We’ve been ignoring the first half of the Second Amendment lately, and it’s getting people killed. Justice Stevens thinks we should add five extra words:
“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 speaks about the history of the amendment and how it was historically interpreted; definitely worth a read.
Ooooooh! Let’s see how the comments go. The logistical and verbal gymnastics are almost always a good show.
can we put ‘WELL REGULATED’ in caps?
I am not a Second Amendment Absolutist or even at this point much of a Second Amendment Supporter. But this proposed Amendment is literally vacuous. However you define militia and whatever mechanism by which you would summon them the very first step would be to either issue them ammunition for the arms they brought or arms and ammunition in case they were not expected to bring such.
But the whole concept of an unarmed militia such that you would need to guarantee that ONCE MOBILIZED would actually be armed makes no sense at all and makes a totally mockery of the “well regulated” phrase which in 18th C military terms has zip to do with “subject to a code of regulations”.
Abolish the Second Amendment as being a total anachronism for all I care amd regulate gun ownership through the democratic process. But these attempts to tinker with the text are ridiculous. The 2nd and 3rd Amendment were vastly important in their historical context but are faintly ridiculous today, the circumstances that made them necessary more or less disappeared after Great Britain abandoned its desire to restore the status quo ante or at latest 1812-14
You all might remember the key event as being the Battle of New Orleans. Just say’in.
Yet, oddly enough, one of the circumstances where your ability to carry weapons is seriously curtailed is…as an active duty military person on base.