DimWit Politics

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

 Breaking News
  • The Downside of Asylum Seeking Last Friday, a 25-year old male asylum seeker from Afghanistan carried out a heinous knife attack against a pregnant Polish woman at a hospital in the small West German town...
  • Trump as a Russian “asset” is just plain nuts. Just when one may think that that the liberal press had reached an accuracy and ethical nadir, they dive deeper in the swill of yellow journalism. Since Trump’s election, the...
  • The End of the EU? The stark divide  between pro-globalist forces and national populist forces continues to widen on the European continent. This week, as France’s Macron readied his government forces for the 9th straight...
  • Just How Big of a Threat to Trump Is Michael Cohen? President Trump continues to be dismissive of his former “fixer” Michael Cohen. However, Cohen’s attorney Lanny Davis, says that is only because Trump sees his client as “the greatest threat”...
  • Trump Snubs the EU – Downgrades EU status in the US without telling Brussels The Trump administration has angered EU officials by downgrading its diplomatic status in Washington. Officials have reported that he did so without even informing Brussels. The move reversed a decision...

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 He said it is out of date and being misinterpreted.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

"When political leaders say this is a manufactured crisis, that is infuriating to families and...

Why don't they visit the border and see for themselves instead of planning...

What's your opinion???......that a 3,000 strong 'caravan' of people crossing our borders (and not at...

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.