Retired Justice Stevens is speaking up against the Right to Bear Arms. He is making his case sound rational and logical and uber-civilized by manipulating the spirit of the words within the 2nd Amendment. The words that he is focusing on are “well regulated militia” and he would also add more limitations to the Amendment, thus making it UNCONSTITUTIONAL in application. It is very apparent that Justice Stevens is either very idealistic and liberal in his point of view or is a complete tool for oppressive government. Which, matters not, as both are detrimental to individual rights of ALL citizens.
The basic premise, intended or not, by the retired Justice is that only persons that are loyal to the government and labeled as militia by the government (so basically each states’ National Guard) would be allowed to have weapons ONLY when performing their tasks as militia of the government. So Justice Stevens’ new 2nd Amendment would read:
While his proposal might sound perfectly civilized and acceptable to most upper-middle class suburbia, it is nailing shut the coffin lid on individual rights and freedom. Justice Stevens, effectively removes all ability of the citizenry to protect themselves from an oppressive government. I guess Justice Stevens has so focused on the Amendments that he has forgotten why the Bill of Rights were included in the Constitution from the start and were expected to be left completely and unequivocally intact.