John Paul Stevens’ opinion on the 2nd amendment. Worth reading.
John Paul Stevens’ opinion on the 2nd amendment. Worth reading.
Published
10 thoughts on “John Paul Stevens’ opinion on the 2nd amendment. Worth reading.”
You must log in to post a comment.
Here are the five words, for those who don’t have the time to dig: “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
Unfortunately, this will never happen, even if it clarifies the original intent of the amendment (which is pretty clear already).
Well, there was Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)…
It isn’t quite as simple or clear-cut as either side wants one to believe: if it was, there wouldn’t be such a disagreement. See how the wording changed and what was approved at each step… 😉 Yet, it isn’t just a new idea.
As George Washington made explicit, the purpose of the 2nd was to ensure that when revolution is needed, it is possible.
Any “militias” who think they could successfully revolt against the US military are seriously deluded.
1. Is the military ever going to be deployed? 2. If so, would they shoot? 😉
The Posse Comitatus Act bans the use of the military inside the country. Moreover, there are very few in the military who would support a tyrant in DC trying to make this a socialist state.
George Beckingham That does not in any way alter the intent of the founders, or of the point of the 2nd.
It does illustrate that plans made 200 years ago don’t necessarily make any sense today. That’s why there’s an amendment process. The second, in particular, needs some serious refinement–to say nothing of the gaping hole in the first, which I’m the founders never anticipated would be applied to non-human “legal persons”.
Except for the use of publications by Ben Franklin and the publication of the Federalist Papers. Yes, newspapers are not individuals either…
Regardless of your position, this is clever.