Constitutional Guarantee Of Gun Control By Criminals

Apr 20th, 2014 | By | Category: Firearms, Katz Litterbox
Share

katz-litter4A proposal by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens to add five words to the Second Amendment would leave gun control in the hands of criminals and gangbangers

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has a book just out entitled Six Amendments in which he calls for those amendments, including the Second Amendment, to be changed. Stevens would add five words to the Second Amendment so that it would read:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms, when serving in the militia, shall not be infringed.”

Those five words would effectively take away the current Constitutional guarantee for private ownership of firearms. And that would equate to a Constitutional guarantee of gun control by criminals and gangbangers.

Today’s ABC This Week had a video clip of George Stephanopoulos interviewing John Paul Sevens on his proposals to change six amendments. Here is a transcript of that interview as it applies to the Second Amendment:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Justice Stevens’ most controversial idea, adding five words to the second amendment. Here’s how it would change, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, when serving in the militia, shall not be infringed.”

Wouldn’t that take away any limits to what a legislature could do to the rights of gun owners?

STEVENS: I think that’s probably right. But I think that’s what should be the rule that it should be legislatures rather than judges who draw the line what is permissible.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you think that’s because it’s clearly this is what was intended?

STEVENS: Oh, I do think that was what was intended, because there was a fear among the original farmers that the federal government would be so strong that they might destroy the state militias. The amendment would merely prevent arguments being made that congress doesn’t have the power to do what they think is in the best public interest.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But to be clear if congress passed a national ban on individual gun ownership, that would be constitutional under your amendment.

STEVENS: I think that’s right.

By his own admission, Stevens acknowledges that under his wording of the Second Amendment, Congress could pass a law banning private ownership of firearms.

God help America if that ever came to pass. Then the only ones with guns in this country, other than our police and armed forces, would be criminals and gangbangers. And any law abiding citizens who did not give up their guns would themselves then become criminals.

Sponsored Content

11 Comments to “Constitutional Guarantee Of Gun Control By Criminals”

  1. kl2008a says:

    So former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has his interpretation of what the Constitution “should” say (tho at this time it doesn’t). I also have my interpretations of the Constitution and what they mean but nobody gives me air time to express them (except Paco).

    It must’ve been a slow News day to put his interview on. But then again, the MSM loves to push THEIR agenda. So, in summary, I have to agree 110% with Paco assessment on this one. Stephens is an UNAMERICAN asshole!

  2. Bob Walsh says:

    Mr. Justice Stevens is an anti-American asshole. As is Stephanopolos for that matter.

    • Howie Katz says:

      Sorry Bob, but I can’t agree with your comment. I do not believe that either Stevens or Stephanopoulos is anti-American. Justice Stevens was considered a ‘moderate’ member of SCOTUS and Stephanopoulos is typical of left-leaning journalists. And calling Stevens an ‘asshole’ is really beneath you, my good friend … still I hope.

      • Bob Walsh says:

        IT is tacky I grant you. Not necessarily uncalled for. I seem to recall that Mark Twain,arguably the greatest American writer, once remarked something about there being times when vulgarity is the only appropriate response.

        • Howie Katz says:

          Mark Twain was a wise man. In this case vulgarity is indeed an appropriate response, but the vulgarity should be directed at the proposal to change the Second Amendment, not at the man behind it.

          Now if Justice Stevens had been caught molesting a child, calling him an asshole would have been quite appropriate … that and a number of other vulgarities.

      • pacovilla says:

        I think it is a fair question whether one may be anti-Constitution and not anti-American.

        Stevens has repeatedly indicated, through his rulings and rhetoric, he does not believe the document says what it says. Now, if you don’t believe the document is a valid contract, you cannot believe in America as MOST of us know and want it. It’s akin to saying you believe in Jehovah but dismiss the book which identifies him.

        Thus, I agree with the anti-American comment pertaining to Stephens. Stephanopoulos is irrelevant in my estimation. Stephens may be an asshole too, however, that is also irrelevant.

        • Howie Katz says:

          Whoa there! Hold your hosses there Paco!

          There is no one I disagree with more than Justice Stevens. But wanting to change the Constitution does not make him anti-American. Now if he wanted to do away with the Constitution or disregard it, that would be anti-American.

          By your reasoning, all those individuals responsible for amending the Constitution 27 times could be labeled anti-American.

          As for Stevens and Stephanopoulos, they may very well be assholes, but you’re right, that is irrelevant.

          • pacovilla says:

            There is a difference between those who would change the Constitution within the parameters outlined therein and those who just change it. Willy-nilly “interpretation” to manipulate new meaning is extra-Constitutional, is it not?

            There is virtually NO DIFFERENCE between doing away with the Constitution and using tricks to make it say what it does not and SHOULD NOT.

            According to the Supreme Court, California voters lack court standing to defend our own initiatives. That’s because people like Stevens do not care about the freedom underlying our system–They concern themselves with a system OVERARCHING our freedom. That, my friend, is un-American. Or it used to be. Now, some folks are more equal than others and Pigs walk upright.

            Oh Well: Orwell!

    • kl2008a says:

      Steven’s has an opinion. Opinions are like assholes – everybody has one (at least mostly everyone, I know some assholes that don’t have an asshole but they do have an opinion).

      • pacovilla says:

        Unfortunately, his opinions have caused irreparable harm to our liberty and morality. His anus causes no more harm than any other unless that’s literally from whence he pulled his opinions.

  3. Bulldogger says:

    I saw the interview and all I could do was think how sad he is getting even MORE senile.