|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Should the Second Amendment Be Amended?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens suggests amending the Second Amendment to restrict the individual right to bear arms to militia service only. In an opinion piece, he argues that this change would align the amendment with its original intent and negate recent court decisions that have expanded gun rights, specifically citing the landmark 2008 cases that recognized a personal right to have firearms.
Despite Stevens’ proposal aiming to redefine gun rights, the political landscape remains resistant to any significant changes, with even modest gun control measures facing opposition in Congress. |
| Comment by:
C.J. Roberts
(7/21/2025)
|
| This article is ELEVEN years old. I don't think that it's pertinent to anything happening today. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
