DimWit Politics

John Paul Stevens is 97. What is your excuse Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

 Breaking News
  • West Virginia Impeaches Supreme Court In a move unprecedented in the United States, the West Virginia House of Delegates impeached all four members of the state’s Supreme Court of Appeals: Margaret Workman (D), Allen Loughry...
  • Trump’s Mysterious Friend The fabled Rumpelstiltskin was said to be able to spin straw into gold. The tale has been around for about 4000 years – give or take a century or two...
  • Is a 4-Day School Week in America’s Future? Colorado School District 27J is following a growing trend in public school education — switching over to a four-day school week – giving kids Monday off and a three-day weekend....
  • Democratic Senator Colluded with Russian Oligarch Text messages leaked to the media in February prove that Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) sought a meeting with Christopher Steele (author of the anti-Trump dossier) as part of the Senate...
  • The Kaepernick Curse With the kick-off of the football season, the National Football League is once again steeped in a fan-fleeing controversy over players taking a knee during the National Anthem. The NFL,...

John Paul Stevens is 97. What is your excuse Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

John Paul Stevens is 97. What is your excuse Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
March 28
15:52 2018

One of the reasons there is not a lot of productive dialogue regarding guns is that as soon as there is an
opportunity for serious and civil discourse, the anti-gun activists move further back into left field.

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens suggests that we do away with the Second
Amendment. He said it is out of date and being misinterpreted. Given his history as one of the
more liberal members of the Supreme Court – meaning that he believes in a strong federal government to
regulate the lives of we the people – the suggestion is not surprising.

Yeah! Yeah! I know he was once registered as a Republican and was appointed by
President Gerald Ford. Party labels and history are irrelevant. On the high court, Stevens was a
bona fide member of the liberal wing – so much so that he was known informally as the “Chief Justice of
the Liberal Supreme Court.”

If the 97-year- old former justice – and that may be relevant – believes that he was making a positive
contribution to the current civic conversation over guns, he is badly mistaken. No doubt, he will coarsen
the conversation by emboldening the hardcore anti-gun folks and giving them false hope, but
that is exactly what is not needed. His suggestion is not only irrational, but it is also totally impractical. This
rather silly idea distracts from serious interactions between opponents and proponents of gun
restrictions.

Then we have Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She is proffering an argument that
ammunition is NOT protected by the Second Amendment. In other words, you can own a gun, but not if
it is functional. Now even Wasserman Schultz must know that her rather creative theory
would never pass muster in the federal courts, but it does score her some political points with her hard-left
base. Like Stevens, she makes dialogue more difficult by contributing such nonsense.

While the ignominiously dethroned former chair of the Democratic National Committee does not fully
endorse her own over-the- left-field- wall proposal, she does use her constitutionally-challenged
suggestion as the foundation for an equally non-start notion that gun owners should be required to go
through background checks each and every time they purchase ammo. It does not take much cognitive
concentration to understand just how impractical – nay impossible – her proposal is.

The Second Amendment is part of our inalienable Bill of Rights – those rights that the founders declared
to be God-given – and therefore cannot be legitimately denied by any capricious political action. Any abridgment of the Bill of Rights is the mark of tyranny. The contribution to the debate from Stevens and Wasserman Schultz is a tale of two sillies.

About Author

Larry Horist

Larry Horist

Larry Horist is a conservative activist with an extensive background in economics, public policy and politics. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman, as well as the White House. He has testified as an expert witness before legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress, and lectured at major colleges and universities. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He can be reached at lph@thomasandjoyce.com.

Related Articles

1 Comment

  1. debbie
    debbie March 29, 08:34

    YEP, IF THEY TOOK OUR GUNS AWAY, THERE WOULD BE A CIVIL WAR, judge is brain dead, lol.

    Reply to this comment

Write a Comment

Special Offer

Latest Comments

Liberals want to deconstruct ICE??? I think our broken educational system is in far more...

Schools should be open 5 days a week, 48 weeks a year without a raise...

My i offer two other 'solutions'? K/12 school are failing...

Take a Look!

12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt Displaying 12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt.

Don’t Miss This!

12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt Displaying 12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt.