TexasCHLforum.com

John Paul Stevens, a now retired Supreme Court justice with a decideably left-wing tilt has an idea of how the 2nd Amendment should be fixed: add just 5 words to the Amendment to the Constitution.

Here's a link to the article profiling his idea: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

no problem, try to amend the constitution if you can. Not likely in my lifetime.

the fool just completed reinterpreted the constitution! why did I even read it?

SewTexas wrote:the fool just completed reinterpreted the constitution! why did I even read it?

It is incomprehensible that a supposedly learned man could even contemplate using the Constitution to install a military state. One has only to study history and recent global events to acknowledge the sheer stupidity of that statement and in comparison with what the framer's of the Constitution meant. The man is either incredibly obtuse, senile or downright against freedom and liberty in the US as we all know it.

This is a person that believes that the 2nd Amendment is a collective state right not an individual right. Therefore the right to bear arms can be regulated by the state.

Our Founding Fathers did okay up until they put in that thinghy about federal judges being appointed for life. Bless their hearts, they couldn't possibly foresee what we see today.....

To cut to the chase (I couldn't bear to read the entire inanity), here is how he would change the 2nd Amendment:

“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.”

He is obviously a traitor to the spirit of the founders.

The Annoyed Man wrote:To cut to the chase (I couldn't bear to read the entire inanity), here is how he would change the 2nd Amendment:

“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.”

He is obviously a traitor to the spirit of the founders.

What I said above.

Clayton E. Cramer takes him apart here: Justice Stevens and Flexible History

First para:

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens had an op-ed piece in the Washington Post a couple of days ago that still has my brain doing backflips. He claims that, “Legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce.” Stevens certainly did not believe this when he signed onto decisions overturning Texas’s sodomy law, or when arguing that state laws limiting abortion were unconstitutional, or when striking down Louisiana’s death penalty for raping a child (this is a pretty gruesome decision to read). So why is Justice Stevens suddenly so supportive of the wisdom of legislatures compared to judges? That’s for a simple reason: it’s about the Second Amendment.

Do go read the whole thing.

I think that Stevens just scored points for the Pro Second amendment crowd by confirming our interpretation of the 2 amendment is correct. In order to be interpretated as the antis would like the second amendment would need to be changed.

I think we should thank Stevens for proving the antis wrong.

If we change anything it needs to better define authority and limits of all three branches including SCOTUS and put teeth in the limits should they decide to exceed the limits.

Anygunanywhere

Thankfully Stevens is just a private citizen, giving his view no more force than mine, and my opinion is that the entire preamble to the Second Amendment should be removed, resulting in "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

Stevens is just a sore loser trying to override the opinion of the highest court in the land, which he was a member of when the decision was rendered. If his opinion was that powerful, more would have voted with him than against him.

Right2Carry wrote:I think that Stevens just scored points for the Pro Second amendment crowd by confirming our interpretation of the 2 amendment is correct. In order to be interpretated as the antis would like the second amendment would need to be changed.

I think we should thank Stevens for proving the antis wrong.

That's a pretty good point.

I understand the theory behind lifetime appointments for federal judges. In my view, it was a good idea that simply didn't work. One who answers to no one but himself is or becomes a tyrant. The theory that a bad federal judge will be impeached is laughable. Congress has too much to do to deal with a single judge, much less several "bad" judges.

Chas.

Another one of those things that sounds good in theory but not very practical when it comes to application?