Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has penned an editorial for the New York Times (surprise) calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
Here the opening paragraphs of his article:
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. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.
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. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.
Some of you may be surprised that a number of our founders did not want a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution. Their reasoning was based on the fact that the Constitution was a document of enumerated powers. If the Constitution did not give the national government authority in a particular area, then the Constitution did not have the authority or the power in that particular area.
Once a right or power was added to the Constitution — either specified or prohibited — it gave the government, in some capacity, the authority and power to rule on that right or power.
The thing of it is, our founders were so distrustful of government in the hands of a few that they wanted additional protections. Walter Williams explains:
Why did the founders of our nation give us the Bill of Rights? The answer is easy. They knew Congress could not be trusted with our God-given rights. Think about it. Why in the world would they have written the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from enacting any law that abridges freedom of speech and the press? The answer is that in the absence of such a limitation Congress would abridge free speech and free press. That same distrust of Congress explains the other amendments found in our Bill of Rights protecting rights such as our rights to property, fair trial and to bear arms. The Bill of Rights should serve as a constant reminder of the deep distrust that our founders had of government. They knew that some government was necessary but they rightfully saw government as the enemy of the people and they sought to limit government and provide us with protections. (Townhall)
To demonstrate that their mistrust was real, all we need to do is read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The Ninth Amendment states:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
What does this mean? Again, Williams explains:
In essence, the Ninth Amendment says it’s impossible to list all of our God-given or natural rights. Just because a right is not listed doesn’t mean it can be infringed upon or disparaged by the U.S. Congress. The Tenth Amendment is a reinforcement of the Ninth saying, ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.’ That means if a power is not delegated to Congress, it belongs to the states of the people.
Even with a Constitution of enumerated powers only, a bill of specific precautionary rights, and two Amendments further limiting the national government, our elected officials continually violate the Constitution.
Where do you find the word “education” in the Constitution? You don’t, and yet there is a Federal Department of Education dictating to the states how to run schools.
To demonstrate that our founders had a deep mistrust of government, consider the following from Democrat Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz who wants a federal law that would require background checks for people who buy ammunition.
“I really think it’s important to underscore that without bullets a gun is just a hunk of useless metal, and a would-be killer lacks the means to actually kill or maim…. You do not have the right to bear bullets,” Wasserman Schultz said at a news conference at the Pembroke Pines Police Department, where she was joined by political leaders, a police representative and teachers and students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.”
Let’s apply her logic to the First Amendment by banning paper, pens, typewriters, microphones, cameras, and every means by which the Press does its job. The Press would have the right to “freedom of the Press,” but it would not have means to take their message to the masses. Or we could just ban their use of electricity.
When Leftists claim, as Chris Cuomo just did, that no one wants to repeal the Second Amendment, don’t believe them. First, John Paul Stevens is proposing just such a repeal in his NYT’s article “Repeal the Second Amendment,” and second, if they don’t get a full repeal, they will attempt to define the right out of existence with legislation.
Just like the left did not want us to know that ObamaCare would strip us of our doctors; just like the left did not want us to know that same sex marriage would result in the persecution of Christian cake and floral artists; the left do not want us to know that their ultimate goal is a repeal of our Second Amendment civil rights.
In other words, the left and media fear that being honest about their desire to disarm law-abiding American will hurt their cause of disarming law-abiding Americans. (Breitbart)
Ain’t that the truth!