Justice Stevens thinks he knows how to 'fix' the Second Amendment

Davey Jones

Davey Jones

Well-known Member
Location
Florida
Not a bad idea..

The way its written now:
“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.”

His suggestion:
 “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.”
 

I don't think the second amendment needs any "fixing". Perhaps if they do like Switzerland, every man is required to own a gun and keep it in their home, so all of them are a ready and prepared militia. Not much crime there!
 

every man is required to own a gun and keep it in their home
Click to expand...
That would be an improvement. Just one gun per man would reduce the number of guns overall and if they stay in the home, securely stored, then the whole community would be a whole lot safer, with the possible exception of the family. Wives had better stay obedient and faithful.
 
Im just trying to curtail all the gun violance in this country,it seems nowaday anyone,any age,mental or not can aquire a hand gun if they try hard enough to get one.
Its not impossible today to get your hands on one.
Law enforcement on handguns? Not enough enforcement IMO.
 
To curtail the gun violence, and other violence in the United States, they need to address the issues of gangs and medication madness that's occurring in America. I was just listening to a show where they were concerned about the over-medication of foster children, because those who foster often take on more than one child, and they use drugs to calm them whether they have a mental illness or not. Future violence from these youngsters is likely to be a big part of their adult life.

The criminals and gangs are taking over in some states more than others, those are the shootings that beef up the gun crime statistics. Those in charge need not to turn a blind eye to these serious problems in this country, and get off the kick of taking from the law-abiding responsible American citizens.
 
The Judge may be correct:


  1. militia
    mɪˈlɪʃə/
    noun
    noun: militia; plural noun: militias
    • 1.
      a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.






 
How do you interpret the line "a well regulated Militia"? I don't see any well regulated militia. And isn't there an inconsistency? How can you have a "well regulated militia", which implies rules and well, regulations, with "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
What if a militia regulation interferes with the "right to bear arms"?
 
A common misconception is that the 2nd Amendment "gives" us the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't, it merely spells it out as one of our more important unalienable rights that all men and women are born with, it doesn't "give" us anything. Read the last part of it, it says "the right" as something we already have and are already aware of, it doesn't say "the people shall have the right".
 
digifoss said:
A common misconception is that the 2nd Amendment "gives" us the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't, it merely spells it out as one of our more important unalienable rights that all men and women are born with, it doesn't "give" us anything. Read the last part of it, it says "the right" as something we already have and are already aware of, it doesn't say "the people shall have the right".
Click to expand...

Digaree with that:
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.

If they have no right to bear arms, then the government can't infringe the right.
 
ohioboy said:
Digaree with that:
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.

If they have no right to bear arms, then the government can't infringe the right.
Click to expand...

We DO have the right and it did not come from the government or the second amendment. Haven't you ever read the Declaration of Independence Ohioboy ?
 
Davey Jones said:
Im just trying to curtail all the gun violance in this country,it seems nowaday anyone,any age,mental or not can aquire a hand gun if they try hard enough to get one.
Its not impossible today to get your hands on one.
Law enforcement on handguns? Not enough enforcement IMO.
Click to expand...
It's not the guns that are violent. It's people. Taking guns away not only doesn't solve the violence problem, it would likely exacerbate it, given how many crimes and criminals are stopped by armed citizens.

Edit Note: Criminals will always be able to get guns, even if they're banned altogether. Guns will become a major criminal enterprise just like alcohol did during prohibition. It is also good to remember that strict citizen gun control, such as Stevens supposed suggests, is the hallmark of totalarian regimes.
 
Last edited:
ohioboy said:
Yogi says that Bears have a right to be armed!
Click to expand...
I think you have your bears confused. Yogi Bear was a fictional brown bear that lived in fictional Jellystone park in a cartoon version of Wyoming. Smokey Bear was a real black bear that lived in New Mexico from 1950 to 1976. The fictional forest service mascot that was used to promote forest fire prevention was based on the real Smokey the black bear. Now if you meant Yogi Berra OTOH, he was a baseball player that sued Hanna Barbara over creating the fictional Yogi Bear character capitalizing on his popularity. In any event, not any of the three bears said anyone had a right to "bear" ;) arms.
ohioboy said:
Digaree with that:
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.

If they have no right to bear arms, then the government can't infringe the right.
Click to expand...
"If they have no right to bear arms" I have no idea what you mean by that, please explain .....


ohioboy said:
The DoI has no force of law.
Click to expand...
Right... it doesn't, So again, I have no Idea what you mean by saying that, please explain...
 
Last edited:
Any attempt to confiscate firearms from the majority of our law abiding people would result in civil unrest that would make these recent BLM riots look like a minor argument, by comparison. Even outlawing things like assault style rifles, and high capacity magazines would only result in yet another "black market" supply train....much like illegal drugs.
 
Digi, actually I meant Smokey the bear.

"If they have no right to bear arms, then the government can't infringe the right".

That statement meant the govt. is saying you have every right to bear arms, and that they have no right to infringe on it's purpose. As I'm sure you know, the specific BoR, 1-8, are negative in nature, so I was agreeing with you.
 
ohioboy said:
Digi, actually I meant Smokey the bear.

"If they have no right to bear arms, then the government can't infringe the right".

That statement meant the govt. is saying you have every right to bear arms, and that they have no right to infringe on it's purpose. As I'm sure you know, the specific BoR, 1-8, are negative in nature, so I was agreeing with you.
Click to expand...

Oh , sometimes I need a picture drawn ...... (y)
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top