informationliberation
The news you're not supposed to know...




Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand the World
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
(more)
Article posted Apr 15 2014, 9:39 AM Category: Politics/Corruption Source: Police State USA Print

Justice Stevens Proposes Gutting The 2nd Amendment

The activist justice releases official revisions he would like to see on the Bill of Rights.

Retirement has not stopped former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens from attacking basic individual rights. In a recent opinion article, he advocated a position of officially changing the constitution so that only government-managed entities can argue that they have a right to be armed.

The 94-year-old Stevens’ inflammatory comments were published in the Washington Post, titled “The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment.” The activist justice has been a longtime advocate of undercutting the right to keep and bear arms, but now that he is off the bench, he is making his bias against the Bill of Rights known.

His idea of “fixing” the 2nd amendment is to add language that diminishes it to only covering people “when serving in the militia.” Justice Stevens does not believe an individual actually has a right to self-defense — not even in their own domicile — as was apparent from his dissent in both District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.

Stevens’ proposed replacement for the current 2nd Amendment reads 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 when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed."
Of course, his revision would gut the understanding of the current text entirely. Stevens’ vision of gun ownership is that it is more of a privilege than a right — something conditionally granted upon service to the state, and something that can be heavily restricted on any arbitrary whim.

As he argues in his article, the founding fathers supposedly drafted the amendment to protect the “state militia” — the military — in its ability to bear arms. The most basic logic test would suggest that such an amendment would be unnecessary, and a historical test would reveal that such thinking was non-existent in any of the framers of the constitution.

The idea that America’s early revolutionaries would have disarmed their own mothers and wives because they weren’t viewed as proper candidates to join the militia is absurd.

Stevens includes emotion-laden arguments about how too much freedom is responsible for the deaths of children. He seems oblivious to the failures of government gun control, as well as the historical outcomes of disarmed societies that were subjected to tyrannical governments. Living in a police state poses a far deadlier threat than all school shooters in history combined.

Stevens left the high court after a lengthy tenure from 1975-2010. He was first nominated to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals by President Richard Nixon and then nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Gerald Ford. Even after all these years, he continues to make them proud.





Latest Politics/Corruption
- When Frivolous Lawsuits Go Wrong
- New York Holds Real Guns To Retailers Heads For Selling Toy Ones
- DNC Chair Can't Answer Question "What's The Difference Between A Democrat And A Socialist?"
- Smoking Gun: MPAA Emails Reveal Plan To Run Anti-Google Smear Campaign Via Today Show And WSJ
- Obama Pledges to Use Last 18 Months in Office Pushing Gun Control
- Obama Admin Seeks to Further Ruin Our Dishwashers
- The State: The Enemy Not Only of All Mankind But of Kindness, Too
- Florida: Vendor Tries To Save Red Light Cameras Despite Accident Rise









Comments 1 - 2 of 2 Add Comment Page 1 of 1
Anonymous

Posted: Apr 15 2014, 5:59 PM

Link
10842 Government had better be careful when amending the CONstitution. People tend to abandon religions, when those religions no longer speak to their ideals.

I'm glad I'm not one of the con men tasked with writing this script. Their objective, "disarm civilians," will take much more effort than, simply having one of the Reich's fossils, reword the 2nd Amendment. The 1st Amendment is the key to the undoing of the 2nd anyhow.

Haven't they read "1984," or, read on the history of the Reich? Controlling resources wasn't the primary means of control, nor, was the disarming of civilians. Control was accomplished via propaganda, the uniting of religion/ideology, and, a leader that people believed in - in both cases. So, rewording the document, that was meant to unite people under a common ideology, is a VERY stupid move; likened to rewording the bible.

But keep F-ing-up dip-shits. There will be lots more people like me - calling b/s on the entire construct, deprogramming, waking up....
irishpete

Posted: Apr 17 2014, 1:36 PM

Link
82145 That old geezer shudda been put in a wooden box long ago !


Add Comment
Name
Comment

* No HTML


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below
 


PLEASE NOTE
Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



Advanced Search
Username:

Password:

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Register

In Under a Minute, this Cop Shows Exactly Why People are Losing Faith in Police - 08/02Police Pose As Construction Crew To Extort Texting Drivers - 07/31NYPD Thugs Assault Business Owner As He Closes Shop - 08/03'I Can Detain You For Not Talking to Me!': WI Police Officer Harasses Open Carry Activists, Demands They Leave the City - 08/03Teenager Sues Police After Being Jailed for 40 Days Over a Snowball Then Cleared of Wrongdoing - 08/03VIDEO: Hillary Supporters Call For Repealing Bill of Rights - 08/03Man Threatened With Charges After Catching Post Office Delivering Mail Into Dumpster - 08/04War President Obama Authorizes Ongoing Airstrikes Against Syria - 08/03

Man Follows Speeding Cop, Finds Out He Was Speeding To Buy PeanutsMission Creeps: Homeland Security Agents Confiscate Women's Panties For 'Copyright Infringement'Cop Shoots Couple's Dog, Threatens Jail For Trying To Save Dog's LifeSWAT Team Shoots Teen Girl & Her Dog During Pot Raid On Wrong HomeDurham, NC Cop Testifies Faking 911 Calls To Enter Homes Is "Official Policy"Indiana Sheriff Says US A "War Zone" To Justify New MRAP Military VehicleTampa Cops Surveil Pot Dealer, Catch Him Selling Pot, Raid His Home & Kill Him"You Just Shot An Unarmed Man!": Witness Says Police Shot His Friend With His Hands Up
(more)

 
Top