Former Supreme Court Justice Wants To Alter The Second Amendment

Yeah ... You read that right.

This idiot doesn't seem to understand that we the people are the militia.

Source Ben Swann

John Paul Stevens retired in 2010 after serving as an associate justice of the Supreme Court for 35 years. Now he wants to make a few changes to the Second Amendment. In his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” Stevens proposes different wording for the Second Amendment that would drastically change its meaning.

The Second Amendment currently says, “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.”

Stevens wants to change the wording to, “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.” He argues the change is necessary to reflect “changing times” and that the founding fathers did not write the Second Amendment to protect the right to personal self defense.



Read more: benswann.com...
Follow us: @BenSwann_ on Twitter

How does on exactly serve in a militia? We have not had one since 1865...

Before you slam this post and say; "the national guard in the militia" I will save you time and say no they are not.

Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia units receiving federal support.

Source

I think the founders knew we might just need to defend ourselves against tyrants in the future, which is why they worded the second amendment the way they did.

reply to post by SWCCFAN


Didn't the show Jericho shows the concept of rewording the 2nd Amendment to fit the TPTB standards?

reply to post by SWCCFAN


First of all...it cannot be done without an amendment passing. I do not see that happening in this instance right now, nor in the near future.

Unless the process gets hijacked.

In which case it will be time to water the tree of liberty once again. (With the blood of tyrants and patriots)

Someone should just show this judge personally what the 2nd amendment is really for. He is obviously confused and needs in home mental care. Maybe because he was always forced to follow the constitution at his job, has caused him these mental disorders. Just like 3/4ths of our leaders these days..

incredible. it seems the good justice has not read the founding father's own reasons for including the second in the bill of rights. one would think he would have to read that at some point in his career. they stated plainly that among the reason was to allow the citizens to resist tyranny even if it comes from their own government.
it isn't just one 's opinion either it is all of them. including madison. you know; they dude who wrote it?

madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

apparrently that judge has a pro-drug stance and has availed himself of them prior to writing and speaking.

reply to post by SWCCFAN


The poor man is senile he probably do not have anything else to do but write books of fantasy about how he would change the constitution, let face that is all he can do, just write about it.

we are in a very sorry state if our supreme court justices are not fully cognizant of what the founders intended when they wrote the constitution or simply do not respect it. madison wrote it. how can anyone pretend to not know what Madison and the others intended? virtually everything they ever said and ever wrote is available in countless libraries and archived for posterity.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

It's extremely difficult to change or amend the U.S. Constitution, I would not worry about this book too much...

reply to post by stormbringer1701


Actually behind the Poor former justice books is probably a good amount of funneled money to write what he wrote, that is the way I see it.

Manufacture propaganda if the price is right.

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

" ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."
-- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams

I guess stevens never read any of these things. imagine that.

it's not just stevens though. Heller was decided 5 to 4. 5 to 4! 4 of these dress wearing men and women do not give a flying damn what the founders intended or unbelievably have not read what the founders wrote on the subject.

I think they (the gun control crowd) realize they are loosing on just about every front. Soon I fear something will happen and emergency powers will actually be used to go after gun owners. It will mean a second civil war. Not against North or South but against the very concepts of liberty. One segment supporting Liberty, another against it, and the rest fence sitting watching and at time aiding one side or the other.

SWCCFAN
How does on exactly serve in a militia? We have not had one since 1865...

I think that's precisely the point. There is no militia. And only the militia would have the right to keep and bear arms (i.e. no one).

This change of wording seeks to annihilate the Second Amendment.

the militia act that codifies the militia did not exist until after the ratification of the bill of rights. and the guard the other thing the gun control proponents point to as being "the militia" did not come into being until 1907.

during the revolutionary war the initial field artillery that the continental army possessed were loaners from wealthy land owners. private citizens. these citizens had the cannon so they demanded and got commissions as artillery officers and had their own peacock embarrassing uniforms custom made to prance around their field pieces in.

www.archives.gov...

That pesky little GD piece of paper. The bane for the progressive's agenda.

Well it is not just a 'second amendment' issue.

That supreme court 'justice' knows better.

Let me introduce you all to the bill of rights:

More specifically:

Amendment II 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.

Of course they think 'well regulated' means the military,the police, and criminals all being better armed than us 'little' people.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

'effects' there means what people own, and people do own firearms.

So they are trying to violate that amendment as well.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The majority of gun owners have violated no laws, and are trying be to made accountable for actions THEY DID NOT DO!

So there is another violation.

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defenc

And no gun owner has ever received their trial by jury. In a court of law.

What gun owners have received is a kangaroo 'trial' in the 'court' of public opinion.

Epic violation there as well.

Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Guns cost more than 20 bucks these days so there is another GD violation.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The rights of the people has clearly been defined in the second amendment, and the others that were just listed.

Hands off.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The powers of government have clearly been defined.

RESTRICTIONS have clearly been defined.

The power ultimately resides with the PEOPLE, not the STATE as in FEDERAL LEVEL.

They have systematically trashed the rights of the American citizen to make more laws that the already previous laws agianst hurting/murdering someone ALREADY covers.

STAND UP for YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES, and DEFEND that GD piece of paper, or it truly will be.

reply to post by neo96


Well Stated!

*Salute*

Well in understanding the improbabilities, I say Bring it on
Lets get the show on the road.
Lets just see how well it goes.. fuchn with the rights of american citizens goes..
Go Ahead... Make My Day