Supreme Court Justice: Repeal the Second Amendment!

John Paul Stevens (courtesy wikipedia.org)

“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,” retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens writes in a nytimes.com editorial. “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.” And so . . .

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

I agree! They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment. Then all Americans would know that “gun reform” advocates want to re-form America into a statist paradise, where the government has an absolute monopoly on the use of force, and nothing bad ever happens.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, upstanding, right-thinking, liberty-loving Americans believe that if they like their Second Amendment, they can keep their Second Amendment.

Which they can — unless a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate decides otherwise, or it’s repealed by a constitutional convention activated by two-thirds of America’s 50 State legislatures.

Justice John Paul Stevens — a man who helped rule over the highest court in the land, who knows the Constitution like the back of his hand — reckons it’s a snap!

Overturning that [Heller decision establishing an individual right to keep and bear arms] 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. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our school children safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.

I call BS. The supposition that removing the right to keep and bear arms would make school children — or anyone else — safer defies history, logic and common sense.

We can only be thankful that the nonagenarian is no longer micturating on the Constitution as a Supreme Court justice, and that President Trump’s small “c” conservative appointee Neil Gorsuch is on the bench. And work/vote/pray to have for more like him, and fewer like Stevens.

comments

  1. avatar burley says:

    It would seem as though it is time for at least III% of us to demonstrate our resolve to retain Liberty.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Could come to that. Really hope it doesn’t. But I wouldn’t get too bothered by something Stevens says in the NY Times. If people of that ilk could repeal the 2nd, they’d have done it long ago.

    2. avatar nativeson says:

      These are the views of a senile, life long liberal. We need to repeal lifetime appointments for federal judges, not the 2A. Goes to show that he lied when he pledged to uphold the Constitution.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Nonsense. For one, he is not a sitting justice, and can say whatever he pleases. Second, advocating the repeal of an amendment to the Constitution is entirely different than legislating it out of existence from the bench. Finally, afaik, there were no major 2A decisions issued while he was on the bench (but he served a long time and my memory isn’t that good.)

        And he is in “good” company. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Nixon appointee, vociferously argued in 1990 that the idea that the Second Amendment grants an unfettered individual right to a gun was “a fraud on the American public.” Although he had a reputation prior to his appointment as a “law and order” conservative, he would have fallen in the camp of the Heller dissenters who concluded that the right existed only in the context of service in the militia.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          ” Finally, afaik, there were no major 2A decisions issued while he was on the bench…”

          Heller, in the opinion piece, where he admitted he dissented …

        2. avatar ThatGuy says:

          Because “right of the people” in the 1st amendment clearly means something different than “the right of the people” in the 2nd.

          Activist anti-logic on display.

      2. avatar Mick says:

        Well said.

      3. avatar FTM says:

        Haha….Perjury…….that is against the law!!

    3. avatar billy-bob says:

      Mass attack on our civil rights! Ban judges! For the children!

  2. avatar Bryce says:

    Apparently he can’t do math…..

    330 Million people in the US…. 200,000 marched….

    Hardly the majority.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Met some kids at my Hotel just outside DC this weekend. They told me they thought they were on a school sponsored field trip to see DC. They didn’t know they were going to be in a demonstration until they got there. Surprise Surprise!

      1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        This use of public resources to further a particular political agenda is the real story here. This shouldn’t happen. Though, we shouldn’t see the IRS putting their thumb on the scale either, nor the FBI, but that’s where we are. The outrage is missing here, in large part because the press is on board too.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Most if not all of the funding came from Everytown and Hollywood.

      2. avatar Huntmaster says:

        They weren’t told until that morning the itinerary was changed. Then they were told they couldn’t opt out. They were threatened with expulsion if they didn’t stay with the group.

      3. avatar California Richard says:

        “…. They didn’t know they were going to be in a demonstration…”

        Good. I hope this is the 1st step in a long and fruitful life of questioning their teachers’ intensions and the government in general. Realising you’re someone else’s useful idiot is a good first step.

    2. avatar Nigel the expat says:

      Like Question #1 passed in NV by an ‘overwhelming majority’.

      Actual results: 50.1 vs. 49.9 (or less than 10,000 actual votes, state-wide). All because of Clark County (every other county in the state voted against it), a client state of the PRC.

      But the progs keep up with their ‘overwhelming majority’ comments.

      1. avatar DaveL says:

        It’s an overwhelming majority as long as you don’t have to count actual votes.

      2. avatar Kroglikepie says:

        And that horseshit only passed here *with* the mass bussing of illegals to the polls. The hotel and culinary unions came out in force that day as their Democrat masters ordered. Free day off work, free lunch, and $20 was literally all it took for non-citizens to illegally vote against their non-interests.

        Of course they also had help from outright lying about the ballot initiative and stupid stoner millenials also voting on marijuana reform during the same election.

  3. avatar Jay says:

    Well hopefully he dies soon. Although I’d rather see him live in a post Bill Of Rights America as it degenerates into a dictatorship.

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      They’d just put him out to pasture while he rants and raves, like what happened to Kaiser Wilhelm when Hitler came to power.

      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        That is where he is now. He resigned in 2010. Even he new that he was to intellectually impaired to be a justice back then.

  4. avatar Joe R. says:

    Here we go, ‘nuther liberal fuck wants his birthday repealed.

    I give all those attempting that, about a 23 hour life expectancy.

    1. avatar RogueVal says:

      Damn Nixon and Ford, those liberals.

  5. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons,…”

    As Mark Levin has been noted to say :

    “There! I said it!”

    “Australian-style Gun Control”, AKA –

    GUN CONFISCATION…

  6. avatar Joe R. says:

    So, retire from SCOTUS and go back and shit on your previous pledge/job/legacy/the Constitution.

    FLAME DELETED

    1. avatar MarkF says:

      Ahem. He is already retired from the court. Has been for a number of years.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        I said, retire and go back and shit on . . .

        1. avatar RogueVal says:

          Your words betray you.

    2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      Seven years should have been long enough for you to get the memo Joe.

      1. avatar gsyoung54 says:

        Isn’t he the one that forgot to do his TSP reports?

        1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          TPS, TSP is trisodium phosphate, but now that you mention it I don’t think he got one, lets both give him one to be sure.

  7. avatar Sian says:

    He’s right!

    What they want requires the repeal, in whole, of the 2nd amendment.

    When they make it clear and unambiguous that this is their intent, we will see exactly where everyone stands.

    Don’t let them hide behind the ‘nobody wants to take your guns’ lie ever again.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      No one wants to ban guns, they just want to ban assault rifles. It’s not like an assault rifle is a gun, it’s an assault weapon. No civilian needs an assault weapon; that’s for the militia, military and law enforcement. Such fire(arms) are not covered by the 2nd Amendment because at the time it was written they meant to write, “every civilian has the right to own a musket, not an assault weapon of war.”

      Look at Mexico’s laws. They had the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The Mexican government made sure to clarify that civilians can only have non military calibers and non military assault weapons, can’t carry guns in public like cops, universal background checks, etc. They rarely have school shootings — the one that happened last year was at the American School of Northeast (how ironic).

      Mexico has done it right. Why can’t the U.S. be just like Mexico? The U.S. already has a lot of Mexicans living there that are willing to change the U.S. laws to be the same as Mexico’s to protect the children. Look at the great things they helped do in California. Now it’s time to do it in Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Nevada; then in Arizona and Texas.

      Sí, se puede!

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Build the Wall, end all remittances or tax to high hell. Mexico will be in Cartel World War Z soon anyway, so we’ll do it for the AMERICAN kids.

        Foreigners don’t get to say who gets to live here.

        Sanctuary cities can go to hell, but their going to get buried under their own problems and we’re only going to go in to save our real estate.

        Tu si’ puedes coma caca ! ANDELE’ MFrs ! ! !

      2. avatar Howard says:

        What kind of retarded logic is that? Your mother must have thought she was taking a massive dump when you were born and you were under the water too long.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          That’s the logic that the majority of Americans have. That’s the arguments that all those well off white people are making. The fact you can’t see how I was being sarcastic shows how much they got into your head.

          Of course if you made America like their neighbor [Mexico] the organized criminals will work hand in hand to control the people and murder them. It doesn’t matter that Mexico passed all those laws to control guns (Americans want so badly) because kids are now getting murdered much more outside of their schools… Mexicans are not safe at home, at the store, at a football game, riding the bus, etc. Entire families are kidnapped and murdered. That’s one reason why they escape to the U.S.A.

  8. avatar Jamie says:

    CNN replayed their interview with a group of high school children this morning, 90% of which were calling for a ban of ‘semi-automatic’ weapons. One of the boys said, “We should ban all semi-automatic rifles, but hand guns are OK because they are in the second amendment.”

    I had a seriously great laugh this morning.
    Thanks CNN!

  9. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    These filthy, subhuman, Liberal Terrorists™️ are going to force us to defend ourselves from their “War of Leftist Aggression”. This next Civil War will make the last one seem like a quaint playground squabble. The only outcome will be the literal genocide of 10’s of millions of these filthy leftists. It is the ONLY remedy to restore our Constitutional Republic to what our Founders intended. With that said, I pray the democrat party makes this their official platform and campaign on this repeal. And then I hope they try.

    1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

      Ah yes, thoughtful debate.

      1. avatar Gutshot says:

        And, how do you have a “thoughtful debate” with irrational bolsheviks anyway? I’d say he is leaning toward the truth of the matter. The bolsheviks are coming for your rights, no matter how much you wish to debate.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          LJ ain’t from here, and is not equal. Probably never heard it from Cis’ parents.

        2. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          Hah, you’re hilarious, and quite clever, like a toddler, doesn’t really know anything, but yells lots of stuff about poop.

    2. avatar RidgeRunner says:

      Yeah, I’m planning on a more peaceful retirement on the farm. Will defend the farm, though.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Defend the county that the farm is in. Plan for drones, EW cruise missiles, cruise missiles, and smart bombs.

        We’ll try to have your back.

        1. avatar RidgeRunner says:

          Likewise.

    3. avatar cisco kid says:

      I once talked to a “mentally challenged” person who often logs on to this forum but says nothing. I asked him why? He said that whenever he gets depressed over his condition it cheers him up to log on to this forum when he reads the hilarious comments and realizes that there is a whole group of people here that are far below his intellectual handicap. I told him that yes it is a laugh a minute and hard to believe that in the age of computers we have such a large group of Morons.

    1. avatar IS THAT FROWNED UPON says:

      Sheepdog, thank you for posting this link. This is pure gold.

  10. avatar Dick says:

    Could this “FORMER” Justice have been invited to retire due to DEMENTIA complications?

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    How about term limits on SCOTUS?!? That Ginsberg hag could hang on forevermore-senile as he!! You want a war you got it…

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Fun fact: Congress can impeach SCotUS justices.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Congress is full of communist fV<ks.

        EVIL POS (D) FILE LEGISLATION FOR BACKGROUND CHECKS ON AMMO PURCHASES.
        https://townhall.com/notebook/bethbaumann/2018/03/26/democrats-introduce-bill-requiring-background-checks-for-ammo-purchases-n2464949

  12. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    Sure. Let’s propose that in Congress.

    1. avatar Jay in Florida says:

      Yes you want something done. Ask Congress to do it. Best way to get nowhere slowly.

  13. avatar justin says:

    All these protesters and advocates love to run around demanding the end of the 2nd amendment. I always find myself saying, “just do it already!”. Shut Up and go thru with it.

    There is a process out there for amending the constitution. Call for an Article five convention and try to go thru the process and see what happens.

    The Left knows it will fail and they want to just keep yelling at their enemies.

  14. avatar JD says:

    Traitorous scumbag in a black robe. This man had one job when he was on the bench. To uphold the Constitution. If current members can’t do that they need to be removed in whatever way it takes.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I actually not only agree with the Justice, but I have essentially said the same thing here many times. Skip the backroom lying and conniving altogether, you keep telling us 110% of Americans demand immediate forcible confiscation of all firearms, at gunpoint. If that is true, why don’t you PASS A DAMN AMENDMENT? Or are you simply lying?

  15. avatar Ralph says:

    There he is — the latent dictator in black robes. Say, there, I have an idea. Why not repeal the entire Constitution while we’re at it? It just gets in the way of your magnificence.

    Here’s my real suggestion to the old bastard. If you really want to take them away, you come for the guns. You, personally. Not your Praetorian Guards, not your Lon Horiuchis, not your jackbooted thugs — you.

    Either that or lay in a good supply of Depends and STFU.

    1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

      A dictator doesn’t ask for people to vote on things, that’s not how dictating works.

  16. avatar JR says:

    I appreciate the honesty. At least he acknowledges that the 2A means what it says and to legally enforce gun control you would need to repeal it. He’s Just saying what most anti-gun people are thinking but hiding.

    1. avatar DJ says:

      Excellent observation. Acknowledgement of the 2nd and Heller.

    2. avatar samuraichatter says:

      Yes, I call that a win. The 2A is a truly radical idea. I love when freedom-haters get frustrated and state things such as this.

  17. avatar NotFakeNews says:

    If we lose the gun control fight, and the 2A is actually repealed, it’s because of sites like TTAG that want to make the gun issue a liberal versus conservative fight. The gun tent should be all inclusive, and include liberals, pro choice voters, gays, and even socialists.

    Sure, conservatives are more likely to be gun friendly, but doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make the tent as big as possible and pick off support from their side. And being conservative doesn’t mean that said conservative supports the 2A.

    But in the end, all will be ok. HPA will pass, and all the broke dummies on this site who chirp about gun control, but are really too poor to afford guns, will be able to afford the $2 worth of gasoline to drive down and view the beautiful collection of deregulated silencers at Silencer Shop. Btw, check out the Sig SRD22x promo. Buy any Sig can and get the SRD22x for $99. Supplies are limited.

    1. avatar SheepDog says:

      The left cannot and will not listen to logic.

    2. avatar CarlosT says:

      Is it sites such as TTAG that make it about liberal vs conservative? Did some website prompt Stevens to make these comments? Did TTAG push the various gun control groups to demand confiscation?

      Look at the polling, liberals are overwhelmingly anti-gun, on the order of 85% against. A very high percentage would repeal the Second Amendment outright. That this is a liberal vs. conservative issue is just reality.

    3. avatar doesky2 says:

      Learn the difference between liberal and leftist. Until then you’re ignorant.

      1. avatar Huntmaster says:

        We don’t need to learn that, they do!

      2. avatar Joe R. says:

        @ doe4skin

        The difference between liberal and leftist, is that the liberal thinks he’s hiding.

    4. avatar Joe R. says:

      @ NotFakeNews (as far as you know)

      “GUNS” ain’t the only problem with liberals.

      Liberals need some conservatives to keep from reaching critical mass and sucking into a Venezuela-like shit-hole singularity.

      Conservatives could thrive if everyone was Conservative.

  18. avatar Model 31 says:

    Stevens is an obtuse piece of flotsam. While grasping for any shred of relevance, he becomes more of an embarrassment to his profession. To have sat at the top of his field only to be finally known for this, he is to be pitied then forgotten to history.

  19. avatar SoTiredofIt says:

    I’ve reached the point where I wish our power grid would just fail.

    1. avatar Flinch says:

      That’s the American sprit!

      I’m happy to buy you a one-way ticket to Chernobyl if you are fed up with this country and all it’s goodness.

      …frick’n quitter.

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        I’ll be presumptuous and speak for him… the ONLY way to restore our Constitutional Republic to what our Founders intended is through a kinetic, civil engagement. A massive power outage is one way to get there. Firearm confiscation is another. The goal is to be “leftist free”.

        1. avatar 'liljoe says:

          read “One Second After”… it’s a pretty goo description of what would happen and how any innocents would die. I know it’s fiction, but its got some really good points.

          I’d honestly put that wish somewhere on the psychopath or sociopath spectrum. Break a few eggs to make your omelet?

        2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          I think most people here have read it and many also the two sequels as well.

        3. avatar Gutshot says:

          It’s gonna be cold in Minnesota with the grid down. Winter blows

      2. avatar SoTiredofIt says:

        Exactly the opposite, my friend. I am fed up with these weak-chinned skinny-jean wearing fembots using the good stuff we built against us. I figure if we shut the lights, cable TV, cell phones and internet off for a while they’ll all either go elsewhere or wisen the fuck up.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Ya, let’s go. I’m just gonna be a mean cranky and vindictive old man if you wait until I’m 90.

        2. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          So what you’re saying, is that you are 90. OK, good to know.

    2. avatar Mark says:

      Well the only problem with the grid going down is 90% of the population would be dead within 1 year so there wouldn’t be anyone to make ammo anymore….at least not at the factory level. And that would be the least of your problems. It wouldn’t be fun.

      1. avatar SoTiredofIt says:

        Okay, you guys changed my mind. Is it okay to wish that his toilet backs up?

      2. avatar George from Alaska says:

        You should have reloading equipment and the appropriate components, plus a supply of SHTF premade anyway. When the grid shuts down the lemmings and the sheep will naturally die off or come begging for help… we will put them to work chopping wood and weaving rope out of roots…. but then again I live in Alaska and we are used to power and fuel outages and most people I know can sleep outside at -30 below comfortably because we have the right equipment.

        1. avatar Mark says:

          George, I admire your optimism. How long can you live without health care should an infection hit you? That’s what would be a problem. Take the Walking Dead for example. Laughably silly show. All those people would have been dead from a simple infection/malnutrition within the first few months.

          You would only need weapons for the first few weeks. After that most people would be too weak to attack….

        2. avatar 16V says:

          Mark, I’m amused by your (sadly) misinformed urban pessimism. I know very few people who might have died from a basic infection in the last 40+ years. Topical microbials will be effective for years, if one actually needs them for a minor injury.

          Not to mention the billions of primitive peoples on the planet, that somehow manage to stay alive for more than a “few months” without the aid of Western medicine.

          One will need guns for many, many years. In the meantime, the genetically strong will survive and adapt. Which is what humans have somehow managed to do for the last few hundred thousand years.

  20. avatar DaveDetroit says:

    We need to actively educate others and support Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments and Convention of States to roll back socialists’ efforts to destroy the last free nation on Earth.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Liberty_Amendments

  21. avatar bastiches says:

    So if we get a bigger mob, he’ll do push-ups on the Mall?

    Somehow I doubt it.

  22. avatar D.B. Cooper says:

    Wait, I thought they just wanted some “common-sense” reforms?

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Commune-sense.

  23. avatar CarlosT says:

    If Democrats wanted to eliminate all of their seats in red states, this would be nearly the perfect strategy. Maybe combine it with forcing gun owners to pay for the cost of the confiscation and then announce the money will go to Planned Parenthood as a finishing touch.

  24. avatar DrDKW says:

    They won’t try to repeal it. They will simply ignore it, and any other amendments that become unpopular or inconvenient, as federal, state and local governments have been doing for decades!

    DrDKW

  25. avatar Grumpster says:

    At least Stevens talks about repealing the Second Amendment. A much bigger problem is that four Justices (Gisnburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan) simply want to legislate from the bench and all voted against Heller in that the Second Amendment is NOT and individual right. Really the “Bill of Rights” has an amendment that is not an individual right? Stunning news to me and many others including the Founders I am sure if they could respond.

    Our best hope is that President Trump is able to appoint another Justice or two like Neil Gorsuch to SCOTUS to replace Ginsburg and Kennedy so that Second Amendment cases will be heard by SCOTUS with likelihood of positive outcome. The “assault weapon” bans are quickly spreading in blue states.

    Easter will be interesting for me. I try to leave politics out but if my snow flake nephew brings up the Second Amendment is outdated crap I am going to go full Levin on him.

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      Everywhere else they were writing of states they wrote “the states”. On the second amendment they made a gaff and accidentally used the ambiguous term “the people”. They’d have changed it if they’d had caught it. No skilled writers in that bunch;-)

    2. avatar Mark says:

      Ginsberg should be dying any day now. I mean just look at that old prune for fuck’s sake.

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      Sorry Grumpster, you are dead bang wrong about the Heller decision. I suggest you go back and reread it. The fact is that ALL NINE justices concluded that the 2A protects an individual right, but the four dissenters concluded that the right existed solely in connection with service in the militia.

  26. avatar When Flinches Collide says:

    You guys don’t understand how great socialism is.

  27. avatar neiowa says:

    Another guilt ridden former RINO (now Social Republican). Dementia and senility are just sad.

  28. avatar 33Charlemagne says:

    Impeach “Justice” John Paul Stevens! The one good thing this does is it shows undeniably that Stevens is not qualified to rule on ANY FIREARMS case!

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      He retired while Dumo was President.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I don’t care! Impeach him anyway!

        1. avatar JR Pollock says:

          Larry is on the right track. ALL Federal judges, SCOTUS included, have a lifetime appointment.

          One of my biggest fears during the Merrick Garland saga, was that obama could have re-appointed Stevens, and not only would it have been constitutional, he wouldn’t have to be re-confirmed by the Senate.

          The thing people forget is repeal is a two step process. After the 2/3 proposal is satisfied, it still has to be ratified by 38 states. If 13 states refuse to ratify, the amendment fails.

          Somebody care to remind me how many states presently have Vermont/Constitutional carry laws???

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      The floor nurse is looking for you….

  29. avatar todd says:

    Its strange that a supreme court justice doesn’t know:

    In the US constitution the right to bear arms is an innate right that exists within you just by being a human being the same as your free speech. It is not granted by government. The Second Amendment does not grant any right, it is a restriction on government of your already existing innate right. Actually, even repealing the second amendment does not remove that right. There is no way to remove it.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      +

      Boom

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      No, not exactly. Repealing the 2A, as you say, does not repeal the pre-existing right, but it does repeal the guarantee that the government will not infringe upon it, thereby making the right subject to governmental regulation in the public interest.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        “No, not exactly. Repealing the 2A, as you say, does not repeal the pre-existing right, but it does repeal the guarantee that the government will not infringe upon it, thereby making the right subject to governmental regulation in the public interest.”

        Thereby being the beginning of the end of it, under the 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

  30. avatar todd says:

    Wasn’t it Stevens that also said states could ban guns because you could just drive to a state that allowed gun ownership, so see, you can still keep and bear arms?

  31. avatar DD says:

    Head to the light you teetering old fuck.

    1. avatar Sad Trombone says:

      …that cracked me up. 🤣

      1. avatar Red Sox says:

        How about using a current photo of him sitting in his easy chair with depends and sponge bob bib

    2. avatar Art out West says:

      I don’t think Mr. Stevens will be spending eternity in the City of Light. Unless the man repents and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, his trajectory is the outer darkness, lake of fire, and knashing teeth. That is his probable destination, though I sincerely hope for his salvation.

  32. avatar Vince says:

    Hate to say it but people that say anti american shit need to deal with the aftermath… May the Founders give us the courage to put America back on the path it is intended to be.. Leftists are the domestic enemy….

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      May God give us the courage to put us back on the path the founders intended…

  33. avatar grumspter says:

    In the very unlikely case that the Second Amendment was repealed I wonder how the wording of the Bill of Rights would be handled. Would it be left as an archaic reminder of our supposedly savage past history? Would it be left in but simply lined out? Would it be removed and another amendment promoted to it’s very prominent spot, maybe a brand new amendment?

    1. avatar JR Pollock says:

      No, it would remain. Using the 21st Amendment as a guide, it would be…

      Amendment XXVII

      The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. That would be Section 1 if they chose to put new qualifiers on, they would be in subsequent sections.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Exercising the 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence we’d reinstate it. No one without a gun gets a vote.

      2. avatar Rick says:

        Well, the XXVII Amendment already does state “No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”

  34. avatar Dog of War says:

    The really funny thing is is that the Anti’s think that a firearm is the only weapon that they need to worry about. It’s not like it’s really easy to build a grenade launcher or an IED in your garage or anything. Not to mention what destruction of infrastructure would do to, oh I don’t know, name a city that already has hideous crime problems.

  35. avatar Troubled Soul says:

    So given that he has made this public statement, would he not have to recuse himself from any court cases involving gun rights?
    I find it ironic that Federal judges can block Trumps executive orders because of statements that he made, but this would be ok?

    1. avatar Dan Zimmerman says:

      He’s retired.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        And brain dead.

      2. avatar B-Rad says:

        That’s a problem with people reading the headline, don’t know much, and just vent.

        Another Headline, guy expresses opinion. He’s got no more power than any other citizen.

        And he’s not wrong, if you want to limit the 2nd amendment, you have to pass another amendment to restrict it. It is what it is, if they want something else, there’s a process for that. Practically zero chance of it happening, but I’d rather it just be out in the open than have a patchwork of laws that argue around the edges for another 70 years.

      3. avatar Troubled Soul says:

        I stand corrected.
        I missed the retired part.
        But I think Larry in Texas has the right idea.

        1. avatar Vinny says:

          No, I think it was a typo. He meant to type the word “retarded”. Even though calling this idiot judge a retard is an insult to the developmentally disabled.

  36. avatar ming says:

    Further proof of the adage “There’s no fool like an old fool”.

  37. avatar J.T. says:

    “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,”

    One of those rare times during his lifetime was called the Cultural Revolution and it resulted in millions of deaths.

    1. avatar B-Rad says:

      Civil rights movement, Vietnam, those are 2 and much larger.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Truly much MUCH larger. I suspect the demonstrations and rioting at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago were larger too. Not that anyone was listening to the “kids” back then either.

        1. avatar B-Rad says:

          Watts riots in 65, LA riots in 92.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Blue State purges of 20_ _?

  38. avatar Chris. says:

    — Overturning that [Heller decision establishing an individual right to keep and bear arms] via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple —

    Wow. How wrong, both on the “ease” of accomplishing this; and on legal precedent:

    United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 (1876)

    “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. ”

    So Even IF the 2nd is repealed; The Legal precedent still stands.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Umm, no. The legal precedent would be overruled by subsequent constitutional amendment. As I said above, the 2A is a guarantee against interference; repeal the 2A and the right may continue to exist, but the guarantee does not, thereby subjecting the right to governmental regulation in the public interest.

  39. avatar Jim Bremer says:

    ROBERT ROBERT ROBERT!

    This is something like the 3rd posting you’ve done saying or implying that repealing the 2nd Amendment would take away our right to bear arms.

    YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER. The Bill of Rights DOES NOT grant us anything….these rights are natural rights…god given….they aren’t given by any government and thus can’t be taken away by any government.

    The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to just point out some of the many many natural rights we all have and to make sure the Federal Govt does not infringe on them. It doesn’t grant us these rights. The whole point of the revolution was that a King and a Government were limiting our natural rights. That is why the Constitution was written the way it was.

    Our whole country was based on this principle of god given natural rights. There is literally volumes of letters, documents, etc written by the founders about this. There is no other way to interpret it..there is nothing vague about it.

    So you could get rid of the 2nd and it doesn’t mean anything…one still has the right.

    Now the fact that a former Supreme Court justice doesn’t know this is shocking. He may not agree with the 2nd Amendment…but he should damn well know that just getting rid of it doesn’t change anything…he should have a basic understanding of natural rights and the history of this country’s founding! There are NO documents out there showing our founders thought a strong central government granted people their rights…zero..zilch. That’s silly on it’s face…why would we fight a war to replace one authoritarian government with another?

    Of course..this just points out the fallacy of debating anti-gun people and leftists. We try to make them admit the 2nd Amendment means what it says…that we have a right to own a gun…etc…but in reality they don’t care about the Constitution or natural rights. They honestly have no reverence for it, don’t believe in it…don’t care if this country was based on it…because the country they want is something completely different.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      But it does specifically say that the state cannot infringe. If its not there, then they can pass laws regulating it, or banning it.

      A firearm isn’t something your born with, its a mechanical device, and they could then completely limit manufacture of them via restriction.

      1. avatar Jim Bremer says:

        Sorry..but you aren’t incorrect..and not to be snide but you really need to get online and educate yourself on the Bill of Rights and the foundations of American government.

        You say “But it does specifically say that the state cannot infringe. If its not there, then they can pass laws regulating it, or banning it. ”

        First….no…the States can’t infringe on the 2nd Amendment. The Bill of rights was incorporated to the States via the 14th Amendment. This was already decided by many previous cases(re Bill of Rights) and the 2nd Amendment in particular by McDonald V City of Chicago(google it).

        Second..the Bill of Rights isn’t an exhaustive or exclusive list…it merely points out some of the important natural rights you have. These were the rights that, in order to get the Constitution signed, a large group of states wanted explicitly written down so there could be no argument later about them. The Constitution doesn’t say ” Hey…these are what you the people have as rights and anything that’s not listed we can do.” It’s the opposite… The Constitution as a document grants very limited power to the Federal government and explicitly says in the 9th Amendment “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”

        Finally..you stated “A firearm isn’t something your born with, its a mechanical device, and they could then completely limit manufacture of them via restriction”.

        Arms(guns) are specifically mentioned in the Constitution and are indeed….as mechanical devices..protected. The 2nd Amendment is just an offshoot of your natural right of self defense. English Common law recognized that a person needed arms to defend themselves, their homes, and their community. Fists weren’t enough for self defense…a 100lb women can’t defend herself with her fists from a 250lb man. Nor can one person defend his house against a bunch of intruders or his commnity from an oppressive government with fists.

        Also…using your logic the Government could ban any speech by banning computers, cell phones, typewriters, megaphones, etc. Using your logic only speech that you can actually “speak” is protected. Obviously such a line of thinking is laughably incorrect.

        1. avatar Rick says:

          So with the 19th amendment made it illegal manufacture or sale alcohol for sale, and a repeal of the 2nd would be the same.

          If the 2nd amendment is repealed, do you think it would only say “the 2nd amendment is hereby repealed”? You would have no more or less right to a gun than a TV set. You have a right to self defense, sure. But without the 2nd, there is not more, or less, stipulations within the constitution for a gun specifically, and there’s little chance the a repeal would only repeal. Again, its a mechanical device and the federal, and state, local, can completely manage manufacturing license, ownership, so that they are, by default, not available.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          Rick is right, and you should carefully reread his comment. The Second is a guarantee against government regulation /infringement on a pre-existing or natural right. Repeal the Second and you repeal the guarantee against infringement. You still have the right, but the government can claim a right to regulate that right in the public interest, much as it does with other rights. You have a first amendment right of free speech, but the government can make it illegal to foment the violent overthrow of the government, or conspiracy to commit crimes, etc. You have freedom of religion–except that the state can outlaw plural marriage, animal or human sacrifice, etc. And so on.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (and its Constitution) are nothing without its DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

          Repeal what you want, the flag pole buried in your ass can have whatever colors are flown hereafter, but it’ll be flying over a country AND PEOPLE who only more-stringently promise and guarantee (in whatever new Constitution that happens along) WHAT WE’VE ALREADY PROMISED AND DEMANDED OF/FOR/AND FROM EACH OTHER. So help us GOD.

          YOUR RTKABA WILL OUTLIVE EVEN THE IDEA OF AMERICA.

          KEEP YOUR GUNS (AND YOUR AMMO) SO THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE A SAY IN WHAT COMES NEXT.

        4. avatar Rick says:

          So your response to the United States of America, its founding documents and processes in place are, let me paraphrase…

          “F THEM, TEAR IT DOWN, ALL THE POS (D) GOVERNMENT. MURDER, DEATH, KILL all the TRAITORS”

          So you want a different form of Government, please explain that system that your looking for, instead of shouting at the sky. Its obvious you’d rather see civil war, and the global consequence that would have.

        5. avatar Joe R. says:

          That’s projection.

          I’m saying, we’ve all already promised each other to prosecute this violently if the inviolate ‘thing’ that is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, under GOD, is attempted to be whittled or rights winnowed. Wave whatever law or legislation you want in the air, it won’t stop what’s coming for you, and whoever’s a minimum safe distance from you will think you developed a sink hole.

          And, it’s not yelling, it’s making you LOOK HERE. The yelling is all in your head. Echoes of your two-dads step-parents?

        6. avatar Rick says:

          What the hell dude, instead of an actual reasoned response, I have two dads, are they gay, did my parents get divorced and my mom remarry, did my dad die (he did) and my mom get remarried (No, but she’s 76), am I gay (I’m pretty sure I’m not, been 50 years, so I’d have noticed, maybe my wife or kids would have told me), but thanks for your internet couch detective skills, psycho-sexual detective, maybe?

          OooKayy, so we’ve established that, great, now what? Would you like to have a thought and get back to me? Do I have two moms, or did my mom have two moms, is my mom really my mom, maybe my dad isn’t my dad, is my sister really my mom, she’s 8 years younger, but sure. Please, tell me more.

        7. avatar Reginald Veljohnson says:

          >Chuckle<

        8. avatar Joe R. says:

          Yeah, I’m sticking with my answer.

        9. avatar RogueVal says:

          That you’re a 90 year old imbecile, you know, between and idiot and moron, gotcha, I concur.

        10. avatar Rick says:

          Come on, he’s just special, bless his heart.

  40. avatar HEGEMON says:

    Good that he retired. Almost had a stroke because of HELLER. I guess that he lied about upholding the Constitution during his Senate hearings and swearing in ceremony. The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing. They envisioned tyranny far into the future of the country. They envisioned people like Stevens.

  41. avatar Hank says:

    As my junior high history teacher said (because I had a real one, not a coach just coasting through a mandatory teaching class), communists and totalitarians will always look at history and say, “Just because every communist before us was a totalitarian doesn’t mean we will be! We’ll be better! We’re kinder, gentler totalitarians!” Come to think of it, our high school English teacher gave the same warning as we read Animal Farm, which should be required reading for every student.

    And there’s no bigger fool than the one who falls for that.

  42. avatar Charlie says:

    Possibly the most intellectually honest thing I’ve heard from the anti-gun side in 25 years. But still it’s a bad move. Even trying to repeal 2A – and getting more than a handful of states to sign on – will cause a lot of people to start the resistance efforts. Which will provoke a violent government reaction, and a violent counter-reaction, which will spiral out of control and lead to some very bad times.

    The “best case” outcome would be guns getting scarce and individual self defense being made mostly illegal. Which eventually means a higher crime rate and people afraid to defend themselves by any means at all.

    Don’t do it…

    1. avatar cisco kid says:

      Your living in a fantasy world. 64 per cent of the public own no guns at all and many want the Second Amendment trashed as soon as possible. Many gun owners themselves want assault rifles banned not realizing it will result in the ban of all semi-auto weapons which will include rifles, pistols and shotguns just like they did in Australia and the public complied because they knew they did not want to be “Waco’d” and burned to a crisp by helicopter gun ships.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        CK ain’t from here. Don’t let him disarm you for the next Civil War.

      2. avatar Huntmaster says:

        Less than 15% of the population picked up arms during the Revolutionary war. I think we will probably get somewhat better participation.

        1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

          It was even less, 3%.

          Now what is 3% of 320 million? 9.6 MILLION

          That is more than every military on the planet combined!!

          Every collateral damage just makes more freedom fighters like we do overseas.

  43. avatar N64456 says:

    Didn’t know that baby-killer was even still alive?…

  44. avatar Bitter - Klingon says:

    PENNSYLVANIA …. Step up , you’re next on the Gun BAN Express !

    “Today I am writing to Pennsylvania’s Congressional delegation to commend gun safety measures in the recent Omnibus Bill. But we can and must do more — that’s why I’m urging further action, including banning military-style weapons, increasing federal funding for background check systems, and other commonsense measures to protect the lives of our citizens.
    Governor Tom Wolf / HB – 2145 and S -17 introduced , Ban all ” assault ” type guns & more.

    http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2017&sind=0&body=S&type=B&bn=0017

  45. avatar Icabod says:

    Each time this idea comes up I recall:
    “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; ”

    We don’t change the Constitution for the crisis of the day. Neither do mobs in the street and threats dictate change.

  46. avatar cisco kid says:

    This justice is not the only one the latest Supreme Court Traitor Republican is Trumps latest appointee to the Court and he agreed not to hear the Maryland Assault Rifle ban last summer which gave the green light to all States that they can ban any gun or all the guns that they want which completely reversed the Heller Decision. The States were not long in banning guns either as California is now in the process of confiscating semi-auto rifles has unconstitutional ammo bans and the Attorney General in Massachusetts banned Assault rifles by decree without passing any new laws and all unbelievably blessed by the corrupt court systems that are all bowing to public opinion that is firmly against owning semi-auto weapons. Buy a copy of the Constitution and wipe your ass with it as its only modern use is for toilet paper.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      You feeling okay, cisco buddy?

      We’re worried about ya.

    2. avatar B-Rad says:

      I know this is a repeat, BUT HE HASN’T BEEN A JUSTICE FOR 8 YEARS.

  47. avatar Paul B. says:

    I just have a minor quibble–a Constitutional amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures (not 2/3). That means 38 state legislatures, in addition to 2/3 of both houses of Congress, would have to vote to repeal the 2nd A.

    Good luck with that . . .

  48. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”

    Please do… let’s get this party started. I ain’t getting any younger.

    1. avatar Kenneth G Maiden says:

      I use to think that taking up arms to fight government was foolish talk. Well, NOT any more! The tree of liberty is dying! Time to revive her with blood of tyrants? Dear God, I hope not.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Pray for peace. Prepare for war.

      2. avatar cisco kid says:

        Sorry fella but the reality is 64 per cent of U.S. citizens do not own guns and would love to see helicopter gun ships “waco” all gun owners and burn them to a crisp. For them it would be great entertainment on the nightly news.

        For any civil insurrection to be successful you would need the support of the majority of the population (we do not have that) as the majority of Americans no longer own guns or support their ownership. Even Hunting is now considered a depraved sport of sadists and lunatics or ignorant Hillbillies.

        You would need an outside source of weapons and ammo being supplied to the insurgents and with anti-gun Canada to the North of us and Mexico to the South forget any help.

        Also you would have to have a predominately young and enraged population. The U.S. is now a nation of doddering old farts that cannot walk to the mail box with their oxygen containers and the few young people we do have now hate guns with a passion and who can blame them when their classrooms have been changed into weekly shooting galleries.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Build the Wall, end remittances, man the wall, build a catapult for the stragglers.

        2. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Troll

        3. avatar Raoul Duke says:

          Cisco the idiot who doesn’t know anything about logistics or other successful insurgency operations around the planet against conventional armies.

          Here’s the thing, helicopters, tanks, drones all require fuel and parts to work. That won’t be guaranteed on home soil where the insurgency is. All collateral damage only recruits more guerillas to our cause unless you arrogantly think that is only possible with foreigners.

          So fine roll your tanks through, we will let them roll by then hit them while they sleep thinking they “got one over on us”. Tanks and helicopters can’t knock on doors. And before you claim “they will blow it up”, you committed a war crime recruiting more guerillas.

          Before spewing your BS you should learn what you are talking about.

        4. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Those tanks may or may not be out there rolling for the state. Just like the planes in the sky may or may not be flying in support of the state. If the service members think they are being used, all bets are off and things will get ugly fast. And the boots on the ground are overwhelmingly conservative.

  49. avatar Ing says:

    It’s time to repeal John Paul Stephens.

  50. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    I think lots of folks are overlooking something quite important here:

    Implicit in this commentary by Stevens is a recognition that the Second Amendment stands in the way of the sort of sweeping gun control they wish to implement.

    Since Heller, there is now, finally, a recognition that the Second Amendment really does recognize an individual liberty to keep and bear arms. When you’re ask old as I am, you remember when there were retired SCOTUS justices (Berger, in particular) who claimed that the Second Amendment said no such thing, and that the NRA was peddling a lie that the Second Amendment protected a right of individuals to own guns. The gun grabbers used to opine that the Second Amendment would not pose any limitation on gun control laws, and they should just start legislating and litigating.

    This is a very substantial shift. I would use Stevens’ words against liberals who are clamoring for more legislation. Even one of their vaunted liberal justices tacitly admits that the Second Amendment stands in the way of their utopian schemes.

    1. avatar B-Rad says:

      See above: Many times, not how a constitution, nor laws, works.

    2. avatar cisco kid says:

      Where have you been the last year sleeping in a cave somewhere. This last summer the Corrupt Supreme Court bowing to public pressure completely trashed the Heller decision by simply refusing to hear the Maryland Assault Rifle case. The States have now been jumping at the chance to ban modern guns. California is in the process of confiscating semi-auto rifles and has new ammo restrictions right out of Nazi Germany as it is now illegal to even cross state lines and buy ammo and bring it back completely against the right of purchasing legal products as well as state commerce laws.

      Massachusetts jumped at the chance and without passing any new law banned semi-auto rifles by simple decree (right out of third world dictatorship) and the corrupt courts bowing to public pressure gave their blessings.

      Reports are coming in of new gun ban and ammo ban laws being drawn up in many other states across the country as the mass hysteria (well founded) over the weekly slaughter of children in schools has put the anti-gunners on a roll never experienced before in the history of gun bans.

      Yes we had our chance and blew it big time. No safe storage laws let kids pick up guns and take them to school and blow other children away. NRA meddling in the passage of the original Brady Bill let nut cases buy all the heavy weapons an ammo they wanted to commit mass murder buy buying them at gun shows with no paperwork. Republicans refusing to fund mental health care or provide federal funds for school guards or school security systems simply invited mass murders to use schools as shooting galleries.

      Yes gun owners and the NRA refused to do anything and now are about to lose everything. They could not have been dumber if they had went to school to be trained to be Morons.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        School shooting happen because of the culture. The culture was changed by the anti gun types. Gang shootings happen for the same reasons. The gun owner is usually opposed to how the culture shifted. The people who call for disarmament are the ones that created the problem to begin with. The gun owners want to fix the problem, but the anti gun types immediately stop listening and start yelling ad hominems.

        The strategy is very similar to how the government “fights” the “drug war.” Protect/create the drug lords, bring in the drugs, scream about the consequences of drugs and demand more power.

        Now they have the “war on gun violence” by indirectly creating school shooters, allowing them to roam unrestrained, maintain defenseless zones, stand by when kids are dying, yell about the evil guns that killed innocent kids, then call for more power.

        In the past, guns were in schools and kids had them. There was no Hollywood slaughter fest between a bunch of cowboys. People drove around with guns in their cars. They had shooting ranges at school and shooting clubs.

    3. avatar Rick says:

      The U.S. Constitution does not mention “unalienable” or “natural rights.”

      The Declaration of Independence does, but the Declaration isn’t a legal document in US law, but is an example of the spirit, as opposed to the letter, of the law.

      Without the 2nd, the federal government can then regulate with only simple laws, constitutional protections have actual meaning above and beyond mere laws. The government could then require something like a license that has a a 5k hour training minimum, only offered on the 29th of February of every odd year, and a $5,000,000 license fee. You still have the right, but not a guarantee of “shall not be infringed”.

  51. avatar Kenneth G Maiden says:

    Tyranny in a black robe. Worst of the worst. This infection has taken over most of America’s courts, most of America’s education system, most of the media. The only protection left is the Bill of Rights and OUR Constitution. The words form that hack, proves it.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “The only protection left”

      There is one more protection after that.

      “A man’s rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box.” – Frederick Douglass

  52. avatar Tim says:

    We are in a bad place on this. The public is increasingly anti-gun and completely ignorant about self defense. If we don’t give an inch as many say we should we risk looking out of touch, self-centered, and uncaring. (Never mind if it is true or accurate, that is the perception especially among those critical of guns already.) It would seem to me that increasing age limit to buy military style semi-automatic modern sporting rifles to 21 years old makes some sense. Is it logical? No. Would it actually increase safety? No. Would there be other “less scary looking” semi-autos exempt from such restrictions like the Mini-14? Sure. Not like those ignorant on guns will get that. Who cares. Let them feel like they got a win on this.

    I think we all know handguns are involved in the most deaths. Despite this, no one seems to be talking about restricting them except the most extreme outright disarmament plans. Let’s keep it that way. Give them this single, focused, stupid, ineffectual change might not be the worst idea. Surely they will come for more later. Is it foolish to cede this ground now which could be sacrificed later? Is this all simply delaying the inevitable? Where do we draw the line and when? Does that line move or change over time? So many difficult questions to consider.

    Simply throwing out some thoughts after talking to a coworker. Not by any means my final stance or something I would propose if I were in Congress. Flame me if you want, I couldn’t care less. If you are so insecure in your ideas and principles that you cannot even stand to read a comment that might somehow challenge them, I say you might should stay in bed under your covers in your safe space. Instead I encourage civil discussion focused on the details of policy. If you have a counter argument please explain it clearly and in sufficient detail so that others might continue on your thoughts or counter them. Keep it civil please.

    1. avatar c4v3man says:

      When they came for the full auto firearms, I did nothing, for I had no assault rifles.

      When they came for semi-auto “assault weapons”, I did nothing, for I still had my pistol.

      When they came for my pistol, I surrendered it, as I had no rifle to defend it with.

      So when you “give them a win” and let them raise the age for “scary guns”, as that’s the only apt description that really describes the guns they’re after, is THAT where you draw the line? What are you willing to sacrifice next year after the next tragedy? What about the year after that? Do you really need a pistol Tim? I’m assuming you identify as a man, you can defend yourself with your brute strength, only women should be able to own pistols, right?

    2. avatar c4v3man says:

      At some point you will either have no guns, or will appear self-centered, out of touch, and uncaring. What difference does 1 year, 2 years, or 10 years make when it comes to appearing like you don’t care? Raising the age to 21 may not affect you, but it will hardly affect the world at large either. So we are going to be in the exact same criminal situation, only we’re starting off the argument with less rights.

      I’ll tell you what, I’m a caring individual. Let’s say I agree that “adults” aren’t ready to “adult” until age 21. Fine, let’s raise the legal age for voting and rifle ownership to 21, but we’re “comprimising” here, right? If you can be trusted with a semi-auto rifle at age 21, why can’t you be trusted with a full-auto rifle? According to the media, they’re basically identical, so let’s repeal the NFA and truly believe you’re trustworthy at age 21.

      Oh wait, no we can’t trust you will a full-auto rifle at age 21, you can’t ever be trusted with that. And a “fully semi-automatic” rifle is still an “assault weapon” so let’s still ban those even if you’re over 21, you don’t need that to hunt.

      At some point, you need to learn to live with the reality so eloquently stated by George Carlin: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” Why compromise on ineffective law simply to look like you care to idiots that ignore reality?

  53. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    This is a man who had to hang around waiting for someone like Obama to be elected so he could retire. He was one of the most liberal members of the Court ever. He would have said the very same thing before he retired. Yes, Heller pissed him off. Is he a brain dead liberal with Alzheimer’s? Yeah, but he has been of the bench for years!

  54. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Why not repeal a few more…or open the entire document up to revision…

  55. avatar Joe R. says:

    Can’t Rise To The Level Of Worthless dickbags in black robes have often fancied themselves equivalent to our “founding fathers”, but they are iFucked and Wrong. Neither are the POS aholes that appointed and/or approved them.

    None of them rate. If they are liberal or (D) they are a scourge protected from eradication by GOD knows what except that humans need an example of them around from time to time as a reminder. Kind of like a zoo, or museum.

  56. avatar Chuck Glass says:

    And there it is…. if you give the liberals enough time they will eventually tell us what their real motives are. Liberals do not understand that the 2nd amendment is the the amendment that protects us from an out of control government.

    1. avatar RogueVal says:

      He’s a Law and Order Republican, nominated by Nixon, then Ford, very conservative Republicans.

      1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        Neither Nixon, nor Ford, were what we call today “conservative” Republicans.

        Nixon was actually a very liberal Republican. The EPA was created under Nixon, for example. Nixon imposed wage & price controls on the economy in ’71 in a mis-guided attempt to gain control of inflation that was brought on by the closing of the gold window. When Nixon imposed the wage & price freezes, inflation was running about 4%. By the time he lifted this policy, inflation was headed over 10%.

        Yes, I said 10% inflation. By March 1980, as a result of a decade of liberal foolishness, inflation was up to about 14%.

        Ford was more of the same liberal meddling and bureaucracy.

        There’s a reason why the GOP ran a third candidate against Reagan in ’80: The GOP was not, until Reagan came along, “conservative.” The GOP had ejected “conservatives” when they stabbed Goldwater in the back during the 1964 presidential campaign.

        1. avatar B-Rad says:

          Well, too bad Reagan signed all those firearms restrictions.

  57. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    So, we do what some chillrins screeched loud about last? That would make the judiciary a populist arm of the government enacting the spasm of the moment, like the … wait, don’t we have those already?

    The notion of a person & persona embodying & enforcing the will, nature and destiny of a people or nation is … kind of Fascism 102. (101 is “Everything within the state / nothing outside the state.”)

    I do wonder about a judge who sees his role as reacting to the momentary outburst of the people — whatever won the last news cycle Must Be Done! We don’t need courtrooms and robes for that. Just do government by Morning Joe. Anderson Cooper? Or maybe The View? They can rotate — keep the workload down.

  58. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Well, now that he’s out Judge Stevens there can admit he didn’t have the authority (2A bans prohibition of arms) to push through the preferences he indulged on the bench.

    Why do we have laws, again?

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “Why do we have laws, again?”

      For the illusion of liberty.

  59. avatar Charlie says:

    See all those comments about starting or planning for the revolution? That’s precisely what I was warning about. If the people who claim to want peace are serious, then they need to refrain from deliberately hyping up one side while making the other feel threatened. Deescalation is the key concept here. Except I’m not sure the anti-gun people realize the full range of outcomes that are on the table. It’s like all they see is daily school massacres vs gun-free utopia. Not only are they poking the bear, they don’t even realize there’s a bear in poking range. Or they think it’s just a small dog. Not good.

    Turning my attention to the hotheads on the other side… Please, folks, don’t start the civil war yet. No matter who wins, everything about the war and the government afterwards will be even worse than what we have now. Save that option for an absolute last resort.

  60. avatar Hillary Clit says:

    Screw this d-bag. If he has a family he is a failure as a parent, as a judge, and as an American. His poor kids deserve a better father.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      Somewhat pointless given his age. Just a tincture of time is all you need.

  61. avatar Hannibal says:

    “Nobody wants to take your guns!”

    lol

  62. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Did the Judge there just admit that you can’t legally ban guns in the US without repealing the 2A?

    And the media chatter-bots spread this far and wide, so consumed by the notion of finally being rid of it?

  63. avatar Adam says:

    Pet peeve of mine but this guy is no longer a Supreme Court Justice. He retired. The whole point of our government is that once you quit you go back to being just a regular citizen. It’s no longer “President Obama” or “President Bush”. They are just regular dudes now, it’s just Mr. Obama or Mr. Bush. By continuing to give them these titles we are showing that they still have power over us which is not how our system is supposed to work.

    1. avatar Vinny says:

      Yeah, regular dudes with secret service protection that we pay for the rest of their lives.

  64. avatar Sam Toucan says:

    Only 13 states would have to say NO to an amendment to remove the 2nd Amendment.

    Even in this Bizarro World post Obama environment they cannot repeal the 2nd Amendment.

    Thats why the leftists use the stacked courts and state legislatures to push their gun control, to get what they want the Constitutional way just isnt in the cards.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      No the opposite is true, only 13 states would have to vote no to keep the 2nd. You have to PASS and amendment to “repeal” an amendment.

      1. avatar Sam Toucan says:

        Forgive my faux pas, my hands were slippery from gun oil. I soak my hands in CLP to keep them supple for when TSHTF.

        3/4 of the state legislatures would have to vote affirmatively to pass an amendment to repeal another amendment. 13 states would have to vote against it.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Forgive my faux pas, my hands were slippery from gun oil. I soak my hands in CLP to keep them supple for when TSHTF.”

          ROTFL. Thank you for that. 😀

  65. avatar cisco kid says:

    Note: Justice Stevens discusses his book and the other parts of the Constitution besides 2A he would like to change and some of them are very popular with the majority of American Citizens. What are they? Listen too him and find out what they are and why he wants to change them. Fascinating conversation and no he is not the nut case the Far Right thinks he is. As a matter of fact if we ignore his views on 2a and take a look at his other ideas in regards to changing the Constitution they make perfect sense and are long overdue.

    https://youtu.be/MeNSDzdEE9I

    1. avatar Sam Toucan says:

      The insane babblings of whacked out nutcase leftists appeal to you, do they Shiksa Kid?

      Hillary much?

  66. avatar Vinny says:

    I just hauled off and kicked old green teeth right in the knee! And he let out a yell that’d curl your hair and when he was bent over I grabbed me a chair and said, watch’em folks cause he’s a fairly dangerous man. Did you know this guy has gone as far as rippin Trump stickers from the bumpers of cars and he voted for crooked Hillary for president. He’s a snake in the grass, I tell you guys ,, he might look dumb but that’s just a disguise he’s a mastermind in the ways of espionage.

  67. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I’m glad we now have an honest gun grabber coming out of the closet. Now I can call every one a real gun” confiscater”. Yes its a new word.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email