Former SC Justice Wants to Repeal the Second Amendment (and People in Hell Want Ice Water)

It will never happen, and that there are leftists happily assuring “Repeal the Second Amendment” is currently trending on social media is the very reason. They’re just too dumb to realize it.

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a ridiculous, addle-brained op-ed for the New York Times calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

It ain’t happening, Johnny.

The retired Republican, apparently spurred on by this past weekend’s March for Our Lives nonsense, urged activists to give up the charade of simply seeking new restrictions and more stringent background checks, and to lean on lawmakers to gun grab.

“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,” Stevens wrote.

“But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform,” he continued. “They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”

Indeed, some of the signs spotted at Saturday’s rally were as blatant as Stevens, saying openly that the goal was to take guns.

It’s a dark road Stevens and his ilk are attempting to drag this nation along. Not just dark, but littered with the corpses of history, all those who allowed the government to regulate their access to self-defense.

From Nazi Germany to Vietnam’s Khmer Rouge, tyranny is often preceded by efforts to end private gun ownership.

With the ever increasing push from the left to indoctrinate our youth into the ways of Communism, under some misguided notion that we, as a people, can actually make it work, when nowhere else in the world’s history has it been a successful form of government, is reason enough to keep a “well-regulated militia.”

In fact, as it is written, the important part of the amendment states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I’m thinking Stevens and the dullards that took to the streets on Saturday are confused about what the word “infringed” means. Is there a dictionary app?

“Infringe” means to encroach upon in a way that violates the law or the rights of someone else.

The Second Amendment is necessary to help the people stand, should an oppressive government rise up and threaten the populace, and I’m more convinced now than ever that it is desperately needed today.

Stevens went on with his insanity.

Stevens wrote that the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted in recent decades to extend beyond its original intent to allow citizens to form militias in the face of potential government tyranny.

Repealing it would lift legal protections for firearm sellers and manufacturers, and would ultimately reduce gun violence in the U.S., he wrote.

“That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform,” Stevens wrote.

I agree it has been misinterpreted, but not by those who know bearing arms is a right of the people.

It has been misinterpreted by those who think it only applies to hunters, or that it limits the type of arms owned to muskets.

And yes, that “simple but dramatic action” would move those marchers closer to their objective, and that’s the very reason we must fight against them and against people who believe as Stevens does.

This is a constitutional crisis and a nation in peril. The filth and rot of Communism has infected us. It must be recognized and excised as the tumor it is.

Stevens, along with each and every anti-2nd Amendment protester is wrong.