No products in the cart.


Former Supreme Court Justice Wants To Add 5 Words To Second Amendment


The Federal Government took control of the Militia, when it formed the National Guard. It therefore becomes safe to infer that arms would be limited to the National Guard, under Stevens’ new wording. So much for resisting an oppressive standing army.

A real Citizen Militia is on call at all times, thus needing their weapons readily available. We have no real Citizen Militia. Plus, Stevens wording would deny people the right to self-defense. Dorstewitz has it right. – Shorty Dawkins, Associate Editor

This article comes from

by Michael Dorstewitz

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens would like to see five words added to Constitution’s Second Amendment, the result of which would be to destroy its intent, and turn the “right to bear arms” into a mere catchphrase lacking meaning. The Second Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, reads:

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.

In his yet-to-be released book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” Stevens suggests that the Second Amendment’s sole purpose was protection against an oppressive standing army — not self-protection in the ordinary sense. Stevens said, according to The Blaze.

Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands.

He suggested the inclusion of five words for clarification, with the “new and improved” Second Amendment reading, “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.”

By adding those five words — when serving in the militia — Stevens would remove the teeth from the Second Amendment, rendering it impotent.

If it’s clarification Stevens is after, I suggest instead of adding five words, we delete 13 to have it read simply, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Stevens was appointed to the bench in 1975 by then-President Gerald Ford, and retired in 2010 to be succeeded by Elena Kagan.





  1. “Stevens suggests that the Second Amendment’s sole purpose was protection against an oppressive standing army”

    He is partially correct. The 2nd Amendment is unalienable – they cannot LAWFULLY touch it in anyway. That is why it took years of public schooling, media lies to get the people to no longer understand that THEY are the Militia, and that the US Constitution assigns to the People of the USA the duties to:

    – Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
    – Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (those that are IN Pursuance thereof…)

    – Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    – “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    When the founders created the US Constitution they realized that we would never be able to count on state and federal representatives or
    agencies to protect our lives, property, and freedom. They decided
    to continue with what the people here had already been using, and the
    one proven throughout history to have the best needs of the people
    themselves always put first, the Militia of the several states. Who
    are the Militia? All able-bodied citizens or those legally allowed to be here between the ages of 18 – 60.

    I suspect the biggest reason he wants that change is that the people are learning that EVERY person serving in each branch of the fed and state govs are PERSONALLY liable – through the Oaths – for every single act committed against the people: property damage, murders, injuries; even if they were not the ones who created the unlawful act. They did NOT remove it as they are lawfully REQUIRED to do – making them culpable and needing prosecution. They agreed to the contract in exchange for the position they occupied, and they BROKE the contract.

  2. Justice Stevens is another one of the idiot left leaning Chicago bred and trained communists. There is a reason why the second amendment is worded the way it is, and it was written by our smartest generation that ever lived. The second amendment will continue to stop the government from applying chains to our wrists and legs.

  3. Well said Chris: The sagacity and probtiy of our founders should make today’s “Pop” jurists hand their heads in shame.When human nature has undergone a major evolution for the better – and it never will – we can begin to consider if our BOR has become outdated.I do fear that our culture may have to “Hit Bottom” and be suffer to a cataclysmic collapse before a reawakening can begin.
    That words like “The slaughter caused by guns in private hands” should be used by someone of such supposed erudition and wisdom is maddening.I guess Justice Stevens must see Piers Morgan as a reliable source on this issue, rater than the DOJ statistics.If he had studied them, he would find that gun violence is at a decades long low, and that law abiding gun ownership is at a decades long high.How now for the dangers of guns in private hands ?
    Full Circle…”To prevent misconstruction and abuse” by the government is the stated purpose of our BOR, and yet devious misconstruction and flagrant abuse has become the hallmark of the federal government.Full Circle. With DC a snakepit, we had better strengthen and prepare our localities.

  4. How the security of a free state can be ensured when population does not have guns to defend it especially against domestic enemies? It’s well known that the domestic enemies have always had or have the desire to control people’s weapons in order to promote and avance their own agendas…

  5. I recently began a new series of posts entitled “District of Columbia v Heller Dissent” at On
    Second Opinion Blog, which analyzes and documents historical errors relating to Second Amendment arguments.

    The first part was posted about two weeks ago. Several additional parts will be forthcoming in the next week or so.

    The subtitle of the first post is “Justice Stevens’ Train Wreck of American History”. For those seeking the historical evidence directly contradicting Justice Stevens’ view, here is what you’ve been looking for.

Comments are closed.