant be amended, except for the most fundamental reason: It wont.

Essentially, non-Americans engaging in the discussion WITH Americans on gun ownership would be better served looking to find out why things are the way they are rather than trying to change American's position on it.

The same people immigrated to similar frontiers during the same period of history and share much of the parent culture as a result. The one difference is America. After two wars the British went on to share North America in what turned out to be one the most amicable and friendly relationships in the world today. That only improved when British North America became Canada.

In retrospect, the War of Independence and the War of 1812 are better characterized as Family Spats that really didn't change much.

In short Americans aren't giving guns back anytime soon and it doesn't really matter why. I think part of the reason British, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders try to understand and debate the point with Americans is because of how SIMILAR we are, not how different we are.

Interestingly all those 'cousins' are all part of the important Echelon intelligence partnership that help each other spy on their citizens in a cynical side-step of all the partner nations legal problems of spying on their own people.

Long post to make a simple point: You can't change American views on gun ownership, just try and understand it.