Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens unintentionally shows that the 2nd Amendment wasn't meant to just guarantee weapons for the militia
The Second Amendment reads: "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 would like to add five words and also a comma:
“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.”
Stevens unintentionally shows what those who drafted the amendment would have to have written to make it clear that they wanted it only to apply to those in the militia. There is a huge difference between "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed." Both statements are quite clear, but while Stevens would like everyone to believe that the 2nd Amendment was written as only a militia right.
Stevens would like to add five words and also a comma:
“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.”
Stevens unintentionally shows what those who drafted the amendment would have to have written to make it clear that they wanted it only to apply to those in the militia. There is a huge difference between "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed." Both statements are quite clear, but while Stevens would like everyone to believe that the 2nd Amendment was written as only a militia right.
Labels: SecondAmendment
posted by John Lott at 11:30 PM
2 Comments:
Why exactly would an individual, who's job it was to protect the Constitution, and ensure that the government did not enact laws that are repugnant to said Constitution, want to change it?
Here we have an example of accidental admission of the truth of the second, yet J.P Stevens still opposes it? What exactly does he fear? He claims that there is a 'slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands', which when placed in context with automobile deaths, one would think that J.P.Stevens would want to ban cars, seeing as how the auto death rate is at least 3 times higher than firearm deaths.
Or is this another case of wanting to take away rights in order to gain more power?
Apparently Stevens misapprehends the meaning of "militia": 10 U.S. Code § 311 (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age...
Post a Comment
<< Home