Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Retired Ass. Justice Stevens, "..when serving in the militia shall not be infringed."

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166

    Retired Ass. Justice Stevens, "..when serving in the militia shall not be infringed."

    Former Supreme Court justice wants to add 5 words to Second Amendment

    "He suggested the inclusion of five words for clarification, with the “new and improved” Second Amendment reading, “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.”

    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/02/...endment-102443

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles...mpaign_id=yhoo

    In effect, Stevens would take away the right of private citizens to own firearms in America. In his book, he argues:

    “Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands.”

    Gun law “reform” advocates, from Barack Obama to multiple members of Congress including Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, insist that it is not the goal of the pro-gun-control crowd to “take away your guns.” To Stevens’ credit, at least he states his real objective — loud and clear. For that, at least, he is to be commended


    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/1169...er-gun-owners/

    With justice like this, we need no more enemies.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 02-22-2014 at 06:58 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Well,,,

    We dont need any new words in the 2nd amendment!!

    I 61 yo,,, and Im still in a militia... a militia of one... and quite unorganized at that....
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  3. #3
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Seriously? Judge Clownshoes thinks we need to amend the Constitution to ensure that the militia can be armed? Perhaps we should amend the Second to ensure the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines can carry arms too, you can never be too sure.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,202
    My question to him would be why?

    Can't you read and understand it now makes me wonder about your law degree.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  5. #5
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964
    "Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands."

    Of course most here know that the purpose of the 2ndA is to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in public hands.

    When "intelligent debate" about the merits of various ways to intentionally suppress a fundamental right is countered with a claim that the right is fundamental, how can Stevens or anybody else put an emotional label on those that defend the fundamental right?

    Stevens labels supporters of the right as emotional. According to Stevens, this emotion distorts "intelligent debate."

    First, the intelligent debate must begin with an acceptance on the limits of governmental power, for the judicial, executive and and congressional branches of government. They cannot destroy our most basic law because this foundational law takes certain policy and judicial choices off the table. Any "intelligent debate" that does not acknowledge the limitation of power is a "not so intelligent debate" that advocates the death of our constitutional republic by tyranny, kritarchy or both.

    The really, really scary part is that these ideas came from a person in the highest court in our constitutional republic. Thank God he is out.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  6. #6
    Regular Member conandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    248
    This is exactly what is wrong with the judicial system.

    You have who knows how many judges on the bench now that have the same or similar views. They are to be impartial in their decisions. But they don't seem to make their decisions based on the constitution. They inject their personal views and then it becomes case law.
    How can we as citizens keep our rights when they are slowly being taken away in the court ?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northglenn, Colorado
    Posts
    243
    So commend him for his honesty and stone him for his tyrannical, traitorous point of view. There's a compromise I'm sure we can all get behind.

    This illustrates why Supreme Court precedent, really isn't the final word. If someone doesn't accept that, please refer them to Dredd Scott. - we fought a war to overturn that decision.

  8. #8
    Regular Member conandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Saxxon View Post
    So commend him for his honesty and stone him for his tyrannical, traitorous point of view. There's a compromise I'm sure we can all get behind.

    This illustrates why Supreme Court precedent, really isn't the final word. If someone doesn't accept that, please refer them to Dredd Scott. - we fought a war to overturn that decision.
    There's that word again compromise..... why should we compromise ? The constitution and bill of rights are clear. To compromise is giving up your freedoms

  9. #9
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by conandan View Post
    This is exactly what is wrong with the judicial system.

    You have who knows how many judges on the bench now that have the same or similar views. They are to be impartial in their decisions. But they don't seem to make their decisions based on the constitution. They inject their personal views and then it becomes case law.
    How can we as citizens keep our rights when they are slowly being taken away in the court ?
    You are dead on right with this and it has been going on for years.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  10. #10
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    I wrote two responses to this on another website which are presented below. This man knows little about the Bill of Rights and the how and why of its drafting.


    "Well he's both right and wrong in this article. The Second Amendment, as well as the other articles of the Bill of Rights, was drafted as a control mechanism against the federal government... i.e., to inform that entity that there are certain areas upon which it may not, must not, infringe. The several states all had articles/sections of their individual constitutions which addressed the right of their people to keep and bear arms. The dilemma he faces is to apply the same logic he wants for the Second Amendment to that of the First Amendment which like the rest, also addresses federal encroachment.

    Whenever there has been a violation of a component of the First Amendment at the state level we have seen the federal government, up to an including the supreme court, become involved in the matter in an effort to correct things and make the aggrieved whole. Same thing with the Fourth Amendment. Yet both of these articles were written to control the federal government, not happenings at the state level. And what we virtually never see is the feds moving in when the issue is the Second Amendment.

    In other words, the federal government elects to pick and choose those articles of the Bill of Rights with which it agrees and ignores those with which it takes issue. Seeing this, who's side do you think they're on? Certainly not the side of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    And BTW, at least four of our Founders believed the Bill of Rights was unamendable (Jefferson, Madison, Henry, and Mason). Think they were more learned than the likes of Stevens?"


    "You have that a little backwards. The first part of the amendment is not the "why" of the right, but rather a residual of it. In other words, a militia cannot exist without the ability of the People to have arms, not the other way around.

    And the militia still exists to this day. I refer you to U.S. Code 311;

    "(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."

    The Founders were masters of the English language, far more practiced and astute that what passes for the written word today. One need only to read their writings to see this simple fact. And they were quite learned and worldly. Couple this with a shared vision for a new nation and they have no match in contemporary government, press, or such. They knew what they wrote when they drafted the Bill of Rights and they made no mistakes, mangle no words or phraseology, and left nothing to the imagination. It is we who have somehow allowed those who would see us disarmed to believe these men muddled the text of the Bill of Rights.

    As proof, I give you Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution. It was from this text, written by Madison, that he condensed and included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

    "Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

    That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

    No, the Second Amendment does not give militias as the reason for the People to be armed. The People must be armed in order for a militia to exist. It is the right of the People to keep and bear arms which is the salient point of the amendment and that which its inclusion was meant to protect."
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  11. #11
    Regular Member conandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    You are dead on right with this and it has been going on for years.
    So what can we do ? The normal ways to fix things are no longer an option.

    When we vote in politicians who promise one thing than do the exact opposite once in office. Or cave to political pressure or special interest groups.

    The courts are packed with activists judges. And even when a judge follows the constitution it is appealed to another court and then overturned.

    We write letters and emails to our elected officials who do nothing. The very few who do try to do something are stonewalled by there peers.

    We are fighting a loosing battle. The system is fixed so we can't win. Yea we get a compromise victory once and a while, but still loose some of our rights in the process.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Nice to know ... this is how he was reading it anyways. POS

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    The funny thing is that in the very paragraph where he accuses others of using emotional arguments he uses an emotional argument.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    He knows what he's doing, he understands the law just doesn't like it, it doesn't fit into his statist anti liberty stance.

    Personal defence wasn't the purpose of the enumeration of the fundamental right to resist as enshrined in the 2A. That was already covered under common law, and spelled out specifically in Black's Commentaries.


    Quote Originally Posted by Saxxon View Post
    So commend him for his honesty and stone him for his tyrannical, traitorous point of view. There's a compromise I'm sure we can all get behind.

    This illustrates why Supreme Court precedent, really isn't the final word. If someone doesn't accept that, please refer them to Dredd Scott. - we fought a war to overturn that decision.
    Good post! Let's clarify the last bit though, if we don't learn real history we are doomed to repeat it. The war was over the right to choose your own government. Much how the colonist seceded from Britain. Instead of a federal system of voluntary independent states Lincoln the Tyrant consolidated our country into a national centralist one.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by conandan View Post
    So what can we do ? The normal ways to fix things are no longer an option.

    When we vote in politicians who promise one thing than do the exact opposite once in office. Or cave to political pressure or special interest groups.

    The courts are packed with activists judges. And even when a judge follows the constitution it is appealed to another court and then overturned.

    We write letters and emails to our elected officials who do nothing. The very few who do try to do something are stonewalled by there peers.

    We are fighting a loosing battle. The system is fixed so we can't win. Yea we get a compromise victory once and a while, but still loose some of our rights in the process.
    Your points are valid and true. Frankly, I don't know what we can do. Yes we can vote but we all know what really happens when voting time rolls around. The pendulum has taken its swing to the left. It will return to the right but as has been the case for years, when it resets it will be a few degrees of left bias.

    The left has proved that it can mobilize and remain solid as a voting block. The right is splintered and tucks tail and runs at the first sign of keywords such as "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobe" or you name it. Conservatives and Constitutionalists are stuck with the same ole same ole and unfortunately, the left knows this and knows how to beat us.

    Eventually the system may burst but that is not the answer, either. We are heading down a road in the the great abyss and just keep on going. It is quite possible I'll see in my lifetime, the destruction of our nation from within. Then what Khrushchev predicted in 1959 will have come true.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166

    John Lott hoists anti-2A on its own logic petard, 2A changes to guarantee the militia

    Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens unintentionally shows that the 2nd Amendment wasn't meant to just guarantee weapons for the militia http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2014/0...john-paul.html
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens unintentionally shows that the 2nd Amendment wasn't meant to just guarantee weapons for the militia http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2014/0...john-paul.html
    Well, if he says that the words have to be added sure....BUT when he was a justice, he added those words in his head anyway and tried to justify it.

    He's a traitor.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166
    How about merely wrong. At least he had the courage to be clearly wrong and not equivocate. It is interesting that we are prohibited bashing some but not their betters.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    How about merely wrong. At least he had the courage to be clearly wrong and not equivocate. It is interesting that we are prohibited bashing some but not their betters.
    Politicians and public officials ? Fair game. Always have been. Read defamation law -- public officials are under different rules.

    I claim parlay ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tC4hKe7X3w

  20. #20
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    I wrote two responses to this on another website which are presented below. This man knows little about the Bill of Rights and the how and why of its drafting.


    "Well he's both right and wrong in this article. The Second Amendment, as well as the other articles of the Bill of Rights, was drafted as a control mechanism against the federal government... i.e., to inform that entity that there are certain areas upon which it may not, must not, infringe. The several states all had articles/sections of their individual constitutions which addressed the right of their people to keep and bear arms. The dilemma he faces is to apply the same logic he wants for the Second Amendment to that of the First Amendment which like the rest, also addresses federal encroachment.

    Whenever there has been a violation of a component of the First Amendment at the state level we have seen the federal government, up to an including the supreme court, become involved in the matter in an effort to correct things and make the aggrieved whole. Same thing with the Fourth Amendment. Yet both of these articles were written to control the federal government, not happenings at the state level. And what we virtually never see is the feds moving in when the issue is the Second Amendment.

    In other words, the federal government elects to pick and choose those articles of the Bill of Rights with which it agrees and ignores those with which it takes issue. Seeing this, who's side do you think they're on? Certainly not the side of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    And BTW, at least four of our Founders believed the Bill of Rights was unamendable (Jefferson, Madison, Henry, and Mason). Think they were more learned than the likes of Stevens?"


    "You have that a little backwards. The first part of the amendment is not the "why" of the right, but rather a residual of it. In other words, a militia cannot exist without the ability of the People to have arms, not the other way around.

    And the militia still exists to this day. I refer you to U.S. Code 311;

    "(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."

    The Founders were masters of the English language, far more practiced and astute that what passes for the written word today. One need only to read their writings to see this simple fact. And they were quite learned and worldly. Couple this with a shared vision for a new nation and they have no match in contemporary government, press, or such. They knew what they wrote when they drafted the Bill of Rights and they made no mistakes, mangle no words or phraseology, and left nothing to the imagination. It is we who have somehow allowed those who would see us disarmed to believe these men muddled the text of the Bill of Rights.

    As proof, I give you Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution. It was from this text, written by Madison, that he condensed and included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

    "Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

    That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

    No, the Second Amendment does not give militias as the reason for the People to be armed. The People must be armed in order for a militia to exist. It is the right of the People to keep and bear arms which is the salient point of the amendment and that which its inclusion was meant to protect."
    Well said, sir. Well said.

    Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •