Repeal the Second Amendment
That is what retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in an op-ed published in The New York Times. Can you image the destruction wrought by this person when he sat on the U.S. Supreme Court, it appears he either does not understand the Constitution or he does and could care less what the document means or stood for. Thanks President Ford for nominating him.
As a side note, the reason it is extremely important who is President when a U.S. Supreme Court justice retires or dies, Stevens proves that it does. He sat on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1975 until his retirement in 2010. This man who apparently does not understand that law is blind and should not be applied depending who is standing in judgment in front of it was on the bench for over 35 years.
If anyone now does not believe that the Democrat party does wants to repeal the Second Amendment thus confiscating everyone’s’ guns, then they are just blind partisans who care nothing about the rule of law and the governed.
The Second Amendment is written as follows:
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
David Harsanyi, a senior editor at the Federalist wrote a very interesting piece which was published in the Detroit News. He made an interesting point about the “regulated militia” when he stated:
The debate over the Second Amendment centered on a dispute over who should control the militia: the federal or state governments. Everyone understood that a militia consisted of free individuals who would almost always grab their own firearms — the ones they used in their everyday existence — to engage in concerted efforts to protect themselves, their community or their country (sometimes from their own government).
If the left wants to repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate our guns, fine I would love to see them run on that platform. It is legal for you to do so and again I would encourage you to. If you believe that is what the majority of Americans want then instead of whining about it all the time do something about it. In fact I will go through the trouble of explaining to you exactly what you must do, and it is as follows:
- You must first vote on a new amendment repealing the amendment in question. It must be done exactly the same way, because the repeal itself is an amendment.
To begin, a proposed amendment must be voted approved by a 2/3 majority of both legislative bodies of the US Congress. The Proposed Amendment must then be sent to every individual State's legislature for consideration.
- Each state follows its own parliamentary process vote on the proposed amendment. For the proposed amendment to become a Constitutional Amendment, ¾’s of the individual American States must vote to pass the new amendment.
You see it is as easy as that, so go at it my fellow liberal Americans and illegal aliens.
Now, since many of you probably advocate the common core method of math, we currently have 50 states, not the 58 states that President Obama believed we have when he first ran for the office of the president. That means those of you who want the Second Amendment repealed and our guns confiscated would have to get 38 states (that is ¾’s of 50) to vote to approve the new amendment to repeal the Second Amendment.
There you go, it is as easy as that, have at it.
What I do want to point out is that people who want to repeal the 2nd Amendment cannot attempt to perform historical revisionism to “mangle its meaning into irrelevancy” as David Harsanyi stated in his piece when he said:
Whether repeal of the Second Amendment is feasible or not, historical revisionism is meant to mangle its meaning into irrelevancy. Stevens claims that the Second Amendment’s explicit mention of the right of “the people” does not create an “individual right,” despite the inconvenient fact that other times the term is mentioned, in the Fourth, Ninth and 10th Amendments, the amendments have been found to protect the individual rights of the people.
So Mr. Stevens you believe that “the people” are not the same as an “individual”, really. What are “the people” then in your mind? Remember this guy sat on the U.S. Supreme Court for over 35 years?
On the point concerning the 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments Mr. Harsanyi wrote the following:
Just as the First Amendment protects modern communication, and just as the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends to guns that were not in existence at the time of the founding. Unlike contemporary liberal columnists who’d like to revise the Constitution, the founders were well aware that the fleeting emotions of the population could corrode rights.
The question that retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens did not explain to us “the people” is what he meant by “the people”. If he meant the government then the Fourth, Ninth and 10th Amendments means that only the government has the rights stated in the Fourth, Ninth and 10th Amendments, is that what the left wants?