Millions of Americans woke up Tuesday morning to a shocking bit of news: Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens…is still alive. Honestly, I would have gotten that question wrong on Jeopardy. Just as shocking was the 97 year old retired justice penned (or maybe quilled) an op-ed in the New York Times calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
I don’t begrudge Stevens his opinion, he’s entitled to it as much as anyone else, I’m just glad he no longer sits on the highest court in the land to be able to impose it on us anymore. In fact, more than not begrudging it, I welcome it. It’s about time liberals were honest about what their true goal is.
I’ve become used to liberals playing Sargent Schultz or pulling the ostrich defense when it comes to what their real objective is in regards to the right to keep and bear arms. “Weird I didn’t hear anybody talk about a ‘gun ban,’” wrote a Politico reporter in response to Senator Marco Rubio defending himself from accusations of “blood on his hands” and guilt over the actions of a monster.
Of course, it’s easy not to hear or see anyone calling for a gun ban if your head is somewhere dark where sound can’t easily penetrate…
For the rest of us living in the real world, liberals have been unambiguous about their intentions for years. The reason the political left hasn’t gone down the road of repeal in the past is because they know it’s a dead end.
The 1994 Republican wave election that wrestled control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years was, in large part, due to gun control measures Democrats rammed into law under Bill Clinton.
Recommended
The media can cite all the polls they want, even though they’re all over the place, if an issue isn’t one of, if not THE issue that motivates someone’s vote, it doesn’t much matter. Many pro-life people vote for pro-choice Democrats because there are issues more important to them. Just as many people would support the idea of amnesty for illegal aliens, but vote for Republicans because they care about other issues more.
As evidenced by the 1994 sweep, messing with the Second Amendment motivates people to vote.
With all the demonizing of the inanimate object over the human being who used it for evil – not just this past weekend where guns and lawful people who’ve never used them to harm anyone were smeared from the stage and the guilty were absolved through omission – if their message was going to penetrate the public it would have by now. But even the Washington Post, no fan of the Second Amendment, found only 21 percent support for repeal.
Naturally, being the Post, they framed it as “One in five Americans wants the Second Amendment to be repealed,” rather than “Four in five opposed repealing the Second Amendment.” But 1 out of 5 Americans supporting the wholesale repeal of a constitutional amendment is shockingly high, if you don’t think about how many people vote for Democrats, who basically exist as a party to ignore or flagrantly misinterpret the Constitution. Hell, a third of colonists supported England during the Revolution, so maybe we’re moving in the right direction.
All jokes aside, the willingness of the left to at least acknowledge that the Second Amendment does protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is a new and good development, even if it’s only because ignoring it or “reinterpreting” it is no longer a viable option. What Stevens admitted, though he disagreed with it, is the DC vs Heller case cut off most of the other options liberals prefer to diminish individual rights protected by the Constitution. The only solution left to them with any teeth is repeal.
The beauty of this reality is repeal simply will not happen, at least not any time soon.
Aside from the two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress, three-fourths of states would have to concur. Look at a map of the United States; can you pick more than a baker’s dozen who might support such a move?
The wonderful thing about the discussion among the liberal intelligentsia Stevens started is it at least has the left talking about changing the Constitution through the constitutionally prescribed method – the amendment process. That’s new and refreshing to hear them admit there is one and it matters.
The left usually chips away at the edges of our founding document, eroding individual liberty a little bit at a time through the courts, regulations, and lawsuits for decades. Now they’re on record admitting the Constitution protects our right to keep and bear arms, and they’d need an unimaginable, sweeping wave across the country to strip away that protection. That might not seem like much, but for liberals it is a major concession.
So please, try. I hope Democrats introduce an amendment to repeal the Second Amendment so even obtuse “reporters” can finally see what they refuse to. And also so that the silent majority can, too, and will be motivated to the polls come November, because Lord knows Republicans could use that.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member