Two days ago retired Supreme Court Justice and insane old man John Paul Stevens wrote an OpEd for the New York Times on why it is time to repeal the Second Amendment.

For anybody who was been watching the anti-gun Left, this is not an extreme position for them.  Rolling Stone published Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment in 2016.  New York Times communist Bred Stephens wrote in 2017 Repeal the Second Amendment, then doubled down with To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendemnt.  Vanity Fair published an article by Tentacle Porn enthusiast Kurt Eichenwald, Lets Repeal the Second Amendment.  Even going so far as to tag line the article as the “Bill of Wrongs.”  There is book published by a Leftist activist and attorney, Lee Goodman, called Too Many Rights and Too Many Guns: Repealing the Second Amendment to make America safer and more free.  Only to an insane person could people be “more free” by restricting their “too many rights.”

Even National Public Radio – as in taxpayer funded – advocated for that in the article What Would It Take To Repeal The 2nd Amendment?  The title was not a rhetorical question.

There are celebrities running with this idea.

https://twitter.com/michaelianblack/status/977984521420378112

Then there were all the protest signs.

None of that really mattered until the “Repeal the Second Amendment” talk started coming from someone who was actually in a position to do just that.  A former Supreme Court Justice (and by “in a position to do that,” I mean decided that it was meaningless in a SCOTUS decision).

All of a sudden shit just got real.

All of this “Repeal the Second Amendment” language drove up NRA recruitment and donations.

A few people decide that this must be Russia’s fault.

https://twitter.com/JermePhilip/status/979152560467582976

International donations from Russia

— WTFGOP (@DogginTrump) March 29, 2018

Polling also showed that one-fifth of Americans want to repeal the Second Amendment.  That means that four-fifths – 80% – of Americans don’t want it repealed.

The far Left had WAAAAAAY overplayed their hand.  They spilled the beans on their true aims and the found out American by-and-large weren’t buying it.

Now they are trying to talk it back.  Vox had to publish Let’s not repeal the 2nd Amendment.  The Washing Post published Repealing the Second Amendment is a dangerous idea.  CNN published Why the Stevens gun manifesto is beyond irresponsible.

The collective thesis of these articles is “we can get all the gun control we want without a 2A repeal, let’s not go off the deep end.”

CNN got closest to hitting the nail on the head with this:

What makes the Stevens manifesto especially irresponsible is that it would rupture the social fabric in this country — leading to turmoil, lawlessness and violence. Considering the fervor of many gun-rights advocates, it’s quite possible that not even reversal of Roe v. Wade would incite such rage.

The more honest translation of that statement is:

Oh fuck.  If we did more than write self important masturbatory fantasies about  repealing the 2A and actually tired to change the Constitution, the of the the country that owns 400 million guns will kill us all.  

And CNN was right.

They were all high and mighty when they thought that popular opinion was on their side.  They could use the crying Parkland Hitler Youth to push America around by their emotions and with accusations of hating kids.

They didn’t realized that all they heard was the echo from inside their own echo chamber and that a bunch of middle age, upper income, Liberal slactivists (almost limousine liberals but not quite rich enough) didn’t represent most of America.

They found out what they were poking was really a bear, so they are walking it back.

Having Democrats run on a “Repeal the 2A” platform will guarantee a loss for them.

If a few in some really blue areas did win and floated a 2A repeal, the shooting would start.

Don’t let this fool you.  They still believe everything they said before.  They just realized they got dangerously close to an ass kicking for it.

I reckon I should be properly Catholic and add a touch of religion to my posts:

CNN impaneled a bunch of high school kids from all over the country to debate guns.

It turned into a social justice shit show.

The pro-gun kid in the bottom left was right but made weak arguments.

The sure, guns come from Indiana into Chicago.  Having lived in both places, the problem with Chicago is not loose gun laws in Indiana.  Indiana doesn’t have the homicide rate that Chicago does.  The problem is endemic to something (cultural) about Chicago.  If it were simply gun laws, Indianapolis would be far worse off than the Windy City.

Immediately the black girl and brown boy in the to row dove onto the “we can’t trust the cops because the cops are racist” swords.  She brought up the “school to prison pipeline.”

I agree that some zero-tolerance policies are bad, but the anti “school to prison pipeline” policies in place at MSD, kept making excuses for Nikolas Cruz until he killed people.

It was just social justice braying “I’m a victim, I’m a victim.”

Then it took a turn into white privilege where it drove off the cliff into an all out argumentative race war.

People who want to be victims will never be anything but victims because they take comfort in their victim status.

I had no idea what CNN wanted to get out of this but what it showed was that high school kids shouldn’t have any control over policy.

I’d call those head shots at seven football fields away with a round that is called a poodle-shooter not to use farther than 300 yards.

Hat Tip @AnonTechGuy912

Seen this message in different formats, I decided make my own meme.

One of the common criticisms of the Second Amendment that we hear is that the Founding Fathers couldn’t imagine assault rifles at the time of muskets.

The rate of fire is too high and that is why we should give up our Constitutional rights.

One anti gun group even put out a video to the effect a while back.

Well one of Miguel’s posts had got me thinking.

Compare these two videos.

Here is a Marine marksman and some reenactors demonstrating the accuracy of 18th century smooth bore muskets.

Slow aimed fire failed to get a hit on a man size target at 50 yards.  Volley fire at best saw impacts on a group of stationary targets with two-thirds of the rounds fired.

Now see this.

I chose that start point for a reason.  That was a one shot, dead in its tracts hit on a white tail at 955 yards.

Just because I feel like scaring that shit out of some New Yorkers, that is 20 yards more than the width of Central Park from Park Avenue West to 5th Avenue.

Forget semi autos and rapid fire, could our Founding Fathers have predicted hunters (who the anti gunners say are the reason for the Second Amendment) having weapons that could get single shot kills on distances exceeding the range of field artillery?

The average Remington 700 or 783 is a 1-1.5 MOA gun with good ammo.  They are capable of keep hits in the vitsls on man size targets to at least 400 yards.  Heavy barrel and rifling options push that even further.

A single pay check for most middle class Americans could build a hunting rifle and optic combo capable of 800 yards. 

What holds most people back from that is practice and a place to push it. 

If the idea of post 18th century technology superceding the Second Amendment is really an argument they want to pursue, they lost that 100 years ago.

The fact is if they really believed that all gun owners are a threat to them, they should be a lot more afraid than they already are.