Retired Justice - Amend 2A

[williepete]

Gun Control and the Constitution: Should We Amend the Second Amendment?

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens thinks so and recommends wording:
LINK:
Gun Control and the Constitution: Should We Amend the Second Amendment? - Businessweek

From this:
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.


"Since (Retired Justice) Stevens believes that the authors of the Second Amendment were primarily concerned about the threat that a national standing army posed to the sovereignty of the states—as opposed to homeowners’ anxiety about violent felons—he thinks the best way to fix the situation is to amend the Second Amendment. He’d do that by adding five words as follows":


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.

 

[Immanuel]

I will read the article in a moment, but from the OP, what he is saying is that we should strike down the second amendment and ratify a 28th because that rewording, completely changes the meaning and intention of the previous amendment.

I'm not a devout defender of gun rights, although I support our right to keep and bear arms, but I think Stevens has lost his ever-loving mind.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I see no need for reworking the 2dA.

 

[williepete]

Surely retired Justice Stevens knows his history well enough to know our founding fathers weren't concerned with "homeowners’ anxiety about violent felons" when they wrote the 2A.

A 10-second Google search referencing the Federalist Papers made it clear enough:


The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.

The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive.

The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.

There was no National Guard, and the Founders opposed anything but a very small national military. The phrase “well-regulated” means well-trained and disciplined — not “regulated” as we understand that term in the modern sense of bureaucratic regulation. [This meaning still can be found in the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. 1989, Vol 13, p. 524, and Vol 20. p. 138.]

 

[Ringel05]

Surely retired Justice Stevens knows his history well enough to know our founding fathers weren't concerned with "homeowners’ anxiety about violent felons" when they wrote the 2A.

A 10-second Google search referencing the Federalist Papers made it clear enough:


The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.

The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive.

The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.

There was no National Guard, and the Founders opposed anything but a very small national military. The phrase “well-regulated” means well-trained and disciplined — not “regulated” as we understand that term in the modern sense of bureaucratic regulation. [This meaning still can be found in the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. 1989, Vol 13, p. 524, and Vol 20. p. 138.]

And another 10 second Google search shows you are cherry picking only those snippets that support your "position".

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms..." - Thomas Jefferson

"I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason

"Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms." - James Madison

"...Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace." -Thomas Paine

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self defense." - John Adams

Even in the late 60s:

"The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possilble." - Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey

When one takes all of their writings in the inclusive your argument falls apart.

 

[williepete]

When one takes all of their writings in the inclusive your argument falls apart.

What are you talking about?

 

[Ringel05]

When one takes all of their writings in the inclusive your argument falls apart.

What are you talking about?

You're kidding...... right? Is the verbiage beyond your comprehension?

 

[R.C. Christian]

Wiki or someone should publish John's address, phone number, summer home address, family names, especially his children. Names and addresses of his security detail etc. Fucking traitor.

 

[williepete]

Ringel,

My first post was to introduce retired Justice Stevens' opinion. This was for the sake of opening up a discussion on the topic. I meant it to be neutral.

In my second post, I wondered if retired Justice Stevens was inclusive of all the issues the founding fathers considered in penning the 2A. More of a question than a position but clearly I didn't fall on his side of the fence.

You come back with more quotes supporting the 2A as I read it and say my argument falls apart. What argument? I was throwing the topic out for discussion and in my second post, questioned the basis of Steven's opinion. Or are you just in an insulting mood?

Here's my position: I don't believe retired Justice Stevens' opinion is valid and updating the 2A is not necessary.

I agree with each and every one of your quotes:

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms..." - Thomas Jefferson

"I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason

"Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms." - James Madison

"...Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace." -Thomas Paine

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self defense." - John Adams

 

[HenryBHough]

When the government fears the people there is liberty.

Otherwise, not so much.

 

[Ringel05]

Ringel,

My first post was to introduce retired Justice Stevens' opinion. This was for the sake of opening up a discussion on the topic. I meant it to be neutral.

In my second post, I wondered if retired Justice Stevens was inclusive of all the issues the founding fathers considered in penning the 2A. More of a question than a position but clearly I didn't fall on his side of the fence.

You come back with more quotes supporting the 2A as I read it and say my argument falls apart. What argument? I was throwing the topic out for discussion and in my second post, questioned the basis of Steven's opinion. Or are you just in an insulting mood?

Here's my position: I don't believe retired Justice Stevens' opinion is valid and updating the 2A is not necessary.

I agree with each and every one of your quotes:

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms..." - Thomas Jefferson

"I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason

"Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms." - James Madison

"...Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace." -Thomas Paine

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self defense." - John Adams

Then I misread what you were saying. Read like you were supporting the "Militia only" debate.

 

[williepete]

Then I misread what you were saying. Read like you were supporting the "Militia only" debate.

Nah. Not me by a long shot. Should have been more clear. That'll teach me to try to be neutral in introducing a topic.

Cheers.

 

[DriftingSand]

Gun Control and the Constitution: Should We Amend the Second Amendment?

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens thinks so and recommends wording:
LINK:
Gun Control and the Constitution: Should We Amend the Second Amendment? - Businessweek

From this:
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.


"Since (Retired Justice) Stevens believes that the authors of the Second Amendment were primarily concerned about the threat that a national standing army posed to the sovereignty of the states—as opposed to homeowners’ anxiety about violent felons—he thinks the best way to fix the situation is to amend the Second Amendment. He’d do that by adding five words as follows":


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.

Bad idea! I like this old adage: "If it works ... don't fix it." The 2nd Amendment is perfect as is. The only thing we need to do now is uphold existing laws (there's plenty of them). We should also jump start the death penalty in all 50 states (or 57 states if you're an Obama) of the union. Guns aren't America's problem. Violent felons are America's problem. And, according to Thomas Jefferson & others, despotic governments are of great concern to a free state of well-armed citizens.

However, should the wording of the 2nd Amendment be eventually changed then I suggest that the citizens of the United States band together and form (and "serve in") a citizen's militia.

 

[williepete]

"If it works ... don't fix it."
However, should the wording of the 2nd Amendment be eventually changed then I suggest that the citizens of the United States band together and form (and "serve in") a citizen's militia.

There is actually no need to. You might be interested in this little known tidbit:

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

LINKS:
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute
10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes
10 U.S.C. 311 - Militia: composition and classes

The U.S. Militia
LINK:
The U.S. Militia - U.S. Government Info/Resources

"Gun control debates often focus on the relevance of the Second Amendment’s call for a "well regulated militia" in light of our modern organized military.

"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." – The Second Amendment to Constitution of the United States.

Specifically, the argument is made that the US either no longer has a militia, or that the National Guard now serves as the militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

But, in fact, Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both "organized" and "unorganized" civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces
Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia

Sec. 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.


Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia.

While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist."

 

[DriftingSand]

"If it works ... don't fix it."
However, should the wording of the 2nd Amendment be eventually changed then I suggest that the citizens of the United States band together and form (and "serve in") a citizen's militia.

There is actually no need to. You might be interested in this little known tidbit:

Good points. There are several active, citizen militias in various states of the union but I'm not sure that every gun owner in every state is aware of that fact or that there's a militia in his particular neck of the woods. That being the case, gun owners need to be ready to create militias in their neck of the woods should the wording of the 2nd Amendment be changed for some odd reason.

 

[Moonglow]

I might go along with the change, if they would denationalize the national guard..

 

[DriftingSand]

When the government fears the people there is liberty.

Otherwise, not so much.

... and the government wouldn't be trying desperately to disarm the American public unless it truly feared an armed, American public. I like our system of checks and balances.