October 18, 2019

Former Justice Steven’s Call For Repeal of 2A Should Be a Call to Repeal Many Amendments

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In former Associate Justice John P. Steven’s opinion piece in the New York Times that calls for a repeal of the Second Amendment, he describes the Second Amendment as “a relic of the 18th century.” His belief that the Second Amendment is a relic seems to be based on his narrow interpretation that the only purpose of the Second Amendment was for the formation and useful perpetuation of a “well regulated militia.”

If we, therefore, justify the repealing of the Second Amendment because it is no longer effective and precise today as it was when written, then why stop at the Second Amendment?

For the purest, one would have to ask if the Second Amendment has ever been completely recognized in its simplest form. No other amendment states that the terms of such amendment are qualified as “shall not be infringed.” The dictionary defines “infringe” as “actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)” and “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.” And yet, from the very beginning, someone or group of someones has actively sought to “break the terms” and/or “limit or undermine” the Second Amendment.

If we base our modern appraisal of all the other amendments on whether or not they are fitting and suitable in today’s society according to how they are used and abused by Congress and the Courts, then applying Justice Stevens’ way of thinking toward the Second Amendment, perhaps we should consider repealing the First Amendment.

After all, isn’t it a “relic?” Congress seems to operate liberally in making laws that favor or protect one religion over the other. Mostly in today’s America people are seeking a uniform religion with idealism and ideology as its head. We are already beginning to see the call by some for the State to rid the country of at least certain religions in favor of one.

And how much real free speech do we have anymore? Censorship is running rampant in social media as well are other forms of limitation of free speech on display.

The Press gets to exercise their freedom to the extent that they are no longer reliable for truth. While it is ultimately up to the individual to decern truth from fiction, surely I can argue that such a dishonest and dangerous profession does not deserve a constitutional amendment that will protect their lying and cheating ways providing them an avenue toward propaganda and public influence.

It is rare these days that any protest is a peaceable assembly. Because this is now allowed, evidently the right to peaceably assemble is a relic of the 18th Century.

Of what real value does the Fourth Amendment carry? Your protection against “illegal searches and seizures” works well when it conveniently fits the narrative of the law enforcement/government at the moment. But when the government really wants to disregard that right of protection, no piece of paper is worth the ink that is written on it.

As an example that should be at the forefront of all American’s memory was during the Boston Marathon Bombing fraud. We were being told that the perpetrators went down a particular street and authorities were searching door to door. During this period armed thugs went door to door, breaking them down if necessary, without due process or any consideration of the Fourth Amendment. Obviously, by today’s progressive standards, what use is the Fourth Amendment? Shouldn’t it also be repealed, Mr. Stevens?

Amendment VI: Speedy trial? That’s a joke and has been for a long time.

Amendment X: The Corporate States have only those rights and sovereignty granted to it by the Corporate United States.

This effort pointing out the obvious could go on, but I digress.

It would seem that when ideology, and in particular, political ideology, doesn’t care much for certain bills of rights, the call is to repeal them or demand “reasonable” limitations. Perhaps if the Second Amendment hadn’t become so bastardized from its original intent and the people were actually allowed to keep and bear arms without infringement from any other source, there would be no calling out by some of the people to repeal the Second Amendment in an attempt to rid this nation of private ownership of arms. On the same token, if all the other Amendment had not been so muted and muddled, that protection of rights might be worth fighting to save.

Logical conclusions might be drawn when, upon examination, we discover that along with a downward spiraling society, the more the Second Amendment has been “reasonably” destroyed by all, the more of a problem this nation is seeing when it comes to violence and the ease in which a mentally deranged individual (or not) can enter a school property, or other “Gun Free Zone” and slaughter people.

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result. I’m not sure what it’s called when you take the same failure and work on increasing the rate of failure hoping for a better outcome.

Thomas Lifson’s article in the American Thinker says that all the events of late about guns and gun violence have resulted in the exposure of the true intentions of the Left. For many decades now, many of us have attempted to expose those seeking to limit or destroy the rights of people, along with our American Heritage, as carrying out acts of incrementalism, i.e. chipping away at those rights one tiny law at a time. Lifson says now we are seeing the true colors and uses the opinion piece of Justice Stevens as proof of the Left’s real intent of a full repeal of the Second Amendment.

I won’t argue with Lifson’s observation. One thing is for certain. The divide in this country grows. Where it will end up is anyone’s guess. One possibility is a terrible one.

The Global Power Structure is in control over all of this. The events we are seeing before us are mostly planned, and being carried out for sinister reasons. Justice Stevens’ call for a repeal of the Second Amendment is part of the plan.

The stage is being set. THEY have been working on it for a long time. It won’t be long before something breaks. What? I don’t know, but for certain something.

Share