Fisking John Paul Stevens NYT Repeal the 2nd Amendment Piece

by Datechguy | March 28th, 2018

Readability

Fisking John Paul Stevens NYT Repeal the 2nd Amendment Piece

[cap­tion id=“attachment_106278” align=“aligncenter” width=“800”] Via Deviantart[/caption]

While it was very nice of Retired Jus­tice John Paul Stevens to give this in-​kind con­tri­bu­tion to the efforts of the GOP to keep the house, the fact that one of the lead­ing Jurists in the nation choose to write a piece so divorced from real­ity demands a proper fisk­ing and I’m just the Sicil­ian to do it.

For those unfa­mil­iar with “Fisk­ing” my com­ments on the Justice’s writ­ing will appear in Bold red ital­ics within the NYT piece. Here goes:

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. Really? I seem to recall par­tic­u­larly over the past 6 years Tea Party Groups get engaged civi­cally by the mil­lions. I’m pretty sure you were alive then, or per­haps you didn’t notice them?

These demon­stra­tions demand our respect. Not when the leave behind a giant mess for other peo­ple to clean at the Taxpayer’s expense they don’t They reveal the broad pub­lic sup­port for leg­is­la­tion to min­i­mize the risk of mass killings of school­child­ren and oth­ers in our soci­ety. Funny, every sin­gle year a group many times larger than these folks turn up for the actual March for Life, yet for some rea­son nei­ther the jus­tice nor the NYT finds that as proof of broad pub­lic sup­port for leg­is­la­tion to min­i­mize the mass killings of chil­dren from abortion.

That sup­port is a clear sign to law­mak­ers to enact leg­is­la­tion As opposed to the tea party and march for life protests that were not a clear sign for any­thing at all and much be ignored at all costs 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. Really, given the signs we saw it and the inabil­ity of those present to even define an “assault weapon” it seems to me the only clear sign that the “demon­stra­tors” had was: “elect lib­eral democ­rats” But the demon­stra­tors should seek more effec­tive and more last­ing reform. They should demand a repeal of the Sec­ond Amend­ment. I’m sure many of them would agree but not in public.

Con­cern that a national stand­ing army might pose a threat to the secu­rity of the sep­a­rate states led to the adop­tion of that amend­ment, which pro­vides that “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.” It wasn’t just con­cern for a stand­ing army. The colonists had direct expe­ri­ence with a tyran­ni­cal gov­ern­ment try­ing to take their weapons away, see Lex­ing­ton and Con­cord, they also were plenty on the front lines of the Indian wars and those not on the front lines had liv­ing mem­ory of being so. Today that con­cern is a relic of the 18th cen­tury. Tell the peo­ple in coun­tries like Cuba, North Korea, Venezue­lan, Nige­ria, Syria South Africa and many other places with­out the 2nd amend­ment that con­cerns of a tyran­ni­cal gov­ern­ment or other var­i­ous groups threat­en­ing vio­lence aren’t a concern

For over 200 years after the adop­tion of the Sec­ond Amend­ment, it was uni­formly under­stood as not plac­ing any limit on either fed­eral or state author­ity to enact gun con­trol leg­is­la­tion. As I recall it also believed for over 200 years after the adop­tion of the con­sti­tu­tion and for cen­turies before that Homo­sex­u­al­ity was wrong, that mar­riage was between a man and a woman and that trans­sex­u­als were men­tal ill, oddly enough that didn’t stop the Supreme Court from declar­ing these things con­sti­tu­tional rights. In 1939 the Supreme Court unan­i­mously held that Con­gress could pro­hibit the pos­ses­sion of a sawed-​off shot­gun because that weapon had no rea­son­able rela­tion to the preser­va­tion or effi­ciency of a “well reg­u­lated mili­tia.” And in 1896 a 71 major­ity ruled “sep­a­rate but equal” was just fine in Plessy v Fer­gu­son does that mean we should believe the same today?

Dur­ing the years when War­ren Burger was our chief jus­tice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, fed­eral or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the lim­ited cov­er­age of that amend­ment. And dur­ing that same period no fed­eral judge to my knowl­edge expressed any doubt that such a thing as “gay mar­riage” existed. When orga­ni­za­tions like the National Rifle Asso­ci­a­tion dis­agreed with that posi­tion and began their cam­paign claim­ing that fed­eral reg­u­la­tion of firearms cur­tailed Sec­ond Amend­ment rights, Chief Jus­tice Burger pub­licly char­ac­ter­ized the N.R.A. as per­pe­trat­ing “one of the great­est pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the Amer­i­can pub­lic by spe­cial inter­est groups that I have ever seen in my life­time.” Oddly enough Chief Jus­tice Taney had some very strong pub­lic opin­ions on negroes descended from African Slaves in the 1850’s. By your stan­dard those opin­ions should be cited in argu­ments about race today,

In 2008, the Supreme Court over­turned Chief Jus­tice Burger’s and oth­ers’ long-​settled under­stand­ing of the Sec­ond Amendment’s lim­ited reach by rul­ing, in Dis­trict of Colum­bia v. Heller, that there was an indi­vid­ual right to bear arms. And Brown vs Board of Edu­ca­tion over­turned long-​settled under­stand­ings on race? Did that make it ille­git­i­mate? I was among the four dis­senters. You lost an argu­ment, it happens.

That deci­sion — which I remain con­vinced was wrong and cer­tainly was debat­able A per­fectly valid opin­ion on his part and one of the few state­ments in this piece that is solid. He has the right to his opin­ion and dis­sent. — has pro­vided the N.R.A. with a pro­pa­ganda weapon of immense power. You know I don’t remem­ber any­one argu­ing Roe v Wade was about “pro­pa­ganda” for Planned Par­ent­hood. Nor do I recall any­one ever claim­ing that about either the Lawrence deci­sion or Brown vs Board of Edu­ca­tion etc. Appar­ently deci­sions are only “pro­pa­ganda” if they dis­agree with Mr. Jus­tice Stevens rul­ings. Over­turn­ing that deci­sion via a con­sti­tu­tional amend­ment to get rid of the Sec­ond Amend­ment would be sim­ple Sim­ple? Really? There is a rea­son why there are so few amend­ments to the con­sti­tu­tion because it’s HARD to do. 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. Actu­ally such an attempt is more likely to swell the NRA’s ranks and any­thing close to suc­cess in such an effort is very likely to cause a new actual shoot­ing civil war than any other issue.

That sim­ple but dra­matic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objec­tive Of elect­ing democ­rats and virtue sig­nal­ing? than any other pos­si­ble reform. I dis­pute the use of the word “reform” here but he’s telling the truth because the real goal of the folks behind the march is firearms con­fis­ca­tion. It would elim­i­nate the only legal rule that pro­tects sell­ers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other mar­ket in the world. You know the United States is also been the strongest, rich­est and most robust large county in the his­tory of his­tory as well, might that unique sta­tus have some­thing to do with the free­doms the Jus­tice wants to remove. It would make our school­child­ren safer than they have been since 2008 Have our chil­dren become less safe? The stats sug­gest oth­er­wise, unless you live in a place like Chicago where the gun laws have been writ­ten by the very same peo­ple lead­ing these marches that is. and honor the mem­o­ries of the many, indeed far too many, vic­tims of recent gun vio­lence. How would dis­arm­ing law abid­ing Amer­i­cans who had noth­ing to do with a crime “honor” the vic­tims of vio­lent crime? If you want to honor those folks you could then actu­ally schools with the same armed guards that pro­tected you as a jus­tice, rather than using dead kids a polit­i­cal prop, of course that doesn’t help elect Democ­rats does it?

You know what’s really scary about this piece, the fact the real­iza­tion that a per­son this out of touch was decid­ing the laws of this nation for decades.


If you’d like to con­tinue to sup­port inde­pen­dent jour­nal­ism, help defray the $140 a month extra I’ll need for my new host­ing site please con­sider hit­ting DaTip­Jar here.



Con­sider sub­scrib­ing. 7 more sub­scribers at $20 a month will pay the monthly price for the new host/​server.


Choose a Sub­scrip­tion level


Finally might I sug­gest my book Hail Mary the Per­fect Protes­tant (and Catholic) Prayer makes an excel­lent Gift.

Via Deviantart

While it was very nice of Retired Justice John Paul Stevens to give this in-kind contribution to the efforts of the GOP to keep the house, the fact that one of the leading Jurists in the nation choose to write a piece so divorced from reality demands a proper fisking and I’m just the Sicilian to do it.

For those unfamiliar with “Fisking” my comments on the Justice’s writing will appear in Bold red italics within the NYT piece.  Here goes:

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.  Really?  I seem to recall particularly over the past 6 years Tea Party Groups get engaged civically by the millions.  I’m pretty sure you were alive then, or perhaps you didn’t notice them?

These demonstrations demand our respect.  Not when the leave behind a giant mess for other people to clean at the Taxpayer’s expense they don’t   They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.  Funny, every single year a group many times larger than these folks turn up for the actual March for Life, yet for some reason neither the justice nor the NYT finds that as proof of broad public support for legislation to minimize the mass killings of children from abortion.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation  As opposed to the tea party and march for life protests that were not a clear sign for anything at all and much be ignored at all costs  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. Really, given the signs we saw it and the inability of those present to even define an “assault weapon” it seems to me the only clear sign that the “demonstrators” had was:  “elect liberal democrats” But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.  I’m sure many of them would agree but not in public.

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.”   It wasn’t just concern for a standing army.  The colonists had direct experience with a tyrannical government trying to take their weapons away, see Lexington and Concord, they also were plenty on the front lines of the Indian wars and those not on the front lines had living memory of being so.  Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.  Tell the people in countries like Cuba, North Korea, Venezuelan, Nigeria, Syria South Africa and many other places without the 2nd amendment that concerns of a tyrannical government or other various groups threatening violence aren’t a concern

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation.    As I recall it also believed for over 200 years after the adoption of the constitution and for centuries before that Homosexuality was wrong, that marriage was between a man and a woman and that transsexuals were mental ill, oddly enough that didn’t stop the Supreme Court from declaring these things constitutional rights.  In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”  And in 1896 a 7-1 majority ruled “separate but equal” was just fine in Plessy v Ferguson does that mean we should believe the same today?

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment.  And during that same period no federal judge to my knowledge expressed any doubt that such a thing as “gay marriage” existed. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”  Oddly enough Chief Justice Taney had some very strong public opinions on negroes descended from African Slaves in the 1850’s.  By your standard those opinions should be cited in arguments about race today,

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms.  And Brown vs Board of Education overturned long-settled understandings on race?  Did that make it illegitimate?  I was among the four dissenters.  You lost an argument, it happens.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable A perfectly valid opinion on his part and one of the few statements in this piece that is solid.  He has the right to his opinion and dissent. — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power.  You know I don’t remember anyone arguing Roe v Wade was about “propaganda” for Planned Parenthood.  Nor do I recall anyone ever claiming that about either the Lawrence decision or Brown vs Board of Education etc.  Apparently decisions are only “propaganda” if they disagree with Mr. Justice Stevens rulings. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple Simple?  Really?  There is a reason why there are so few amendments to the constitution because it’s HARD to do.   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.  Actually such an attempt is more likely to swell the NRA’s ranks and anything close to success in such an effort is very likely to cause a new actual shooting civil war than any other issue.

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective Of electing democrats and virtue signaling? than any other possible reform. I dispute the use of the word “reform” here but he’s telling the truth because the real goal of the folks behind the march is firearms confiscation.  It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. You know the United States is also been the strongest, richest and most robust large county in the history of history as well, might that unique status have something to do with the freedoms the Justice wants to remove.  It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008   Have our children become less safe?  The stats suggest otherwise, unless you live in a place like Chicago where the gun laws have been written by the very same people leading these marches that isand honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.  How would disarming law abiding Americans who had nothing to do with a crime “honor” the victims of violent crime?  If you want to honor those folks you could then actually schools with the same armed guards that protected you as a justice, rather than using dead kids a political prop, of course that doesn’t help elect Democrats does it? 

You know what’s really scary about this piece, the fact the realization that a person this out of touch was deciding the laws of this nation for decades.


If you’d like to continue to support independent journalism, help defray the $140 a month extra I’ll need for my new hosting site please consider hitting DaTipJar here.



Consider subscribing. 7 more subscribers at $20 a month will pay the monthly price for the new host/server.


Choose a Subscription level


Finally might I suggest my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer makes an excellent Gift.

Buy My Book!

Buy My Book!

Hit DaTipJar and Support Conservative Journalism & Opinion




Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 4,148 other subscribers

DH Gate Dot Com, Online Shopping

Cheap ecigarette from China - DHgate

Best Grassroots Blogs

Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Catholic CD of the Month

Know your Catholic Faith

Da Pages

Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Donald Trump Calls on DaTechGuy Worcester MA

 
%d bloggers like this: