March 27, 2017

John Paul Stevens writes an Op-Ed for the NY Times: Repeal the Second Amendment.

“In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.”

I agree with all of this but, “would be simple…”  Even though it is potentially possible to get to a 2/3 of Congress voting to amend the constitution somewhere in the future, there is no foreseeable time where 3/4 of the states, or state ratifying conventions would vote positively for any such change to the constitution.  Doesn’t mean this should not be a goal.

I do believe that Democrats should start flooding the zone with candidates proposing anything from altering the second amendment to abolishment of the second amendment.  I would prefer those people to be primaried out, but who knows, maybe someone like that could get elected and be a voice in Congress.  I do believe liberal donors, superpacs, thinktanks, etc.,  should start selecting active cases to attempt to push any case to the Supreme Court that might force a revisiting of that awful decision in the 2008 District of Columbia v Heller.  The case in which the NRA won it’s long fought battle of semantics to have “a well regulated militia,” and, “the people,” come to mean “any single person, with little if any regulation.”

All of this is good and reasonable but it entirely misses the crux of the problem.

The problem is money.  It’s always been money.  It will always be money.

Citizens United v the FEC, granted that corporations are, in effect, people…and thereby may spend all the money they like to support candidates or political causes.

“The reason for this exponential leap in political spending, if you talk to most Democrats or read most news reports, comes down to two words: Citizens United. The term is shorthand for a Supreme Court decision that gave corporations much of the same right to political speech as individuals have, thus removing virtually any restriction on corporate money in politics. The oft-repeated narrative of 2012 goes like this: Citizens United unleashed a torrent of money from businesses and the multimillionaires who run them, and as a result we are now seeing the corporate takeover of American politics.”

I noted in my short review of the 2018 Omnibus spending package, the GOP has stealthily written into law more ways by which they can get their hands on some righteous corporate cash, and also less ways the government can do anything to stop them.  Until we stop this flow of money into politics, we will continue to have potential candidates who will say anything to get the money, and do anything to keep their seat to get more money.

This has to be stopped.  Nothing will change until this is stopped.  Our Congressional representatives are only going to become more despicable until this is stopped.  Corporations will only have greater power over our government until this is stopped.  The legislation our government produces shall increasingly reflect and represent the desires and needs of corporations until this is stopped.


If the Supreme Court is incapable of reason, Congress needs to be self-policing in Campaign finance regulations and continual donor-class access to both them and the legislative process.  There is nothing more important than Democratic hopefuls running on this issue.  No one is talking about it and honestly it’s the only thing that matters.

Corporate money run amok is how we wind up with the useful idiot Trump.  It’s why we have Congresspeople that more closely resemble deranged Fox News talking heads than a politician.  It’s how an insider/operator like Nancy Pelosi becomes indispensable.

From this time forward, all hopeful Democratic candidates must have this as a basic pillar of political ideology and the keystone of their platform.  Nothing will change until this happens.  Nothing.

THEN, we can get back to a greatly diminished NRA.

IF we can’t abolish the Second Amendment, alter the damn thing to be highly regulated.  I would rather abolish it and send it to the states to do as they please within reason:

  1. 21.  Yes 21.
  2. All firearms must be licensed, registered biannually, and insured.
  3. proof of education for proper storage, handling, and maintenance of weapons.
  4. Universal background check.
  5. Federal laws for the continual ownership and legal responsibility of gun owners and resellers.
  6. No fucking weapons of war.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s