← Previous Post: | Next Post:

 

Justice Stevens says Repeal …

… the Second Amendment.

*********

The opinion piece itself.

**********

This is a 97-year-old dude saying his final important stuff. Not “strategic,” everyone says. But they might be wrong. Roiling the waters is what this is called, and now that the rallies are over, we need to keep roiling them. This is today’s roil. Good.

**********

“[A] significant chunk of the Democratic electorate would be willing to support a much more restrictive gun-policy agenda than the party currently supports. The coming of age of the so-called ‘mass shooting generation’ may increase that divide.”

Margaret Soltan, March 27, 2018 11:31AM
Posted in: headline of the day

Trackback URL for this post:
https://www.margaretsoltan.com/wp-trackback.php?p=57748

3 Responses to “Justice Stevens says Repeal …”

  1. theprofessor Says:

    Given that Stevens’ essential position is that the whole Constitution + Bill of Rights is a useless artifact of the 18th century, except for the parts he says are not, this is not exactly surprising. Of course, the parts that he says are not useless artifacts are themselves subject to becoming useless artifacts–we need to check back every 20 minutes or so, since formerly useful and eternally important artifacts can become less eternally artifacty and even useless at a moment’s notice, depending on which progressive nostrum Stevens has decided needs implementation. Even the law professors who agree with his decisions giggle at his claimed “originalist” approach.

    Rather than repealing the 2nd Amendment, I think that America’s liberal political elites should aim to lessen the fears of the bitter clingers by giving up their own armed security. If Obama, Nancy, Chuck, Rahm, Bill de Bolshie, Bonnie and Clyde Clinton, et al. gave up their security (and perhaps tore down the fortification walls surrounding some of their residences), it would serve as a powerful example.

  2. TAFKAU Says:

    Wow, TP, that’s an uncharacteristically puerile comment. So Democrats who believe that the overabundance of guns endangers public safety must either make themselves sitting ducks for assassination or reveal themselves as hypocrites? I don’t imagine you’d accept an argument so preposterous from one of your own students.

    And Bill de Bolshie? Bonnie and Clyde Clinton? Pretty weak stuff…

  3. theprofessor Says:

    TAFKAU, our elites have been saying for years that all this fear of crime is grossly exaggerated. Strangely enough, they themselves do not appear to believe this, as evidenced by their gun-toting guards and their fortified residences. Our most fervent local gun-controllers either do not actually live in the city, or they live in the little golden enclaves populated by the leaders of our local oligarchy and their hipster kids, the places that the police still actually patrol and enforce the law in.

Comment on this Entry

Latest UD posts at IHE

Archives

Categories