Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Why Does Retired Justice Stevens think repealing the 2nd Amendment is a good idea?

Why Does Retired Justice Stevens think repealing the 2nd Amendment is a good idea?

It’s “a relic of the 18th century”

https://youtu.be/KJrA7wMXuuQ

Retired SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens (who is now 97 years old) has written a NY Times op-ed piece calling for the elimination of the Second Amendment. The reason he gives is this:

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

…But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

As Ann Althouse writes:

…[T]he idea that you’d excise a right from the Constitution to “weaken” a lobbying group that “stymie[s] legislative debate” is repellant. Notice the motive of restricting speech. A group speaks too powerfully; we need to change the Constitution.

Stevens concludes:

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform.

We should remove rights from the Constitution because it would be dramatic and because it would move marchers closer to their objective??

I am very sad to see Justice Stevens writing like that, but he’s made this proposal before [in a 2014 book].

What is somewhat new, however, is that the anti-2nd-Amendment folks are generally becoming less shy about their true aims regarding the Constitution. But even that was foreshadowed in 2013, when the NY Times published an op-ed by Louis Michael Seidman, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown, in which he basically said many of the Constitution’s provisions are “archaic, idiosyncratic, and downright evil” (Professor Jacobson weighed in on Professor Seidman’s op-ed here, and I wrote about Seidman’s piece here).

Justice Stevens was the author of a dissent in Heller. Perhaps now he sees an opportunity, looking at MSM coverage of the protests, to rally the troops for the big prize that has so far eluded gun opponents, 2nd Amendment repeal.

It is one of those ironic facts of life that Stevens (who retired in 2010) was one of a number of justices originally appointed by Republicans, and thought to be at least moderately conservative, who turned more liberal over time. He often served as the “swing” vote on the Court. First appointed to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by Richard Nixon and with a conservative record as a jurist, Stevens was then nominated by Gerald Ford to SCOTUS. But Stevens later said (2005) that “learning on the job” was important. In addition, “a 2003 statistical analysis of Supreme Court voting patterns found Stevens the most liberal member of the Court.”

That’s quite a change.

I have a theory about the relative prevalence of conservative-to-liberal drift among judges and justices. It is my observation that people tend to enjoy power, and when they get power they often like to expand it if possible. A SCOTUS justice has a lot of power to determine the course of events; more power than most non-elected people in this country ever get. Liberal judges tend to be in favor of not limiting themselves to things such as the language of the Constitution. They are more likely than conservatives to see “penumbras” in the law and want to follow its supposed spirit rather than its letter, and to regard the Constitution as a living, changing document. Pleased with their own power, they see themselves as just the people to lead others who wish to change what those old, archaic, and downright evil framers put in place.

I would imagine it’s a temptation that’s hard to resist, even for some justices who start out as conservatives.

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

… ABSOLUTELY.

OleDirtyBarrister | March 28, 2018 at 11:18 am

In the era of weapons of mass destruction, including ballistic missiles with MRV’s that could be captured by islamic terrorists and other “revolutionaries”, the Second Amendment is more relevant than ever. The survival plans for the US in case of a successful nuclear attack acknowledge that it will be virtually impossible to operate a constitutional form of govt. for at least some period of time. In the days after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that discussion resumed and was in a lot of new media, and it had not been nearly as public and ubiquitous in the old media days of the Cold War era. I believe that it was USAF General Charles Holland that gave a very chilling interview about the realities of governing that would follow such large scale attack events. So exactly how long would this country operate outside the framework of the US Constitution and who would ensure its return to operating under the Constitution? A well armed populace would be essential to making the future determinations of the country to avoid permanent submission to military control.

The young nation of the U.S. got very lucky once before because the prevailing general, George Washington, was an honorable man and he hung up his cloak and sword after the war ended and the treaty was complete. He voluntarily surrendered the power to civilian authority when he very well could have become a military dictator, and his actions surprised the world and he became quite notable in his time for it. The Framers protected the right of self determination in the Second Amendment so that future citizens did not have to hope to get so lucky again.

    Can I give this 5 more thumbs ups 🙂

      OleDirtyBarrister in reply to Shane. | March 28, 2018 at 1:37 pm

      Yes, and I will provide you the mailing address to you for my exploratory campaign fund to run for Benevolent Dictator Of The Universe.

    DaveGinOly in reply to OleDirtyBarrister. | March 28, 2018 at 11:45 pm

    Save your comment. Really excellent.

    Saw this in a story on Breitbart a while back. (Added emphasis is mine.)

    Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in his dissent in Silver v. Lockyer, 328 F. 3d 567 (2003):

    All too many of the other great tragedies of history–Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few–were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 578-579. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

    My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed–where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

To paraphrase Frank Herbert, ‘Power does not corrupt; power attracts the corruptible.’

Connivin Caniff | March 28, 2018 at 11:23 am

He is a relic of the 20th Century: A Progressive and De-Constructor of the Constitution.

    Go ahead, lefties, do what you want to do, repeal it. You want it gone; you know you want it gone; and we know you want it gone. You’re just gutless to say that aloud because of the great unwashed would soon enough realize that you really aren’t for them, that you’re on the side of government controlling the people by disarming them. You see, when we talk of freedom, we mean freedom from government and its constant tendency to suppress the people, turning them from citizens into subjects.

    But still, put your money where Stevens’ mouth is. Slog through the Article V process; get a Congress to propose a repealing amendment, and if successful in getting those 290; 67 votes, then head out to the states and get 75% of them, 38 in number, to agree. As far left as this country has been taken by the anti-freedom left, you couldn’t even begin to approach that number.

    But your task is even harder, even after you’ve done all that. Lefties are forgetting that if the 2A is repealed, it doesn’t mean that the right is gone; it simply means it’s no longer a listed protected right in the Bill of Rights (but it’s still has protection in the 9A & 10A). What’s more, the issue will then shift/revert back to the states. Some 40 states have the right to keep and bear arms protected in their respective state constitutions.

    Lefties will then have to fight those battles. Okay, some of those states are real leftist today, so they’ll be easily rolled. A good example is Massachusetts (which given its post-WWI politics was, hard to believe, one of the original thirteen!) whose Constitution, article 17 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, protects only, so says its highest court, a common defense, and not the individual bearing of arms. Davis, 369 Mass. 886 (1976).

    The state battles will neither be easy nor pretty. And as the 2A battle will have been played out, along with these state battles, lessons on how to play the game will be learned by the defenders of freedom from government.

      jdjohnson50 in reply to fscarn. | March 28, 2018 at 2:06 pm

      And once the Leftists have been successful in repealing the 2nd amendment, and removing the right from the states constitutions, then the real struggle begins. Rounding up all the firearms from the fly over states.

        Make this comparison. Guns can be concealed, hidden here and there; some, because of size, more easily than others. But despite that the left says there’d be no problem in confiscating 300 million firearms. But let’s indulge the left on this point for a moment.

        If that’s true, rounding up the 20 million illegals in the country would be a cinch since people can’t be hidden as easily as hiding a weapon.

        Milhouse in reply to jdjohnson50. | March 28, 2018 at 6:50 pm

        They have no intention of trying to round up the guns in fly-over country. If you want to keep your guns, you can keep your guns — so long as you keep them hidden and don’t use them. If you take them out of hiding and are caught using them, e.g. if you shoot a burglar or attacker, or are seen hunting, they will arrest you. And if they ever want to get a warrant to search your property, all they need is to show that you used to have a gun and never turned it in, so there’s probable cause to believe you still have it.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Connivin Caniff. | March 28, 2018 at 10:57 pm

    We should be talking about fixing the 14th Amendment, and stopping the anchor baby problem. I wonder if making a change retroactive would fly, say about twenty years or so.

      If it were a constitutional amendment, which it would have to be, then yes, anything would fly. A constitutional amendment to confiscate all private property, to retroactively make the possession of chocolate a felony, and to execute all Jews, if it passed, would by definition be constitutional, overriding anything in the previous constitution that prevents these things. The only thing a constitutional amendment can’t do is change the fact that each state has the same number of senators.

Democrats must really want the GOP to keep the House and possibly expand seats in the Senate.

When I see my liberal friends go off on the Second Amendment on Facebook, I just smile and not say a thing…

That ‘relic’ called the constitution was designed to protect the few from the many.

If the -many- don’t respect the paper version of those rights, 2A puts it in a language they will understand and respect.

notice those (who often push the crap the pen is mightier than the sword) never want to repeal first?
odd huh ???

Throughout history we see reasons for a populous to be armed.

First, an armed populous is capable of protecting itself from ordinary criminal predators, thereby reducing the amount of manpower necessary to police a society.

Second, an armed populous is able to stand-off or delay an invading force, thereby allow for the levying and deployment of government troops.

Third, an armed populous keeps their leaders honest by making it difficult to enslave that populous.

There is a very good reason why the number of civilian owned firearms roughly equals that of the population. And, it is telling that firearms sales skyrocket whenever the government makes an effort to further restrict the ownership of firearms. And, most telling of all, is that the leadership of this nation, who most largely call for the restriction, or even banning, of firearms ownership by the populous, are the most corrupt. When you live ni a castle surrounded by armed guards, it is easy to dismiss the desire, of those without such protection, to be able to protect themselves and their loved ones.

“What is somewhat new, however, is that the anti-2nd-Amendment folks are generally becoming less shy about their true aims regarding the Constitution.”

Yup. I at least give ’em props for no longer being occluded, deceitful lying bastages, and simply being obvious deceitful lying bastages.

As to why these bastages think repeal of the 2nd amendment is a good idea? I don’t care.

I tell them the same thing I tell the anti-electoral college crowd: Go for it. Propose an amendment and change the US Constitution. Unless and until then, STFU about it.

    “I tell them the same thing I tell the anti-electoral college crowd: Go for it. Propose an amendment and change the US Constitution. Unless and until then, STFU about it.”

    The left has never been about altering the Constitution on its own terms. That’s why the National Popular Vote Compact exists, to nullify the electoral college by underhanded fiat.

Paul In Sweden | March 28, 2018 at 11:55 am

Louis Michael Seidman, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown, in which he basically said many of the Constitution’s provisions are “archaic, idiosyncratic, and downright evil”

Yeah, I keep thinking it is time to get rid of that archaic cruel and unusual punishment propitiation. Our creativity should not be constitutionally limited.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to Paul In Sweden. | March 28, 2018 at 11:56 am

    darn spell check and old glasses…

    MarkSmith in reply to Paul In Sweden. | March 28, 2018 at 12:37 pm

    Too Funny, yea, let’s start pushing for the repeal of the 8th.

    Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments

    Or maybe we should push for the enforcement of it since these “Progressives” are cruel and unusual punishment for all of us.

I did not read of the “why” which was sort of promised in the Headline Banner. “Why Does Retired Justice Stevens think repealing the 2nd Amendment is a good idea?”

Or perhaps I expected a more throughout explanation of them nonagenarian’s work and words on the issue, fitted into some reasonably comprehensive cloth of understanding.

Yet, headlines are likely to overpromise, and what have I as an internet street beggar to complain? The complaint window closed back in the of Gopher or at least Altavista, certainly in the 2000 DOT COM bust.

And in this particular case, given the SCOT-(US)* rulings I remember reading of one judge Stevens, I doubt he himself knows the reason, outside of being a polite gentle man prone to joined with wild mobs of the brazen and amoral.

(*) the “SCOT” in SCOTUS comes from the beastly and uber violent in effect Dred SCOTT ruling. Not a one of them should ever forget that mean, dehumanizing, immoral and violent logic and ruling and its direct effect on the US. SCOT-US indeed. Get thee great humility and understandings.

    bvw, you write:

    (*) the “SCOT” in SCOTUS comes from the beastly and uber violent in effect Dred SCOTT ruling. Not a one of them should ever forget that mean, dehumanizing, immoral and violent logic and ruling and its direct effect on the US. SCOT-US indeed. Get thee great humility and understandings.

    What does this mean? SCOTUS stands for Supreme Court of the United States, so I don’t quite follow this point.

It’s true…the retired judge is “a relic of the 18th century”!

4th armored div | March 28, 2018 at 12:08 pm

since stevens is so interested in
“THE CHILDREN”, then of course, he is anti abortion –
WHAT?? he is not ?

these fools, thankfully don’t reproduce themselves and we need to take measures to prevent them influencing our children.

No State Schools – give parents school vouchers to use as they wish.

About the time of the Heller decision, Stevens threw a lot of garbage at the walls, both in his Heller dissent and elsewhere, all in the evident hope that something would stick. And he’s still at it. One of his more outrageous claims circa 2008 was that there was some wisdom in allowing legislatures to ignore things like the Bill of Rights, all because of “local conditions” or some such tripe. This was an incredible claim for a SC justice to make, because it was tantamount to a repudiation of Marbury v. Madison. In that case, John Marshall had developed the novel (at that time) concept that the Constitution was itself law, and any conflict between laws would invalidate the law which was in conflict, because the Constitution was, by definition, the supreme law of the United States. Futher, since conflicts between laws was one of the Constitutionally specified functions of the Supreme Court, it was the proper place of the SC to determine the details of such conflict. Hence the whole idea of the SC determining “constitutionality” was born. And Stevens was apparently willing to throw it away, all in the name of allowing legislatures to infringe civil rights.

From this it was apparent that we desperately need some way to retire judges when they’ve obviously passed their “sell by” dates.

    DaveGinOly in reply to tom_swift. | March 28, 2018 at 11:09 pm

    tom_swift: …John Marshall had developed the novel (at that time) concept that the Constitution was itself law, and any conflict between laws would invalidate the law which was in conflict, because the Constitution was, by definition, the supreme law of the United States. Futher, since conflicts between laws was one of the Constitutionally specified functions of the Supreme Court, it was the proper place of the SC to determine the details of such conflict. Hence the whole idea of the SC determining “constitutionality” was born.

    Marshall neither developed the idea of the Constitution as law nor the idea that the courts had the authority to review and strike legislation.

    The Constitution, at Article VI defines itself as the supreme law of the land.

    Marshall did not “invent” the idea that courts had the authority to examine and over-rule legislation. In the same article, the Constitution says that all judges are bound by it. The authors of the Constitution new exactly what that language would authorize and anticipated that the courts would settle controversies over government acts and legislation. Such authority was mentioned in both the Federalist Papers and in debate at the federal convention (as recorded in Madison’s Notes of the Debate in the Federal Convention). At the convention it was remarked by three different convention attendees, and no opposition was raised to their presumption that judicial review was within the scope of the courts’ authority.

    Federalist Papers

    #44
    Madison noted that the “success” of acts of Congress would “depend on the executive and the judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts.”

    Notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787

    July 21
    Mr. L. Martin:
    “And as to the Constitutionality of laws, that point will come before the Judges in their proper official character. In this character, they will have a negative on the laws.” (Can’t get plainer than that.)

    Mr. Rutledge:
    “The Judges ought never to give their opinion on a law till it comes before them.”

    July 23
    Mr. Madison:
    “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.” (Here Madison himself, whose administration ended up on the short end of the stick in Marbury v Madison acknowledges the authority of judges to strike unconstitutional legislation.)

      randian in reply to DaveGinOly. | March 28, 2018 at 11:19 pm

      “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void”

      How naive the author of this sentence is, as if judges are above corruption and politics.

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

Rarely, but not never. Stevens is old enough to remember the masses of people marching, all over the country, for the KKK, back when it was a populist and popular — and seriously dangerous — movement, not 150 kooks spread across the country who are nothing but a sad joke. They too were civically engaged and revealed broad public support for legislation to minimize the threat they saw to the dominance of the White Protestant race. Perhaps Stevens would argue that they too “demanded our respect”, and that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments should have been repealed to make it possible for them to achieve their objectives.

If this was not an issue so dear to the progressive quest for command and control they would say-

Here is a old white male asserting white privilege,to disarm women and minorities of the ability to protect themselves flaunting that during his career he enjoyed armed personal protection services at tax payer expense

    DaveGinOly in reply to lehnne. | March 28, 2018 at 11:30 pm

    Like Killer Mike said to Colion Noir, progressives’ gun control is going to “progress” black people “back into slavery.”

The Progressives draw from the same well as Communists in that “scientific theory” and constant experimentation with laws can eventually yield a better society. This creates a fluid environment where society is driven down blind alleys and dead ends in hopes of finding a better path. The Left is great at manipulating human nature but not truly changing it even temporarily without brute force.

as Mark Levine pointed out yesterday… Are the dictatorships and carnage of the 20th century less archaic than in the 18th century? The Founders were dealing with checks and balances of human nature which, if one reads the clay tablets from Sumer, hasn’t changed throughout recorded history. The modern surveillance state is the soft tyranny feared by many at the founding.

Stevens: “These demonstrations demand our respect.”

No, that’s not how Respect works. It is earned, not enforced.

“They reveal the broad public support”

No, they do not. They are a vocal minority that have alienated the broader public majority. We are sick of ignorant teenagers lecturing us about gun control.

It’s embarrassing that a former Justice of the Supreme Court is so easily refuted. I didn’t go to law school nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn last night. What a disgrace you are Stevens.

Didn’t Stevens resign because he recognized his mental facilities were failing? I’m told he has one intern still working for him. I wonder if Stevens wrote this, or is even aware of it.

Do you think the media will identify the intern?

Heh, I saw the title and one single word popped into my head, senility. I had read his opinion piece yesterday, and when I read his comment, they demand our respect I nearly spewed over the computer screen.

To think a Supreme Court Judge (Ret) thinks MOB RULE deserves any kind of respect is beyond my comprehension skills. It makes me think his rulings have to be faulty if he thinks this way. That alone discredited any of the tripe following that point.

Stevens’ Heller dissent highlights Stevens dishonesty

Stevens cites numerous historical writings discussing the right to form militias. (which did in fact occur)
Yet he denies any historical writings discussing the individual right. He completely ignored Scalia’s citations to such writings of the individual right. Instead choosing to pretend such writings never existed.

This the second time STevens has publically called for a repeal of 2A

He is basically admitting that 2A protects an individual right, contrary to his dissent.

Stevens’ dissent in MacDonald also shows his dishonesty.

He argues that we can pick and choose which bill of rights to incorporate under 14A based on whether it it a fundamental right even though 14A says “All laws”

Stevens dissent in CU is another example – Congress cant abridge the freedom of speech, but “congress can abridge the freedom of speech”

Kelo – See Stevens torture of public use vs private use in Kelo

My apologies if I come across as not being a fan of Stevens

    alaskabob in reply to Joe-dallas. | March 28, 2018 at 3:38 pm

    As I understand, selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights after 13/14 A’s was in great part to constrain the rights of the newly freed slaves and potentially other undesirables. Jim Crow, as has been discussed, is alive and functional when used by the Progressives. Demonizing the “black rifle” does ring a little with demonizing a certain skin tint.

I think we should actually get rid of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments since doing that will make it much much easier for the government to prosecute people who mis-use firearms.

    alaskabob in reply to Marco100. | March 28, 2018 at 3:42 pm

    RBG has praised the South African constitution.. which has now been amended to legally seize the land from white farmers in order to give it back to (all) Blacks (who weren’t tribally there when the whites arrived). Hence, 2A is not what government grants, it is there to prevent what government wants to take.

    Yep… repeal 2A and all sorts of “progressive” agenda move forward.

      OleDirtyBarrister in reply to alaskabob. | March 28, 2018 at 4:47 pm

      The ZAR has not amended its constitution to seize the land yet, the idiots in charge just formally commenced a study and drafting process.

        alaskabob in reply to OleDirtyBarrister. | March 28, 2018 at 6:18 pm

        Correct… passed a motion to proceed but not yet constitutional change vote. I wouldn’t bet on sanity in ANC and EFF to prevail. The indigenous populations were Pygmies and Bushman, hunter/gatherers who were displaced in great part by the Bantu migration. Hardly anyone in the Cape area to begin with. Shaka really thinned out the population later on. More of the “Blacks Only in Africa” movement. Having been in Zim and seen the glorious results, what could go wrong in SA?

“Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform.

Stephens thinks it will be “simple” to get two thirds of the state legislatures to vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment???? He’s simple, or senile.

    alaskabob in reply to Marco100. | March 28, 2018 at 3:46 pm

    3/4 of States… 2/3 vote in US House and Senate to start the ball rolling.

    As an Arkansas court ruled, back in 1878, “If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege [sic].

    I challenge the privilege but agree with the rest.

“weaken the NRAs ability to block gun control legislation”

The NRA represents millions of peaceful law-abiding Americans protecting the 2nd Amendment. The Left wants to destroy the NRA but have they given any thought to what comes after it?

IF … demonizing one of our fundamental civil rights is a serious electoral blunder for the Democrats …

THEN … maybe some actual defense of that same right could actually turn the Republicans into a serious party once again. Not half-assed support for a bowdlerized misinterpretation, like the decision in Heller, but serious defense of The Word as written. There might even be some votes in it.

As Ex-Associate Stevens has just reminded us, the socialist assault on America is in full—and blatantly open—swing. This seems like an opportune time for the Republicans to do something useful with themselves, like they did in 1860. It’s not too late …

While I don’t agree with all the positions of the NRA, it is the only major group that supports our 2nd amendment rights. The ACLU specifically denies that we have any rights under the 2nd amendment, saying that it only covers government-approved armed forces.

Because the NRA is the only group we have on the side of our civil liberties to own firearms, we owe it to the NRA to support them and let people know the truth about them. After the “March for Our Lives” (actually the “March Against Our Liberties”), I bought a jacket with the NRA logo, and I wear it to work daily. I hope all the snowflakes will take that as a macro-aggression.

    DaveGinOly in reply to OldProf2. | March 28, 2018 at 11:52 pm

    The NRA is not the only organization that stands up for the 2nd Amendment. Gun Owners of America is a decidedly harder-core outfit than the NRA. Too often the NRA compromises in the name of all firearms owners (or at least in the name of their membership) when those people certainly do not agree to the compromise. GOA always stands against infringements of every sort. It truthfully bills itself as “the only no-compromise” pro-gun organization, proving that claim true again and again, and very successfully.

    The Second Amendment Foundation is pretty decent too.

      OldProf2 in reply to DaveGinOly. | March 29, 2018 at 10:00 pm

      You’re right. Those other pro-2nd-amendment groups also deserve our support. I mentioned the NRA because it’s the biggest, and because the leftist demagogues are specifically targeting the NRA. We need to stand up against their misrepresentations.

This is just Stevens getting bored and seeing an opportunity to rehash some of his dissents without Scalia around to basically kick his assertions in the teeth. Mastaburtiory celebration of past “glories” so to speek.

DINORightMarie | March 28, 2018 at 11:34 pm

Using his “logic,” the ENTIRE Constitution is a “relic of the 18th century”!!

Like Wilson and many, many before him – and currently – he wants to eliminate our Constitution altogether, as it is antiquated in his dim, addled mind.

Glad he retired; too bad we don’t have more like Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito on the SCOTUS. Kagan replacing him was merely a swap-one progressive for another.

    clayusmcret in reply to DINORightMarie. | March 29, 2018 at 6:46 am

    “Using his “logic,” the ENTIRE Constitution is a “relic of the 18th century”!!”

    That’s been the left’s point for a long time. If the Constitution is a relic and past its shelf life, the government can decide and do whatever the hell they like. Problem is that pesky 2nd Amendment is there to keep the government in check.

    Never forget – The 2nd protects the 1st… and every other Amendment.

Maybe someone should remind the old fart that the Founding Fathers didn’t anticipate Facebook, Myspace, Instagram, Whatsapp, or … telephones… when The First Amendment was written either. Another relic of the 18th century.

But there’s an upside: let’s toss the Fourth Amendment and then we can totally ban abortion!

If Venezuelans had guns, do you think they’d be starving to death right now?

When people get really old they lose the ability to hide what they have really felt all their lives; the facade of social norms falls away. They openly speak what’s been in their hearts and minds for decades.

What Former Supreme Court Justice Stevens finally said out loud was that he was an anti-constitutionalist. Having done so, in the light of day, America should relook every SCOTUS court decision he ever made.

Repeal the 2nd amendment. Only the King’s soldiers and aristocrats should bear arms. Let the people wave pitchforks!

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend