On 27 March 2018, John Paul Stevens, a former judge, and served as an “associate justice” on the supreme court, wrote an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times.
In the article, he made a couple of fallacious statements. The first of these statements goes:
“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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”
First, his OPINION is that this concern is a “relic of the past”. In fact, this concern is precisely why the America people will never be debarred the use or ownership of ARMS. The VERY Government that is attempting to ban guns is doing so because they plan something illegal, immoral or tyrannical.
There was no standing army when the Second was created. The official US Army came into being AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified. There was no “national guard” until 1933. So the argument is specious at best, downright wrong and inconsistent with actual, legal thinking either of “that time period” or now.
His next misstep comes in the form of a fabrication.
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.
In truth, the Second Amendment is not “so understood” by people who actually “understand” the law. In FACT, the Second Amendment DOES PLACE limits – one specifically, on ALL forms of Government in the United States. That limit is places upon the states and the Feds and prevents them from “Infringement”. Period. End of statement.
The Second Amendment is NOT a Rights Granting statement. It is an imperative, ordering the government, the courts, the Executive NOT to interfere with the Rights of the People.
It isn’t the government granting us a Right. It’s not giving men/women the ability to “change as necessary” those Rights. It is an EDICT against the change of those Rights.
That a man show served with the Supreme Court takes this extreme view should be a lesson to one and all that there are people that WISH TO REMOVE YOUR RIGHT to own any sort of arms.
The next place he stepped in his own lies is as follows:
“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.””
First of all, the NRA is made up of people like you and I. While I am no longer a member of the NRA (they became too Liberal for my tastes). The PEOPLE have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The NRA was founded to keep that right in place. The Gun Owners of America was an answer to the Liberalism of the NRA.
The only Fraud here is Justice Stevens. And probably Warren Burger.
In effect, this is more proof they want your guns. And also, in effect, in 2008 they overturned that ruling, and you will note that Stevens was one of the dissenters. In other words, he was wrong. And still is wrong.
“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. I was among the four dissenters.”
The Left LOVES to use the phrase “long settled” or “settled science” as if the last word on everything from everyone has made this decision. The last word will never be spoken on this, because there will always be “dissenters” of course; and that’s part of the greatness of living in America in the first place. The ability to have your own opinion and voice it. However, just because you believe something is “settled” the way YOU like it doesn’t mean it is. I personally believe we’re at a crossroads and we are about to step into the abyss over this.
In reality, in life, both now and 1776, there are people who “feel” as if guns should be outlawed, or the people who own them are “crazy” or “nuts” or “insane”. Arms are what the Founding Fathers said, and what they meant, and what they wanted for all time. Not some made up, pretend re-defining of a phrase.
The very images of the Musket next to an AR15 is proof enough that some people are so caught up in their “feelings” they can’t grasp simple English.
The Second Amendment makes NO distinction on technology, no distinction on types of weapons, but clearly and succinctly states “Arms”.
Arms is not a “fire arm” alone. Arms stands for all possible weapons with which to fight, defend and could include bottles, cans, knives, swords, nuclear weapons, tanks and battle cruisers, not to mention AR15s.
The Left, I submit has it wrong on all counts.
It is unconstitutional to take away our Arms. It is illegal. It is wrong and immoral of Federal workers (yes, Judges are still “workers” in the strictest sense of the word) to attempt to Legislate away our Rights. What’s more, it is out right treasonous of ANYONE in an elected or appointed position to demand or press for the removal of our Natural rights to Self Defense. The VERY ACT of doing so is WHY you have the Right in the first place.
In the last paragraph, Stevens makes his clean cut case for banning, although he doesn’t state it in such words.
“…would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.”
By, Golly, it’s for the CHILDREN.
It’s a proven fact that we have less crime where more guns are available to normal, every day citizens. Criminals have a way of finding guns and other weapons all the time, regardless of laws preventing them from purchasing them or using them in crimes. It’s already against the law to commit crimes…..and yet, criminals still commit crimes.
The Media too, is culpable here. They refuse to carry stories about the “Good Guy with a Gun” who stopped a crime or mass shooting.
Folks, this is all-out war now. An UnCivil War. They want your guns.