Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has a new book out that outlines the six changes he would like to see made to the Constitution. In the book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, Stevens explains how he would amend the First, Second, and Eighth Amendments among other things. On radio this morning, Glenn took particular issue with Stevens’ interpretation and historical understanding of the Second Amendment.

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

The Second Amendment currently 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.

But Stevens argues the Founding Fathers were really concerned about being oppressed by a national standing army when they wrote the amendment – not the right to self-defense. As a result, he would like to see five key words added:

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.

Glenn took issue with what he believes to be faulty historical reasoning from Stevens. When you consider the Bill of Rights as a whole, Glenn believes you will come to understand that the amendments were in fact centered on the rights of the individual.

“Can I ask you a question? Everything in the Constitution came from the revolutionaries that fought for our freedom. They saw the problems with the king… but the one thing the king had that [they] liked: He had all the guns, and [they] couldn’t have any. [So they made] sure [they] put that in there? That was a good thing? That doesn’t make any sense,” Glenn said exasperatedly. “So wait a minute. The Founders, who wanted the make sure that none of the problems they had with the king could ever happen to anyone else – and one of their big problems was guns – only wanted the military to have them? That’s crazy. The military is in the hands of the king?

“It’s so insultingly stupid,” Stu concluded. “At this point, the progressives will go to, ‘Well, it’s an old document, and they couldn’t imagine these weapons.’ They could not make a Constitutional argument.”

Front page image courtesy of the AP