Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens bloviated in the Washington Post the other day about what he thinks is the ‘Framers’ original intent’ for the Second Amendment. You know the one; it reads:This is what Ex-Justice Stevens thinks (emphasis in the original):
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.
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.Well, it's obvious, isn't it? That's exactly what the Framers meant, since, you know, not including that language definitely means they meant to include that language.
But when you think about Ex-Justice Stevens’ rewrite, it just doesn’t seem, well, complete, does it? I mean, I think what Ex-Justice Stevens really wanted to say was this:There ya go, Ex-Justice Stevens … I rewrote it the way I think you meant to re-write it.
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, WHICH SHALL PROVIDE SUCH ARMS AS IS DEEMED NECESSARY, WHICH THEREFORE REMOVES ALL NECESSITY OF PERSONAL ARMS OWNERSHIP shall not be infringed.