Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens–not to be confused with John Paul Jones, who is differentiated by having been awesome, a patriot, and proof of the value of privately owned weapons–has editorialized that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed and that there is no individual right to possess firearms.  High school kids talked him into this, apparently.  No idea where he stands on eating laundry soap.

I’m glad he did this, frankly.  You see, Stevens SCOTUS career was marked my his unapologetic judicial activism.  He ruled according to what social justice demanded on his most important cases, rather than the Constitution; he based his decisions on foreign law where it was convenient, rather than the Constitution; and he ruled according to his own notions of what was “unconstitutional” regarding the death penalty based on his own feelings rather than the merits of any cases above what the Constitution or even the Supreme Court had decided was constitutional.

It’s refreshing to see that he’s finally acknowledging the supremacy of the Constitution above his own feelings by suggesting that the Constitution should be amended to resolve a major social issue.

Stevens has done a wonderful thing.  First, he has verified for anyone who ever doubted it that the political Left really does want to disarm Americans.  It’s getting harder and harder for the anti-gun side to deny that they only intend to stop at “common sense reforms”.  I like to see the one side that lies and misleads constantly about all facets of gun rights and gun control finally tell the truth about something.  In this case, its own motives.

The second great development is that Democrats are going to be put under pressure during the midterm campaigns to either support or denounce Stevens on this topic.  Repeal of the 2nd Amendment doesn’t have majority support in any region of the US.  I don’t think it even has majority support among a single demographic of Americans.  It’s an extreme position that Democrats are most welcome to chain to their necks.

I mean, 30 states voted for Trump in 2016.  I’d say there’s an absolute certainty that not one of them would vote for repeal and the effort to do it would serve to further alienate the coastal, urban Democrats from, well, everything else.  Particularly every state which validates a right to keep and bear arms in its state constitution.

Finally, any attempt to introduce a repeal of the 2nd Amendment would be a perfect opportunity for pro-gun Americans (the overwhelming majority) to introduce a competing amendment which would strengthen the 2nd Amendment.  Really, imagine a replacement for the 2nd Amendment that eliminates the confusing militia clause and emphasizes the right of Americans to own and carry firearms for self-defense and for the security of the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  That’d shut the likes of Stevens up and it has a much higher likelihood of ratification than a mass gun grab, right?

In conclusion, I’m pleased with Stevens’s statement on this.  Nobody should be upset either.  In fact, I think the likeliest outcome of this effort is that we’ll see both a higher respect for the Constitution by the Left and an affirmation of the individual rights to keep and bear arms by the time the Parkland farce finally runs its course.

19 comments

  1. The left has repeatedly proven that they are against individual rights and responsibility. I’d like to know where they think they would get the 2/3 majority needed for this, because traditionally even other anti-gun Democrats haven’t been willing to touch this:

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/03/27/graham-i-want-every-democrat-to-answer-whether-they-want-to-repeal-the-2nd-amendment/

    There’s a lot to dislike about Lindsey Graham, but he’s on target, so to speak, here.

  2. I’m in full agreement. It’s especially good for this year, where Democrats have to run pro-2A candidates in districts and states Trump won. It’s a great wedge that could further illustrate how far Left the Democratic Party has moved.

  3. I’m confused about where your conclusion is on this. An obscure public figure writes an opinion piece about his interpretation of the second amendment, and since he concludes that (in his opinion) the second amendment doesn’t mean individuals have the right to bear arms that means republicans win back their seats in November?

    Or are you inferring that you’re happy he wrote this opinion because that now means the veil has been lifted and all Democrats support gun prohibition?

    This is really a lot of wishful thinking if you think this is what republicans can run on in November because it means nothing. Gun rights haven’t changed and no one with career political aspirations would pass any real legislation in an election year. Congress hasn’t done shit on either side yet this year, and won’t until after November.

    The truth of the matter is no matter what argument republicans try to mount to vilify democrats the true cancer in the race is Donald trump. Republicans have one choice to be relevant in he election; they’re either pro-trump or anti-trump. Anything else is just a side show.

    Democrats are going to be building on lamb’s victory and tone down their rhetoric, running blue dogs in the flyover country and progressives in the city. Mueller will probably press his indictments (if he has anything truly damaging), and all of the porn stars trump fucked and peed on will be doing the media circuit.

    Even if democrats gain power they won’t touch the second amendment. They’ll impeach trump, reinstate Obamacare, and press social reforms like education. Those issues poll highest for Americans: 1.) jobs 2.) health care 3.) well being (education and quality of life). Last on the list will be clipping trump’s sack, and that’s only an option if the stars align.

  4. I’m saying that the Democrats are most likely to be successful in the midterms by running pro-2A candidates in counties and states Trump won and that the GOP’s best bet is to lump them in with the lunatic leadership of the Democratic Party–which has worked in the past.

    The idea is that the Democrats can nominate outstanding candidates like Saccone, but still split voters by pointing out how they’d be beholden to the firebreathers in the national party who want to enact an extreme agenda that their constituents don’t want.

    The fact that you just placed impeaching Trump and reinstating Obamacare as high priorities really says it all. I’d love to see Democrats run on that nationally.

  5. Why wouldn’t democrats reinstate Obamacare? Repealing Obamacare was one of the most unpopular things republicans did during their pathetic tenure, and we’re working on the sixth iteration of failure now, right? The fact is most Americans support the affordable care act, and the most unpopular aspect of the bill was the “all or nothing” provision for qualifying for the subsidy. Republicans and special interests lobbied hard for the “not a penny over this” qualifier to receive benefits o purposely sow discontent about it, and the fix will be easy when democrats have majorities again. They’ll institute a pyramid ratio of qualifications so if you make more than the qualifier you’ll receive a set of premiums that meet your economic status.

    I said they probably would impeach trump, yes, but I also said it wouldn’t be a high priority and would probably come on the heels of well founded indictments of high crimes and misdemeanors. I completely understand that in your hippocritical political world view, once someone has identified themselves in your tribe they are above the law, but you are in an extremist position.

    Most normal people can objectively look at trump’s actions and see that he’s done at least enough bullshit to be indicted, and at the minimum answer for his alleged wrongdoings. That’s not just me, a federal judge today refused a dismissal of his violation of the emoluments law, a law which the forefathers themselves crafted to combat corruption.

    The fact that you just can’t find it in yourself to accept that trump has to abide by the law, and accept that he too can be held accountable really says it all.

  6. Judge, just out of curiosity, you say Trump will be impeached, on what grounds? Making an effort not to sound like crazy Maxine Watters, can you tell me what crimes you think Trump is guilty of that would result in impeachment? If you are going to use the baseless “obstruction of justice”, can you please connect the dots for me?

    You mentioned the rejection of Trump’s request to dismiss the emoluments lawsuit, you do realize that allowing the suit to proceed is miles away from an actual finding of a violation, right?

    Another question; does a sitting president have a right to make sure that the businesses he owned prior to office remain solvent and profitable? If Hillary won, should she have closed down her foundation? Does accepting the presidency require the winner to sell all prior businesses? Since this particular lawsuit involves only his hotel in D.C., since it is a business, since the business was for profit and operates like all other hotels, charging fees to stay in each room, why can’t the hotel remain in business? The sons are now running his business empire, they did not sell the hotel, they still make money off of it, why is this a violation of the emoluments clause?

  7. Why wouldn’t democrats reinstate Obamacare?

    Because it was a walking electoral disaster for their party from 2010 to 2018.

    The fact is most Americans support the affordable care act, and the most unpopular aspect of the bill was the “all or nothing” provision for qualifying for the subsidy.

    Americans support wider and affordable coverage, which Obamacare failed to do. They also support certain provisions, such as keeping kids on their parents’ policies until they’re 25 and required coverage for pre-existing conditions.

    What Americans hated was the individual mandate and rising premiums. If the Democrats want to run on bringing that back in force, I say “fantastic”. Nobody really wants Obamacare back except for the insurance companies.

    I said they probably would impeach trump, yes, but I also said it wouldn’t be a high priority and would probably come on the heels of well founded indictments of high crimes and misdemeanors.

    This is entirely predicated on imagined and theoretical crimes. Democrats won’t impeach Trump.

    I completely understand that in your hippocritical political world view, once someone has identified themselves in your tribe they are above the law, but you are in an extremist position.

    Holding that you need evidence that a crime has been committed to impeach a president isn’t an extremist position.

    Most normal people can objectively look at trump’s actions and see that he’s done at least enough bullshit to be indicted, and at the minimum answer for his alleged wrongdoings.

    Such as?

    That’s not just me, a federal judge today refused a dismissal of his violation of the emoluments law, a law which the forefathers themselves crafted to combat corruption.

    The Emoluments Clause isn’t a criminal statute. It has a loooooong way to go that foreigners patronizing a business owned by the president meets with the intent of the Emoluments Clause. Hell, it isn’t even clear that the president is subject to it.

    The fact that you just can’t find it in yourself to accept that trump has to abide by the law, and accept that he too can be held accountable really says it all.

    All I can say is that I sincerely hope you and millions of other liberals keep howling for Trump’s impeachment over non-crimes, bringing back the individual mandate, and repealing the 2nd Amendment. Stevens, at least, was ballsy enough to say outright what he really believes and wants. Let’s have Democratic candidates do the same and see how it goes.

  8. Rich, I am completely aware that a judge deciding to hear a case means that it was well pleaded, not a verdict. However, federal cases aren’t just pleaded well enough to be heard day in and day out, otherwise the courts would be backed up with every kook that thinks the government owes them an explanation on the ufo cover up.

    What it means is the case moves forward and can’t be considered for dismissal on the grounds that he’s busy doing president stuff.

    The answer to your second question is “I’m not sure” because aside from jimmy carter I don’t know if any other president in my lifetime gainfully employed in the manner trymp is at the time they took office. To be safe he should have removed himself from his business, which he did, but only inderectly. The emoluments law isn’t about running a business while being president, it’s about accepting bribes. To the best of my knowledge it’s only been litigated a couple of times in history, so we’re about to see where the line is drawn.

    It’s being tried in DC because thats who is suing him, not because it’s the only tiny infraction anyone could come up with. Federal jurisdiction and venue is a culmination of the plaintiff’s business residences and the injured parties places of injury, which in this case is DC and Maryland.

    If his sons are running the business, but trump insists (or infers) that a stay in his hotels gets you face time or favors it doesn’t matter wether his sons are running it or not.

    It is interesting to me that the both of you are under the impression that a desire to impeach, or the opinion that impeachment is warranted means that no one is aware that it be based on procedure. I’m saying that congress acts onimpeachment matters, and a Democrat congress likely would act on it, if mueller has enough to do it. Congress can act on emoluments breaches themselves, but haven’t on ivanka’s Chinese copyrights, kushner’s half a billion dollar loans, and trump’s insistence that foreign governments traffic his hotels.

    The Republican Congress won’t act on anything because they’re chicken shit. A Democrat congress might.

  9. Dang, I’m writing a separate post on this specific topic, was hoping I could get it up before your response so we could carry on the discussion there. You are too quick for me.

  10. “but trump insists (or infers) that a stay in his hotels gets you face time or favors it doesn’t matter wether his sons are running it or not.”

    What evidence do you have, anything at all, that a stay at the Trump hotel get’s you face time? Doesn’t that hotel have like hundreds of rooms, do you think he meets with all guests?

    and trump’s insistence that foreign governments traffic his hotels.

    Ditto my last, what evidence do you have that Trump insists that all representatives of foreign governments stay at his hotel?

    I’m saying that congress acts onimpeachment matters, and a Democrat congress likely would act on it

    Yes, but there has to be grounds. I understand that you and Maxine want him impeached, but on what charge? Clinton was impeached for making false statements under oath. What exactly are they going to get Trump on? If your position is ,”Well, they don’t have anything right now, but I’m hoping that Mueller will find something to get him on”, OK, I get that.

  11. I find it funny, the left love to pretend that they are the side of peace and enlightenment, understanding coexistence, and all that crap. Then the discussion turns to guns, they tell us we are paranoid, that they do not want to take ALL the guns away, just the ones they don’t thing have value in their view. We get teh same old song and dance, that gun owners are violent and want to shoot anyone that might take thier guns, and then there is a mass incident. They demand that reasonable gun laws be passed, adn in the full cours eof a discussion it is asked,” Well what reasonable gun laws do you want? ” “Ban the black guns… the Assault weapons, the icky ones. ” they reply.. and then it is “what do you mean by ban?”,” Take them away , force them to turn t hem in.”in. which when it gets boiled down. turn them in or we will shoot you./….

    Im convinced that many of them do want a violent end to this. they believe that once a ban is in effect that there will at some point be a incident.
    The police SWAT gather in front of a home that the owner is a know possessor of Evil banned Assault Rifles.. The Police make a dynamic entry, in front of the news crew cameras…. and promptly get mowed down by the resident gun nut… People are shocked the nation is in mourning, anger builds, politicians get in front of cameras and speak. They eloquently opine that this incident proves that these gun owners are evil and they must to be brought to heel.

  12. All that is why I’m so happy that they’re finally being honest about just eliminating the individual right to own guns, Grendel. They don’t think owning a gun is in itself “reasonable” or that you “need to own an assault rifle”.

    To me, all “reasonable” restrictions are a non-starter as long as law enforcement agencies refuse to enforce the law. Start by enforcing the existing laws, and then we can talk.

  13. I get what you’re saying WG – but I don’t think it’ll happen. That’s why you’ve seen the phrase ‘common sense gun laws’ so much so recently. Its getting the talking points in early to counteract this exact accusation that they know they’d be on the wrong side of.

  14. Well, if it helps with perspective, we on the pro-gun side of things see that what the anti-gun side is calling for as “reasonable” restrictions are either already laws that are not adequately enforced or are pointless restrictions that will only restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners without making a dent in gun crime.

    It’s really sad to me that there is a middle ground on this topic and one place where EVERYBODY could be demanding reform, but it’s getting lost in the entrenched positions. The pro-gun guys either don’t trust the anti-gun side or at the minimum don’t think their solutions are credible.

    What’s most baffling to me about Parkland is that this is probably the ONE case in recent memory where the Right is placing the blame for what happened on law enforcement (justifiably) and the Left is choosing not to attack law enforcement for obvious incompetence and malfeasance.

    I get that the anti-gun crowd wants expanded background checks and all that, but those checks mean absolutely nothing if law enforcement doesn’t enter derogatory information into the NCIS. This happened with Parkland because the FBI failed to act and the county declined to commit Cruz or ever charge him with anything.

    Parkland isn’t even the only recent example of this. The Air Force had failed to submit information to the FBI that would have prevented the Sutherland Springs church shooter from having guns last year.

    It’s just very, very hard for the anti-gun side to make its case when the pro-gun side believes we already have enough laws and that the onus is on law enforcement to avoid these screw-ups.

  15. Everything is proceeding according to plan.

    https://kek.gg/u/wYJ4

    The Vice Chair of Civic Engagement and Voter Participation of the Democratic National Committee has called for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

    Louisiana Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Carter Peterson on Tuesday issued a four-word tweet as she shared a link to a New York Times op-ed written by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens that advocated for the Second Amendment’s repeal.

    “Repeal the Second Amendment,” she tweeted.

    The Louisiana Democrat’s tweet caused Louisiana Democratic Party Executive Director Stephen Handwerk to run for cover.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: