When you hear someone talking about the abolishment of the Second Amendment, one of the last people you would have on your list would be a conservative Supreme Court Justice.
But, out of the mouth of former Justice John Paul Stevens came, “They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”
More Gun Laws
After the most recent onslaught of school shootings, the left side of the aisle is demanding more gun laws, any gun laws, so they can tell their voters they are doing something.
But, as we all know, legislation such as this is usually nothing more than a backdoor to creating more legislation but does nothing to actually stop murders or attacks.
Former Justice Stevens doesn’t want to just add more strict gun laws or put restrictions on what types of guns people can buy.
He wants to flat out repeal the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment is Antiquated
According to former Justice Stevens, the time for the Second Amendment has passed.
The Justice points to 1939, when the Supreme Court agreed Congress could “prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because the weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a ‘well-regulated militia.’”
In 2008, the “new understanding” of the Second Amendment was challenged and overturned, but with four dissenting votes, Stevens’ being one of the four dissenting votes.
While the former Justice says repealing this legislation would make our schools and our country safer, it sounds more like someone that is living in a bubble rather than a conservative former Justice.
The problem is evil always finds a way to be evil.
Rather than actually looking at the people that are doing the shooting, those that think more gun control or the repealing of the Second Amendment is the answer are looking at the weapon.
When a gun is not available, we have seen terrorists create bombs to kill innocent people.
When a gun is not available, we have seen knives used to kill people.
When a gun is not available, we have seen automobiles used to kill people.
The point here is that when someone wants to kill or hurt people, they will find a tool to do so.
Posting a sign that an area is gun-free zone or banning the sale of weapons to private citizens merely makes them more susceptible to the evildoers.
In regards to what a “well-regulated militia” needs or wants to use for resistance, do they not have the right to have the same weapons as those they are facing?
If a situation ever arose where we needed to rise up, are we supposed to be armed with peashooters?
To all of those suffering from this disillusion that banning weapons will somehow erase evil in this country, there are only two words you need to know… Molon Labe.