John Paul Stevens wants to amend the Second Amendment....

[BattleSnail]

...to read

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.

This old fart needs to hurry up and croake.

http://www.businessweek.com/article...e-amend-the-second-amendment?campaign_id=yhoo

 

[Win]

This is actually the appropriate approach for the anti-gun folks. They should not be pretending that the constitution doesn't exist. Instead of writing legislation that runs counter to the constitution, they should try to amend the constitution and see if they have the votes to get what they want.

 

[BuckTheMoose]

This is actually the appropriate approach for the anti-gun folks. They should not be pretending that the constitution doesn't exist. Instead of writing legislation that runs counter to the constitution, they should try to amend the constitution and see if they have the votes to get what they want.

+1

 

[BuckTheMoose]

This old fart needs to hurry up and croake.

+1 to this too.

 

[not new guy]

...to read


This old fart needs to hurry up and croake.

http://www.businessweek.com/article...e-amend-the-second-amendment?campaign_id=yhoo

Sure, let's just amend the constitution!

 

[GM-GUY]

Yes, I've included that in most of my letter to pols. If you want to change the 2nd, then change it, file and amendment, get it through Congress have the PotUS sign it then have the states ratify it. If you can't do that, you tread on dangerous ground.

Btw - will never happen. Can't get the super majority needed in congress or the states, not even sure Mass would go along.

 

[Squire]

2/3 majority of the states to ratify. The other third will secede.

 

[xcom]

Amending any portion of the bill of rights is tyranny personified. Considering that the Bill of Rights reflects the natural rights that we expressly maintain as citizens and men, it would be folly in the extreme. Once one of the BOR goes down, they all do. In the years since 1790, not a single rights contain in the BOR has been amended.

 

[DarrenL]

2/3 majority of the states to ratify. The other third will secede.

They need 2/3 of both Senate and House, then 3/4 of all states to ratify. The only states that would/might are CA, MA, NJ, CT, MD, HI, maybe Delaware, maybe NY? In other words, not 38.

 

[xcom]

They need 2/3 of both Senate and House, then 3/4 of all states to ratify. The only states that would/might are CA, MA, NJ, CT, MD, HI, maybe Delaware, maybe NY? In other words, not 38.

Not going to happen, they would be more likely to get an amendment strengthening 2A rights...

 

[Squire]

They need 2/3 of both Senate and House, then 3/4 of all states to ratify. The only states that would/might are CA, MA, NJ, CT, MD, HI, maybe Delaware, maybe NY? In other words, not 38.

I stand corrected, I didn't have my pocket Constitution handy! It won't be Montana, that's where I'm going.

 

[StevieP]

THEN would it (finally) be go time?

 

[hunt4riches]

This is actually the appropriate approach for the anti-gun folks. They should not be pretending that the constitution doesn't exist. Instead of writing legislation that runs counter to the constitution, they should try to amend the constitution and see if they have the votes to get what they want.

We know where that'll lead... When governments rip apart the constitution the civilians usually rip apart the government.

 

[BuckTheMoose]

Amending any portion of the bill of rights is tyranny personified. Considering that the Bill of Rights reflects the natural rights that we expressly maintain as citizens and men, it would be folly in the extreme. Once one of the BOR goes down, they all do. In the years since 1790, not a single rights contain in the BOR has been amended.

Exactly. This is why it would never happen. Even if they got as far as proposing such a change, there is no way they would have even close to enough support for it to pass. Instead they continously try to chip away at it piece by piece via (unconstitutional) legislation.

 

[mattyw]

at the time of the constitution weren't all able bodied males considered part of the militia, and it was always ready?

sounds like serving to me

 

[edhead35]

If they ever admit they need to change the constitution to make legislation legal, then almost every law they have passed in the last 100 years would collapse.

 

[LoginName]

I wonder what are the other 5 amendments that he proposes changing, and what those changes are?

 

[calsdad]

...to read

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.

This old fart needs to hurry up and croake.

http://www.businessweek.com/article...e-amend-the-second-amendment?campaign_id=yhoo

You know...... if they actually reconstituted the REAL militia - the way it was originally envisioned - (similar to the current day Swiss model) - I might actually be OK with that.

Because then the gun grabbers would be stuck with a real conundrum - they could either have a militia made up out of all the people - with guns - or the big government they so love. But they would not end up with both.

- - - Updated - - -

If they ever admit they need to change the constitution to make legislation legal, then almost every law they have passed in the last 100 years would collapse.

Exactly. Going down the road of admitting that laws have to be consitutional to exist might make the whole system implode.

- - - Updated - - -

at the time of the constitution weren't all able bodied males considered part of the militia, and it was always ready?

sounds like serving to me

Short answer - yes.

 

[Boghog1]

Come on the Constitution is a living breathing document, but the 2nd only applied to militia and muskets

 

[BattleSnail]

This is actually the appropriate approach for the anti-gun folks. They should not be pretending that the constitution doesn't exist. Instead of writing legislation that runs counter to the constitution, they should try to amend the constitution and see if they have the votes to get what they want.

Agreed. This is what that twat at Harvard wants to do too. What's his name, Alan Dirtytits or something.

 

[cekim]

...to read


This old fart needs to hurry up and croake.

http://www.businessweek.com/article...e-amend-the-second-amendment?campaign_id=yhoo

This quote's origin is in dispute, but it expresses the reality of the time - then and now:

Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State.

 

[BattleSnail]

I wonder what are the other 5 amendments that he proposes changing, and what those changes are?

all your freedoms are belong to us.

 

[Tyke]

Shhh... no one tell him most of us are serving as unorganized militia per... I forget the USC reference but it's there. By federal law all able bodied males in a wide age range are defined as the unorganized militia.

 

[Win]

Agreed. This is what that twat at Harvard wants to do too. What's his name, Alan Dirtytits or something.

Heh. To be clear, I don't believe they have the votes, nor will they have the votes in the foreseeable future.

 

[BattleSnail]

Heh. To be clear, I don't believe they have the votes, nor will they have the votes in the foreseeable future.

true. It's no easy feat pulling off a con con.

Amend it, remove it...idgaf at this point. I'm not giving up my guns. Come get them.

 

[knoxy]

In that case, I'm a 1 man militia.

 

[nhpoke]

Is your militia properly registered?

 

[Ben Diss]

When I argue with Anti's about the 2nd, my point is that it's poorly written. If it was more clear we wouldn't be having this argument, I tell them. Look at how different the State's Constitutions articulate this right.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Alaska: 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 individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. Art. I, § 19 (first sentence enacted 1959, second sentence added 1994).

- - - Updated - - -

When I argue with Anti's about the 2nd, my point is that it's poorly written. If it was more clear we wouldn't be having this argument, I tell them. Look at how different the State's Constitutions articulate this right.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Alaska: 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 individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. Art. I, § 19 (first sentence enacted 1959, second sentence added 1994).

 

[Mr Weebles]

Who cares? Stevens is 93.

The only thing he's changing is his diaper.

 

[otasan56]

The leftists need to just go away.