Call to Repeal Our Second Amendment from a Shocking Source

A call to repeal our Second Amendment, and essentially, our Bill of Rights, appears in a most shocking op-ed. The author of the article makes it all the more alarming.

The left has long wanted to repeal our Bill of Rights and destroy our Constitution, replacing it with a Socialist one. Only one Justice and one President stands in the way.

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment in an op-ed in the New York Times. After praising the so-called youth march for our lives, the 97-year old said repeal would weaken the National Rifle Association’s ability to “block constructive gun legislation.”

The Second Amendment, he says, has no place in modern society.

Hailing the demonstrators, he wrote, “But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”

A former Justice calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment — our inherent right – is a very big deal. This is at a time when we need guns to protect ourselves more than ever.

It’s Never Been About the NRA

There are only about 5 million NRA members but they are the target to weaken the ultimate target – the Second Amendment and, eventually, our entire Bill of Rights.

It is not the NRA keeping the Amendment in place, it is the American people who overwhelmingly want to keep the Second Amendment. That is what the left refuses to understand, along with the fact that we must never abandon our inherent rights.

Stevens wants the marchers, only 10% of whom were actually children under 18 years, to demand the repeal of the Second Amendment. He writes that it is a “relic of the 18th century.”

In the past, the former justice called for changing the Amendment, but now he wants it gone.

Once one Amendment falls, the entire Bill of Rights will be gone. The left now claims the Constitution itself is only an “old piece of paper”, a “piece of parchment.”

It is not. It is our rule of law and it protects our inherent rights.

Stevens was on the losing end of the 2008 Heller decision that ruled individuals have the right to own a gun for self-defense.

Stevens says the decision, in that case, District of Columbia v. Heller, “has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power.” He wrote that in the ruling that “there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters”.

He continued to say that the decision was “wrong” or at least “debatable”. He does not believe an individual has the right to bear arms. This is a Supreme Court Justice who swore to uphold our Constitution.

Stevens retired from the court in 2010, after more than 35 years.

What is the state of our nation when a man who swore to uphold the law is calling for its repeal? We even have entire states eagerly and unabashedly defying the rule of law. We need our weapons more than ever.

This is a Supreme Court Justice calling for the end of our right to self-defense, our God-given right.

For those who say the real target is not the Second Amendment, pay attention to what the former Justice is saying.


  1. Apparently he’s been senile for decades.

    Those like this Judge are so out of touch with society they are unable to even contemplate the violence that permeates certain sectors of the country. They are so shielded from reality they live in blissful ignorance. Anyone who doesn’t believe we could see Mexican style cartels here isn’t living in the real world. We have he beginning signs already. Mexico doesn’t have the benefit of an armed public. Once we become like Mexico in ridding society of self-defense we will become like Mexico in violence also.

  2. Judge Stevens, the Second Amendment is still in place to protect citizens from tyrants like you who are oblivious to reality.

  3. I began to realize as a young adult that the Supreme Court doesn’t deliberate on specific matters of law. Points of law are secondary to philosophy. Many times the briefs say little to nothing on specific laws or rulings in the case.

    Then we have the Pennsylvania case of redistricting and the refusal of the Supreme Court to take the case. The Constitution specifically lays out the State Legislatures have sole authority of apportioning districts. The Lower Courts had no authority to “draw maps”. That Court took it upon themselves to “apportion”. One purpose of the Supreme Court is to determine possible Constitutional violations, yet, in this case they decided to sit on the sidelines. On a grander scale it would be akin to the Supreme Court themselves writing the appropriation bills instead of Congress.

Comments are closed.