Yes, Virginia – They Are Coming For Your Guns

I suppose we owe liberal retired SCOTUS judge John Paul Stevens a twisted thank you for accidentally telling the truth and calling for the outright repeal of the Second Amendment.

And for more than just exposing the manipulative lie. As Glenn Reynolds notes, Stevens’ statement reveals something I suspect much of the left would rather have kept quiet:

1. Calls to repeal the Second Amendment are, despite whatever gyrations the callers go through, tacit admissions that the Second Amendment bars sweeping gun control.

2. Good luck with that, we’re more likely to see an amendment banning abortion pass than one repealing the Second Amendment.

3. The Second Amendment, according to the Framers (and some Supreme Court dictum) recognizes a natural right; repealing the amendment doesn’t extinguish the right.

4. Nothing could be better for the GOP in 2018 and 2020 races than for the Dems to make this an issue.

Further proof, as if any were needed among those paying attention, that there can be no compromise. Ever.

11 thoughts on “Yes, Virginia – They Are Coming For Your Guns”

There is already a move on the demonCrat side to distance themselves from Stevens’ remarks. Why, if progressives are serious about reducing “gun violence” and are advocating gun control, why not do it once and for all? I detect a pattern – had a chance to legalize every alien and open borders – did not do it; had a chance to introduce sweeping gun control legislation – did not do it. It is as if all dumbocrats and progressives want to do is exploit issues for their political gain, never, EVER, offering solutions or standing behind their principles. Which also proves they have no principles and by corollary, morals. Ok, ok, so they did push through a “New Deal”, but history had already showed how well THAT worked out in the long term.

jpa, or they want to get moderate Republicans, the Rubios, to do their dirty work so they can vote with them.

Funny thing about that New Deal… it was mostly Hoover’s programs with more money and authority re-packaged. Hoover was another Rubio and how’s his reputation now?

Part of me wants to suggest that when a jurist comes out against all or part of the Constitution, you vacate their votes on decisions made in those areas.

It is also disheartening to see someone with that much raw intelligence (not wisdom, but intelligence certainly) responding to a tragedy where several government agencies dropped the ball by essentially saying “let’s give government more power and responsibility.” Yeah, that’ll do the trick. Evidently Dem bleibt Dem; da helfen keine Pillen.

It’s interesting to see Stevens’ admission that he was a “living Constitutionalist” in his dissent in Heller, and that he did his level best to rewrite what the Constitution says into what he wants it to say. Now that he’s no longer on the Court, he’s advocating for what he really wanted to do judicially.

At one point I admired the man, but at this point I have to say that I question his integrity. His oath upon becoming a member of the Supreme Court was

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

He’s now outed himself as someone who did not defend the Constitution, nor did he “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” And he’s tacitly admitting it with this call to action.

Amending the Constitution through the usual process takes time and effort and money. Easier, cheaper and faster to get the Supreme Court to rule. Think about gay marriage – couldn’t get it from the people or from the people’s elected representative, so get it from the Liberals on the Court.

In this situation, they need those Liberal justices to rule that the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not entitled to the same high level of protection as Speech or Religion, but can be freely infringed as long as the government can articulate some seemingly rational basis for the infringement.

Stevens, by suggesting they must amend the Constitution to get rid of the obstacle, reinforces the notion that it’s an obstacle to government running amok. That’s entirely contrary to The Narrative.

Seen on the net:

Love the double talk here. Yes we want to ban all guns. But we don’t. We want a sensible discussion and a rational social compact. But also to ban all guns. Did I say ban all guns? No I didn’t. I said common sense laws. And gun bans. But no gun bans. But no guns at all.

… and, oh, yeah, we don’t hate and look down with disdain on you gun-owner-y types with your religion and primitive culture, so there’s no need for you to own any protection from us, your betters as if it matters, because the military and law enforcement will just root you out and destroy you and your puny little guns.