It seems like the only people who don’t know that abolition of the Second Amendment was part of the discussion on gun control…were those who were pushing gun control. What’s even more troubling is now endless op-eds about the abolition of the Second Amendment that were published across multiple publications, including the Washington Post. There is no excuse for the anti-gun Left to play dumb on this. So, when the National Rifle Association says progressives want to shred the Second Amendment and the rest of the Constitution with it, they’re not being paranoid. The Wall Street Journal editorial board came to the civil rights organization's defense, noting that they’re not wrong about the kooks on the anti-gun left. This comes after retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an op-ed in The New York Times calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment:
Critics often accuse the National Rifle Association of paranoia for arguing that gun controllers want to eliminate the Second Amendment. Well, being paranoid doesn’t mean the NRA is wrong.
Look no further than former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who is arguing this week that the Parkland, Florida, students and their allies shouldn’t settle for mere restrictions on guns. They should lobby Congress and the states to abolish the Second Amendment.
“Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment,” the 97-year-old former Justice wrote in an op-ed published in The New York Times Tuesday, adding, “today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”
[…]
We’re not sure what he means by “simple” since repealing the Second Amendment would require a vote by two-thirds of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Good luck with that, since even now most Democrats in Congress won’t come out in favor of even an ban on so-called assault rifles, much less repeal of the right to bear arms.
But give credit to the former Justice for honesty about what most gun controllers believe deep in their progressive hearts.
Yes, and the publication also noted that the former justice appeared to be still sore over losing the landmark D.C. v. Heller decision, which affirmed that we have an individual right to own firearms unconnected to a militia. Also, invasion of the U.S. is a “relic”? No, it’s always a threat—and it’s not like that was the reason we have the right to bear arms; it was already a right prior to the existence of man or governments, but that’s a separate issue. Also, Stevens isn’t the only authority on the law; there are many lawyers and just as many opinions. Case in point, here’s attorney Ryan Cleckner on the whole militia argument the Left loves to tout:
Our Second Amendment reads: “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.”
Our Constitution does not give us any rights. Rather, it affirms rights that we already have in order to safeguard them. Note that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” isn’t given by the language above. Instead, our right to keep and bear arms, which exists outside of the Constitution, is protected from infringement.
The militia is mentioned as the goal for the protection of our right to keep and bear arms — it is not a requirement. A helpful analog from an unknown author goes like this: “A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books, shall not be infringed.”
In this example, it should be easy to see that the right to read and compose books is not reserved only to those that are registered voters or well-educated. Instead, the goal is a well-educated electorate, for which tools of education are needed. Likewise, our right to keep and bear arms is protected in the event a well-regulated militia is needed to defend our country.
This is what’s at stake for 2018. Yes, they will still have hurdles, especially at the state-level, where the GOP dominates—but it’ll give them a victory at the ballot box. And it would offer them an inch closer to meeting their goals. I don’t want to give them an inch—ever.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member