Just add five words, says former justice John Paul Stevens.
I would be interested in the thoughtful, reasoned comments of those who think this is a terrible idea.
The militia is the people. We are all an unorganized militia. This is fucking stupid.
Oh man, this is a doozy.
The article states:
First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms.
Nowhere in the second amendment does it say anything about the military. If you understand 18th century English, you know “militia” was just another name for the people who, in times of need, were armed sufficiently. These were/are the people… you and I.
The Constitution absolutely restricts states from regulating the ownership/use of firearms. The tenth amendment says anything NOT spelled out in the Constitution and it’s amendment defaults to the states… but gun ownership is clearly spelled out in the second amendment and it says “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.” That includes states in the whole “shall not be infringed part.”
the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years.
What part of “shall NOT be infringed” do you not understand? The weapons used in these instances were obtained ILLEGALLY and the person wielding them broke countless laws when they committed their crimes. More laws will not stop an evil or mentally deranged person from carrying out their vile acts. There are instances where knives have been used to main/kill dozens, no guns involved. I won’t even get into the guns that are stolen from our own government right from under their noses for illegal purposes.
Prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, or on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, and laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings or imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are specifically identified as permissible regulations.
Places that have concealed carry holders tend to see less crime and, when a shooting occurs, less people die. Why would you want to limit this?
Gun-free zones have been proven time and time again as being easy targets. Sandy Hook, Columbine, Fort Hood, Fort Hood again, The DC Navy Yard and other prohibited places are easy pickings for a person will ill intent… nobody will shoot back. The sad part is that these things will continue to happen as long as we do not see the value of an armed populace.
Congress’s failure to enact laws that would expand the use of background checks and limit the availability of automatic weapons cannot be justified by reference to the Second Amendment or to anything that the Supreme Court has said about that amendment.
We already have pretty good background checks and “automatic” weapons are federally regulated and prohibitively expensive to buy. They account for very few, if any, gun crimes.
What the members of the five-justice majority said in those opinions is nevertheless profoundly important, because it curtails the government’s power to regulate the use of handguns that contribute to the roughly 88 firearm-related deaths that occur every day.
Where do these handgun crimes happen? What is the root cause? inner-city gang violence maybe? Illegally obtained, stolen and crudely made firearms perhaps?
Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. They could not care less how many laws you pass. They will steal, make and smuggle what they need to do their criminal activity. Limiting the law abiding populace’s ability to defend themselves against this is the very definition of evil.
The Second Amendment expressly endorsed the substantive common-law rule that protected the citizen’s right (and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia.
Again, 18th century English is not entirely the same as today’s. Look it up.
That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Armswhen serving in the Militiashall not be infringed.”
The militia IS the people. We are the militia as the founders understood it. We, the people, were the ones burdened with the responsibility to protect our life, liberty and property in the eyes of the founders. How is this hard to understand? Read their private correspondences to each other, they spell it out pretty clearly.
The only national tragedy would be to leave regular men, women and children defenseless against evil and insane people who wish to do horrible acts. Guns protect our elected officials, celebrities, wealthy people… why should I, a person who does not get that sort of protection, be left defenseless? Look me in the eyes and tell me why I have to left to the whims of madmen and criminals?