The anti-gun Left has overplayed their hand and a 2A civil war

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.

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.

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  That means that four-fifths – 80% – of Americans don’t want it repealed.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.


15 Replies to “The anti-gun Left has overplayed their hand and a 2A civil war”

  1. WOW, CNN actually admitted this: “On one hand, guns are our most heavily regulated consumer product. Handguns can’t be purchased outside the buyer’s state of residence. Retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers all require federal licenses. All dealer sales must be preapproved by federal or state authorities.”

    1. Yes you can purchase a handgun outside your home State. It has to be shipped to a FFL in your home State. You cannot take possession of it where you buy it if that is in another State. Then you go back home and to the FFL it was shipped to and fill out the 4473, pass NICS, pay a transfer fee and the handgun is yours.

      1. Neil Smith said it well: Reporters think there is only one amendment in the Bill of Rights — the First — and it only applies to them.

    1. The fact is they do want the 1st repealed also. Just look at the push back at the colleges when people with different opinions want to talk.

  2. I suggest writing every anti-gun blog and organization and demanding that they ONLY SUPPORT politicians that want to repeal the Second Amendment. I get the anti-gun “the trace” to follow what they plan and this would be a GREAT WAY to make the socialists fish or cut bait. The gungrabbers have opened the door. Let’s throw the bums thru it.

    1. I’d like to ask every Democrat/Progressive during their campaign the following question: How will you appeal the 2nd Amendment? Ought to be fun.

  3. At the end of the day, the left can say and even do whatever they like. Repeal the second amendment? Sure, go for it.

    Laws are just words on paper. Actually imposing your will on an angry and defiant populace that’s armed to the teeth is going to be much, much more difficult.

    1. I never understood why they are picking a fight with 250 million gun owners who have trillions of rounds of ammo. To quote Gru, “not smart”.

  4. The WSJ also had a good editorial on this (it should be openly accessible at The closing comment says that Stevens gets credit for saying out loud what a lot more progressives believe in their hearts (that guns should be taken away from civilians).
    That’s not accurate, of course; other progressives say it too, but (a) they use codewords, like “Australian approach” or “slippery slope, I hope so” or “universal background checks”; and (b) the next day they deny that any progressive would ever want to take our guns away.

  5. The game was always “we want Common Sense gun regulation- we’re not going to take your guns away”. Then propose regulation or the banning of a single item- say bumpstocks, or mag limits.

    When the next event happens, again say “we want Common Sense gun regulation- we’re not going to take your guns away”. Then ban something else- detachable mags, or shoulder things that go up.

    Repeat until you have UK style gun regulations, where they MIGHT let you own a break action double shotgun… if you fill out oceans of paperwork, attend days of inconveniently scheduled classes, keep it locked and unloaded in a safe regularly inspected by the state, and never even think of using it (or anything else) for self defense.

    That was a slow and seemingly reasonable strategy. However, by loudly trumpeting a desire to repeal the Second Amendment, they put their end goal right out in the open, which is backfiring.

    1. I wouldn’t say “until you have UK style gun regulations”. That implies there’s an ending. Weapons control never stops. It hasn’t stopped in the UK either. They’ve just moved on to air guns, knives, and sharpened broom handles. Australia banned and confiscated a third of their guns, but when the people replaced them with compliant guns, Rebecca Peters called that a huge problem.

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.