New York Times: Repeal the Second Amendment

New York Times: Repeal the Second Amendment
As we had written weeks ago. "First it will be then AR-15's, then Rifles, then handguns, then we 're Britain."
That was confirmed during Saturday's "March For Our Lives" when Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting survivor Delaney Tarr made it clear in her speech:

“There are so very many things, so many steps to take. … We will take the big and we will take the small, but we will keep fighting. When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile. We are not here for breadcrumbs. We are here for real change” 

Well, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens writing an op-ed in the The New York Times made that sentiment even more clear.

Steven Tuesday op-ed argued that the Parkland kids should stop aiming so low and aim a lot higher, which is of course, a full repeal of the 2nd amendment.

Steven started making the March for our lives event far more memorable than it was.

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.

The "March for our lives" demonstration was expecting 500,000 people to attend their anti-NRA, anti-2nd amendment demonstration. Despite the claim that 800,000 came, the fact is only 200,000 attended.

Compare that number to the 440,000 that attended the Women's March in 2017, it is easy to see that the March wasn't all it was touted to be. It also shows that it does NOT have the broad appeal that the left is pushing.

To make that 200,000 number seem even more minuscule, compare it to the 100,000,000 gun owners in the United States.

Despite the lefts denials, the right has always maintained the Democrats had only one main objective, which Stevens made perfectly clear:

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.

So why is the former supreme court justice trying to do away with the second amendment? Because Stevens argues, it's been rendered irrelevant:

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.

This is an amazing statement since Trump was elected, all we have been hearing and reading about is what a tyrant he is, and how he is moving America toward a dictatorship.

We also here a lot of leftist screaming "Russia, a foreign country stole the 2016 US Presidential election" and every time the left cry "Trump is going to fire Robert Mueller" calls for a Coup d'etat soon follow.

Putting the relevancy of the 2nd Amendment to the side. Stevens further maintained that Americans understood that the Second Amendment doesn't prohibit government officials from enacting “gun control legislation” that would curtail the rights it guarantees.

“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,”

Stevens called for a constitutional amendment to overturn District of Columbia v. Heller. That 5-4 ruling spelled out the 2nd Amendment rather clearly:

“he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense at home.”

But Steven's does not agree with that ruling:

“That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple 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,” 

Of Course, the liberal comments on that story praised Stevens, up, down and sideways. Many made the false claim (as the articles feature image had done *see below) that in 1776, we were nothing but cave men with muskets.

Please note: When the left claim they "Only had Muskets" their belief is a Musket could only fire, at best, one bullet per minute. In fact, experienced Musketeers were expected to reliably fire 3 to 5 rounds a minute under fair conditions.

Liberals seem to just ignore the fact that the newly formed United States of America Government tried to purchase The Puckle gun. Unfortunately, being a newly formed government, we were pretty broke and could not afford to purchase the gun.

But why did our forefathers want to buy such a weapon? The Puckle gun was, in essence, an automatic assault weapon. It was able to fire 63 shots in seven minutes (approx 9 rounds per minute.) So when the left falsely claim "We only had Muskets when our forefathers created the bill of rights" that would be a lie.

The liberals also seem to forget about The Kalthoff repeater. It was a repeating firearm that appeared in the 1600's. That semi-automatic rifle had a magazine that carried up to thirty rounds and was able to fire all 30 bullets in less than a minute.

The main problem with this weapon was it was incredibly expensive to buy and maintain. The Kalthoff repeater remained unmatched in its fire rate until the mid-nineteenth century.

Read the full article