Quote of the day—John Paul Stevens

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

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.

John Paul Stevens
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice
March 27, 2018
John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
[H/T to Paul Koning.

Although it doesn’t seem to be they are saying it these days, don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

Apparently Stevens has forgotten about U S v Cruikshank:

The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

Oh, and I think he is also unaware there is the small matter of 300 to 600 million firearms currently in circulation, extremely low compliance with existing requirements to register or turn in firearms, over 60% of the police say they will not enforce more restrictive gun laws, and the tens of billions of rounds of ammunition that will have to be “collected” before the guns are confiscated.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—John Paul Stevens

  1. This is a case of a Progressive Elitist who lives in a world that’s an artificial construct. He fails to appreciate and understand or acknowledge that the “Dirt People” get a vote in this and no matter what Stevens and his ilk create as “law”, we may disregard it as invalid and representative of an illegitimate government.

    He simply doesn’t believe (IMO) that once the betters have made their ruling that the drones won’t comply.

    Dangerous thinking. The kind that ended up in France, long ago with liberal (😏) use of the guillotine.

    Jeff B.

  2. I think a very reasonable argument could be made that most gun laws from the NFA to carry permits, to FFLs are all direct violations of the 2nd Amendment.

    So at least Stevens is obtusely recognizing that.

    Of course we know he’s off the anti-gun reservation because the PROPER talking points that are stamped and approved by Michael Bloomberg suggest you say “I am a strong supporter for the second Amendment” before you talk about banning and confiscating the most popular firearm model in America, or praise the confiscations of the UK and Australia.

    If the antis thought they had a snowball’s chance at a Constitutional Convention, they would have attempted it back when Bloomberg still had a full head of hair!

  3. The man was senile before he left the Court and has become increasingly so in retirement. His logic circuit simply is unplugged.
    1) No one complies with more restrictive gun laws…witness Connecticut and New York.
    2) Police will not enforce those laws anyways.
    3) All those rounds of ammunition are likely to be returned as brass only if they attempt to confiscate the tools they run with.
    4) The General Public has no appetite for changing anything but the disasters.

  4. Or perhaps he is simply pushing for then to reveal themselves for who they actually are. Which would probably galvanize many in the country try that aren’t paying attention at the moment.

    Things are so strange these days that it’s hard to tell sometimes if something isn’t simply political jujitsu

    Then again, if it walks like a duck…

    • It would be nice to believe that, but no. Stevens is very definitely a Bad Guy here.

  5. Apparently you don’t have to be intelligent to serve on the Supreme Court. How is he not aware of Cruikshank? I think they even revisited the 2A language from Cruikshank in Heller as well.

    I suggest adding the shit for brains tag to this one as well.

    • I’m not sure stupidity, let alone ignorance, is a credible explanation here. I would lay the blame on intentional malicious distortion of history and reality. No surprise — it is quite clear from 200 years of historic record that honesty is not a qualification, or at all common, among judges.
      Stevens is proof positive that Mencken was right:

      “In nothing did the founders of this country so demonstrate their essential naivete than in attempting to constrain government from all its favorite abuses, and entrusting the enforcement of those protections to judges; that is to say, men who had been lawyers; that is to say, men professionally trained in finding plausible excuses for dishonest and dishonorable acts.” — H. L. Mencken

Comments are closed.