Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens calls for repeal of Second Amendment

John Paul Stevens

97-year-old retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens is a sore loser.

Stevens, a Republican and a RINO President Gerald Ford nominee, was on the losing side in the Supreme Court’s historic ruling in 2008, District of Columbia v. Heller — that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s “right to bear arms” applies to INDIVIDUALS, not militias, and that individual Americans’ right to bear arms may include military-grade weapons.

See “Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Second Amendment applies to individuals, not militias, and may include military weapons”.

Stevens retired from SCOTUS in 2010.

In an op/ed published on the New York Times website yesterday, sore-loser Stevens calls for a repeal of the Second Amendment, in order to weaken the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) ability to “block constructive gun control legislation.” (Fox2 KTVU)

He blames SCOTUS’ 2008 decision for providing “the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power.” In his op/ed, the sore loser claims Saturday’s pro-gun control “March for Our Lives” demonstrations “reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society” and that the March “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 Stevens thinks Saturday’s demonstrators did not go far enough, and that “They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”

Stevens would have “government” protect us, like pro-gun control Florida Broward County sheriff Scott Israel and his useless deputies, who not only ignored plentiful warning signs (45 phone calls!) about Parkland school shooter Nikolaus Cruz, but delayed going into M. S. Douglas High School until the shooting was over.

gun control Broward County Sheriff Israel

According to the Washington Post (via Breitbart), the latest poll shows that one/fifth (20%) of Americans support repealing the Second Amendment.

There’s a poll on the Twitter page of San Francisco Bay Area TV station KTVU. Make your voices known! Go here.

H/t FOTM‘s solejahway


28 responses to “Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens calls for repeal of Second Amendment

  1. John Paul Stevens can kiss💋 my grits.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Reblogged this on kommonsentsjane and commented:

    Reblogged on kommonsentsjane/blogkommonsents.

    This will give you one more conservative view on this Jack Thug Democrat. Since the Democrats are now the Muslim/Communist Party – does that mean that Stevens has joined the muslims/communist party? If he is for them – then he is against the Republican party and its people – what’s new – the old coot.


    Liked by 2 people

  3. Maybe his comments will motivate the pro gun people to get off their bump stocks and vote.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Kevin J Lankford

    One would think there would be a requirement to test [A]ny judge’s or for that matter any one holding or applying for any public office, real comprehension of our Constitution.

    It is truly not that complex a document, and its purpose is to make any and all of this nation bound by its principles. It is subject to only one interpretation, and that is defined by the intent of the composers of the document itself. If it were open to interpretation, there would really be no point in writing down the words for the understanding of us all.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I personally think that judgeships are probably the least studied candidates of all. Most ballots do not say anything about them. They usually have some testimonials from attorney groups or the cops. Beyond that, nothing.

      I discussed this with a candidate for a judge position once and he agreed with me. He suggested that it was quite deliberate. “The Bar” is a little clique. They have quite a little scam going and they protect each other.

      Laymen have these ideas. They think that lawyers and judges are all about justice. They aren’t. They are about prestige and money. I spent most of my working life around this and I’m not impressed.

      Anyone who is a candidate for the Supreme Court (not to mention any other major seat), is thoroughly compromised. I think, if we’re honest, we know this. They are about themselves, period.

      Anyone who has participated or belonged to a group or organization can confirm this. There will be certain “leaders” who will take over. That is what they do. Those are who get nominated and elected to offices. They are not “normal” or desirable. They are simply pushy and self-serving.

      With judges it is like it is with school administrators. The teachers will tell you that those who can’t teach, administrate. Lawyers will say the same about judges. Some judgeships have big perks. Those are different from the most common ones. Many judges are blundering idiots.

      Hiding within professions are scoundrels. They are largely protected by their fellows. “He may be a scoundrel, but he’s OUR scoundrel” is the prevailing culture. Us “mere mortals” are not “allowed” (there’s that word again) to challenge a “professional”. Perish the thought.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Agreed. The judges, at all levels, federal, state, county, along w the lawyers, and failed lawyers, aka politicians, are what I see as the greatest threat to this nation. Their alliance, and allegiance isn’t to US, the people, rather it’s to each other, and then, secondary, to those affiliated, even loosely, to their, “organizations.”

        Liked by 3 people

  5. How many more generations of the youth we have today before they get enough behind it to pass it. At the rate of indoctrination they have in the schools today it won’t be to long. They are not teaching history so the youth have no idea of the sacrifice Americans made to keep this country free.
    Until they change the way they are teaching the time is going to be short.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Fisher’s Beyond the Lodge Door lists Stevens as a Freemason. (The book is avail free on the Internet.) Beginning in 1941, the Court’s majority, not of a party but of Masons, relentlessly enacted the Masonic agenda by legislating from the bench what Freemasons in Congress and so in the public eye dared not. As Manly Hall writes in The Lost Keys of Freemasonry, “The true Mason is not creed-bound. He realizes . . . Christ, Buddha or Mohammed, the name means little.“ The International journal of Freemasonry is called The New Age. The NWO requires the disarming of America’s law-abiding patriots and their moral dissolution disarming their virtuous opposition.

    We’re we ever suckered, fighting over elections, thinking Republicans battled Democrats over more than eyewash, when all along the anti-Christian and Masonic NWO agenda was advanced unopposed by mandarins on the Court so Congress need not.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Well, if that’s a real question, YES. These “parties” are ridiculous. They do not represent anybody but themselves. The rhetoric is just that, rhetoric.

      Being a Freemason should tell us certain things. As you’ve pointed out, they will tell you they are not advocating a religion. Their real religion is Luciferian. Albert Pike admits it.

      They join for “connections”. That’s the draw. They think, “I’m a loser but I’ll always be employed”. The real damage is that done to honest people who either need jobs and can’t get them or those who do good work but can’t get promoted because they have Freemasons in their workforce.

      The utility of this is that they can plot and connive in secret. I don’t really think that they are as big a threat as they once were. We sort of outgrew that now. They plot constantly and don’t need a lodge to hide in.

      It is an indicator of someone’s personal morals. I don’t think anyone’s “morals” are improved by belonging to a lodge. Those are improved in Church. Their fortunes may be improved through the lodge, usually at the expense of others.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks Dan. The drug war is an example of a never ending war like Orwell wrote about. A freemason, with a masonic lawyer in front of a masonic judge can get prayer for judgement, case thrown out while common cowans rot in jail thus the secret society has a monopoly on the drug trade. Will it be the same with guns? Let’s hope not.


  7. The only things that need to be repealed are the federal pensions and citizenship for all these traitors that violate their oath of office! I think that we should send them all to South Africa and make sure they have no access to guns, as per the second amendment!

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Our enemies are actually unmasking themselves! Could we coin this “The Trump Effect,” to make it a category?

    Liked by 3 people

  9. Now, tell me liberalism isn’t a mental disorder!

    Liked by 4 people

  10. Good news is that 80% don’t support a repeal. So keep pushing that anti-Second Amendment platform, demorats. Sure to be a winning agenda item…

    Liked by 3 people

  11. John Paul Stevens & Ruth Bader Ginsberg: Separated at birth???

    Someone needs to remind Stevens of the 1902 Dick Act that guarantees American citizens of the right to own and bear arms, and of its provision that it CANNOT be repealed.

    Don’t go away mad, Stevens. Just go away!

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Crazy old coot. His time would be better spent sitting on his porch and banging his cane at the kids passing by.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Hi everyone, I was wondering how people could be falling for all of this. I came across this video, it explains it all, I promise worth the view .

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Justice John Paul Stevens, at age 97, is facing his own “recall.”

    His time would be better spent putting his own house in order rather than second-guessing the intent of the founders/those who ratified the Constitution that has served us so well for over 230 years through all our modernizations, technology, swelling of population, additions, Civil War, World Wars, Depression, Cold War, nuclearization…..and has even, barely, (surprise!) survived the cell phone and all its apps and pre-occupations of our rising generations….AND THIS is because it was based on the rights of the individual—trying to protect the will of the people balanced against the tyranny of the majority. The individual in this country IS THE GOVERNMENT—THOSE who, collectively, give their permission to BE governed…..and who can take that permission away. The world changes, technology changes, social mores change …. governments change(geez–like the Dems used to be the party of Jim Crow and the Klan, segregation, and NOT so long ago—the 1960’s +—–and now they are the party of Black America? ) —-but the basic shared human condition has never changed from the cave up to today…..a human being is born with the need to defend oneself in the interest of survival FIRST and foremost, on an individual basis, NOT a MILITARY basis—that came later when governments were formed….but the individual need NEVER disappears….from cave to grave today. If this need is not acknowledged, and recognized as the first step toward forming a willing militia to defend a government of the people, by the people, …then there need not be any other issues addressed—-no other freedoms….no formation of government—-no nothing….because you don’t have a country of substance to speak of, or to “defend.”

    Right now, there are those who, out of fear and with no real solutions, are willling to turn over their rights to the government and naively expect the government to “protect” them thenceforth from the terrible dreaded fear of today. I ask, then—how long before we FEAR our government? How long before our government FAILS us, but yet, does not give us our power back to protect ourselves? That horse will never be put back into the barn once OUT into government hands…….I want my government to FEAR ME….my opinions, my vote, my individual right to own a firearm….I do NOT want to live long enough to FEAR MY GOVERNMENT (though…Lois Lerner and the FBI have taken a good solid WHACK at us all………tongue in cheek……).

    Liked by 2 people

    • We didn’t get our rights from the Government. They only choice the Government has to make is whether they will continue to follow the Constitution and protect our “God-given” rights.

      They are not the Government’s to take away. We do not need their permission.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. 97 and still making the rounds, eh!!! Some people never die! Satan, Take him away.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s