Senile Supreme Court Justice Calls For Repeal Of 2nd Amendment, Demonstrates Ignorance Of History

in news •  2 years ago  (edited)

I hope that, at 97, dementia or Alzheimer's has addled the mind of John Paul Stevens.

Not, of course, because I wish him any harm. It would just be depressing to think an utter moron (or lying scumbag) could become a Supreme Court Justice.

Fascism 1.jpg

In an op-ed (in the New York Times, of course) giving wet-dreams to fake liberal-"fauxgressives" (actual communists) everywhere, ex- Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has called for a complete and unconditional revocation of the 2nd Amendment, which would revoke the right of all Americans to own a firearm over night.

Rest assured that in between cleaning his dentures and watching "Jeopardy", Moron Former Justice Stevens has given this a lot of thought. For example, he has forgotten more history than you'll probably ever know, since he's been around to experience half of it. That's what makes him qualified to make sweeping generalizations, based on no source material, facts, or any legitimate information outside of his swiss-cheese brain, such as the following:

"the threat of a tyrannical federal government is "a relic of the 18th century.""

Ah, ok, the "threat of a tyrannical government" is a "relic of the 18th century" (1700s). That really makes me feel a lot better! I guess all these governments and despots weren't real!

  1. Nazi Germany
  2. Fascist Italy
  3. Communist Russia
  4. Pretty much all of the Middle East
  5. Most of Africa
  6. North Korea
  7. Cambodia
  8. Pol Pot (I realize we're hitting some regime-overlap here)
  9. Pinochet
  10. Stalin
  11. Hitler
  12. Mussolini
  13. Franco
  14. Awww, fuck it.

Fascism 2.png

That's only 100 years and only fascism. Jesus Christ.

Given the lack of an Alzheimer's diagnosis, I don't think any amount of senility could possibly explain this. Anti-Justice Stevens is deliberately lying to you, the American people, to attempt to ensconce you in a fascist "fauxgressive" nightmare world where you are defenseless to criminals and despotic governments.

Perhaps he was swayed by the compelling arguments of 13-year olds who have neither the right to vote or even a basic understanding of the adult world.

"Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect."

Funny how they didn't demand too much respect at Kent State, or when protesting Vietnam, huh? Even though those were actual legal adults.

This man should be deported.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956


This is the playbook for 1984. Don't let it happen here.

Quoted From user "NoDebt" at ZH:

"Some additional ammo for you, from a Brit... Pass it on.

The UK basically banned guns in 1997.
The firearm crime rate went on to approximately double, over the following decade.
The homicide crime rate went on to increase by about 50% over the following 5 years, peaking in 2003.
The violent crime rate exploded after 1997.
Banning guns had zero effect on firearm crimes, on homicides and on violent crime rates in general.

Oh yeah. And we now no longer have freedom of speech. 3000 people were arrested last year for "hate" speech. Causing "offence"; hurting someone's feelings is a "hate" crime. Even the perception of causing offence can get you arrested and charged, so we're talking about actual thought crime here.

Do NOT let them take your guns!"

Try SteemEngine and get rewarded for every follow or vote!
See my explanation of SteemEngine here.

Post via for added exposure and upvotes from Busy!
See how to get extra votes from here.

See my explanation of SmartSteem here.

Try SteemFollower today and get rewarded for every vote!
See my explanation of SteemFollower here.

PAL Logo.gif

Join us at the Minnow Support Project! (click me)
We also have a Radio Station! (click me)
...and a 10,000+ active user Discord Chat Server! (click me)

Join the Steemit Poker League! (@spl)
World's Largest Cyptocurrency Freeroll Poker Site, open only to Steemians!

Sources: Google, The Gulag Archipelago, NewYorkTimes, ZH, Wikipedia,, u/NoDebt
Copyright: SmartSteem, PALNet, SPL, Aleksandr Zolszhenitsyn,

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

It would just be depressing to think an utter moron (or lying scumbag) could become a Supreme Court Justice.

The latter is an absolute requirement.

Let me pretend in my utopian bubble.

This comment has received a 45.45 % upvote from @steemdiffuser thanks to: @stimialiti. Steem on my friend!

Above average bids may get additional upvotes from our trail members!

Get Upvotes, Join Our Trail, or Delegate Some SP

You got upvoted from @adriatik bot! Thank you to you for using our service. We really hope this will hope to promote your quality content!

Great post! You've earned a 16.03% upvote from @dolphinbot

You got a 33.33% upvote from @oceanwhale With 35+ Bonus Upvotes courtesy of @stimialiti! Delegate us Steem Power & get 100%daily rewards Payout! 20 SP, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 300, 500,1000 or Fill in any amount of SP. Click For details | Discord server

You got a 8.27% upvote from @thebot courtesy of @stimialiti!
Please delegate us Steem Power & get 97% daily rewards share!
20 SP, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 300, 500, 1000 or Fill in any amount of SP.
Click For details | Discord server

This post has received a $50.00 % upvote from @siditech thanks to: @stimialiti.
Here's a banana! banana-small.png

You got a 100.00% upvote from @greengrowth thanks to @stimialiti! You too can use @GreenGrowth by sending your post URL in the memo field to the bot. Minimum bid is 0.01.

If you feel this post is spammy or not worthy of @Greengrowth you can contact a moderator in our Discord Channel

Not having a firm stance on this, I'd like to just point out that the fact that an idea hasn't been implemented correctly in the past, that doesn't mean it can't be implemented correctly in the present. I'm only making this point so that people consider alternatives and don't succumb to cognitive dissonance when at least entertaining those other options.

" the fact that an idea hasn't been implemented correctly in the past, that doesn't mean it can't be implemented correctly in the present."

This is technically, true, but it still remains strong evidence against the success of such a thing.

I have gone backwards and forwards on this. I would say I am still on the fence. I'm not American so my opinion isn't really valid.

A couple of things:

  1. People don't understand that it's just not a matter of banning a gun as an item. I think for a lot of American citizens they view the gun as a symbolic representation of their freedom.

  2. Instead of just opposing guns, why don't people come up with a viable solution. Anyone can march and say 'no more guns' but just like protesting climate change, why don't you come up with a viable solution?

  3. I actually don't think that there is much opposition from gun enthusiasts to make some legal changes around ARs, I think if the focus is on a certain type of gun there can be some consensus.

  ·  2 years ago (edited)

Those are excellent points. On your third point though, the fear is that if you start restricting, you open the door for more and more until all are banned. That is often the way the government gets what they want; a little bit toward the goal over a long period of time...

Yes! I was going to mention this. I was thinking something that could perhaps work is once new legislation is passed, their is a clause that no further legislation pertaining to guns can be penned until x date or with x factors. This would provide some more comfort. In theory sounds okay but not sure how it would go in practice.

How can you possibly be "on the fence" about a policy that takes away your rights, gives it to people who want to hurt and steal from you, increases crime and renders you a hopeless victim to same?

When you see a red light in traffic, are you "on the fence" about stopping and not fucking killing yourself and others?

I should be more clear, I am most certainly against this proposal, on the broader topic I am on the fence re; some form of legislation but not outright banning.

No. 3 is incorrect. The national media claims this to be true, but the fact is that the AR is by far the most popular gun in America. There is huge opposition to further restrictions of that particular gun, and it is the first to sell out at gun stores every time there is another push to restrict it. That is why there are now many companies that produce it, including some companies that produce ARs and AR accessories exclusively.

Interesting, I didn't know that thanks.

Being free is the state of mind one has to explore it

That's a hard sell to those in solitary confinement.

  ·  2 years ago (edited)

the threat of a tyrannical federal government is, 'a relic of the 18th century.'

This is somewhat true in that second amendment can no longer defend us from governments. 10 million people with AR-15s would get slaughtered by the modern warfare that governments have to offer. This was not the case 100 years ago.

This is irrelevant, unless you think the US is going to Nuke and deploy the army against civilians.

You have no data to make this sweeping generalization, you say it only because it sounds right.

Read the Gulag Archipelago. It puts the lie to your unsupported generalization above.

  ·  2 years ago (edited)

You lose credibility when you artificially inflate your argument with impossible scenarios. Of course we wouldn't nuke our own land.

At the same time of course we would deploy the army against civilians. That's the whole point. A big justification for the second amendment was so that a militia could be formed to fight against (or even with, if invaded) the government.

Now we have air strikes that can level entire cities and cavalry (tanks) that are immune to rocket propelled grenades and even other lesser tank fire. The second amendment was created when we had horses... lol.

The Gulag Archipelago is totally irrelevant to this conversation. You can't stop a government from being a prison state with guns. We already live in a prison state and if it gets worse an AR-15 isn't going to help anything.

I'd like to point out that you still have no idea what my stance on gun control even is. My only point here is that a civilian militia force stands zero chance of winning any real battle against the government. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact. How could you possibly argue otherwise?

  ·  2 years ago (edited)

Spot-on. If we're going to mobilize any serious opposition to the imminent threat of a GLOBAL oppressive State, we're going to have to pick our battles. Defending the 2nd amendment simply isn't one of those battles IMO.

"Defending the 2nd amendment simply isn't one of those battles IMO."

The fact that you can say BEING DISARMED is not a battle worth fighting tells me you are on the wrong team.

I didn't say "being disarmed" is not a battle worth fighting for. I said the right to own guns is not a battle worth fighting for. There's a big difference and the pen is indeed mightier than the sword.

Its hard to write after youve been shot dead!
You can write about whatever you want while held in a concetration camp like guantanamo bay nobody is going to be able to read it!

To bad we can't get rid of the corruption in politics by ignore it...
A lot of people trying that approach..
Alltogether people on 3...
Is going to be the call sign, is it going to be bullets or letters/petitions,and ballets.
If 25% of the non voters joined the 15% who will not vote Dem/Rep ,we could root out the traitors,set term limits and start to fix things...
I don't know what % it is going to take with guns,and I don't see non voters picking up guns and overthrowing the corruption...
I say vote because that is your say in Gov. We can vote for less Gov.!
Less Gov. is called more citizens doing there part!
I would love to see what happened if we did manage to work together.

You know what they say about the boxes, first use the soap box, then the ballot box, then the bullet box.

Thomas Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

He knew what he was on about.
He had an intelligence I happily doff my cap to.


He's a useful idiot prick I wouldn't piss on if he was on fire.

I am suspicious of the increasing attacks on the 2nd. They need to leave it alone.

I have one cosmic truth for all of humanity, and that is think ..

The ones that advocate taking guns and the ones that pass the laws taking guns I can guarantee you will not be the ones walking up to your door demanding them ...

I agree with you. I do think that 2nd amendment should be studied in its pure form. What we see now is the compromised version. It's really interesting to read it in its original form and learn about the compromises and deals made to get it adopted. Politics is nothing new. The thoughts of those in power at the time are far different than what we presently claim them to be. I spend a lot of time studying history and it is extremely difficult to find it in the books we use to teach it lol. You really have to dig deep into primary sources to make any sense of it.

With you fully on this. American gubberment is out of control, if anyone pays attention to anything anymore.. they would also see.

They trying to take the guns so they can start the next stage of NWO and execution of Americans. I will never give in.

There never was 'communism' in Russia.
They called themselves socialists, yes?
The USSR, not the USCR.
The only people that called them communist were victims of an attempt to poison the word.
A mostly successful one, at that.
Those in charge of applying this label were aware that if the ideas put forth by the anarchists of the day, Proudhon, Kropotkin, and Berkman were not countered they would prevail and the wealthy would be in trouble for enslaving the people.

Berkman did the best at translating the idea into words the people could understand:

We have had this conversation before, perhaps i should just leave you to your ignorance, but that doesnt really serve my purpose of undumbing down the population.
Ergo, here i am trying again to point out the hole in your facts.
You cant know what you dont know nor that you dont know it.
If you choose ignorance again, i will probably leave you to it.
So you got that going for you!

I do agree that we need more guns and ammo for everybody.
Rule by force is the disease, who and how are symptoms, so 'we' need to be ready to defend ourselves from physical attack.

Yeah, I don't think we've seen any actual Communist regimes that implemented Communism "in a textbook fashion". They all turn into basically fascism at the top, slavery at the bottom. You can always tell from how "the Party" lives.

I think you're arguing with my imprecise use of a word that I knew/intended to be imprecise.

Rule by force is the disease, who and how are symptoms.

Its funny that how often people get confused thinkink socialism and comunism are the same thing
Personaly I think its a sad sign that in reality 70% of the population are illiterate sheep just following propaganda slogans

Yep, the main thing skool teaches them is to only accept information from authority, getting out of line is punished.

How many people read a book once they get out of skool?

Sadly there are many out there who consider themselves inteligent and educated while reading a 200 page book would require way too much of an intellectual effort on their side so they just go by reading headlines and thinking that it gives them an in depth perception of the situation and a right to comment, while all they are doing is shouting
Baaa baaaa baaaa baaa
Like the sheep they are

Welcome to my nightmare.
Smart people dont think themselves overly intelligent as they know how much they dont know, but stupid people think themselves brilliant because they dont have a clue.

Reminded me of a latin proverb from school

And the ones in the middle follow the confident.thats the main problem.
I hear your pains been Suffering them all my life too. But what can we do?

Organize and push back.
To do nothing is to be complicit.


I will always fulfill my duty and obligation to preserve and honor the US Constitution. The Second Amendment is NOT going anywhere. This Country and everything people enjoy wouldn't be here with out a gun or sword.

And this is why he is no longer on the court. The problem really is that somehow he escaped his nurse and found his way to a microphone. I just hope he gets his meds before he finds out that Kennedy is no longer president.

Politicians can outlaw guns in America -- and enforcing it would be as easy as enforcing a ban on cryptocurrency... or alcohol... or hard drugs. Why should they waste their time?

its hard to acept a diferent way of think when it goes againt the human righst =/

They banned guns in Australia . crime rate skyrocketed . Now they just allowed it again .

They teach school kids how to demonstrate on their causes . They don't teach Civics to school kids to learn how the Government works .

The old fart is no longer relevant so he's just trying to get back some of his past glory with political correctness and stupidity .

Yesterday I heard a Congress woman say that AR-15 need to be confiscated and given to the Military . How Stupid .
The AR-15 is a substandard weapon compared to any military weapon in use today anywhere . That's a Congresswoman from California .

Guns in America are about hunting and self defense .

Gun control is about banning all firearms . ALL
So there is no debate or compromise from the gun control groupe
All this goes away if the Laws were followed . What does that tell you ?

"That's a Congresswoman from California ."

That bitch is dumber than dirt.

This is a wonderful one @lexiconical. Thank you.

He actually did us a favor, and revealed what too many on the left are afraid to ask for, which is full on repeal of the 2nd Amendment and eventual confiscation.

Why would anyone against gun violence ever stop at AR-15s? It's nonsensical. Of course it would follow to ban handguns, because murderers use those too.

Upvoted for pulling in Solzhenitsyn, although I don't think the US's problem will ever remotely resemble Russia's (plenty of room for disaster and death here, though).

I'd have to agree on the favor part.

The russians at the time probably didn't think it would end as it did either!

this makes me sad. people being ignorant

The 2nd Amendment is all about having a bulwark against standing armies, nothing to do with hunting or sport. The more people that understand the true necessity of the 2nd the better.

After all, it's the recognition that the ability to exert force is a human right. Why should that be curtailed in favor of someone else (or a group of 'someone elses' ie. the government) having a monopoly on said force?

Good post!

It is a great article. In this case the Judge wants to ignore the history. And we can see why they don't teach history in school now. Also I want to say that I don't see anyone saying that if they take away the 2nd amendment they can take away all the others. Who and how would they be stopped if we don't have guns? Thanks for the article.

History is written by the victorious!
How often do you here about the concentration camps run by jews for the german after second world war!
Not that I blame them for doing so!
Its just that uncomfortable truths get swept under the carpet!

Congratulations @lexiconical! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You got your First payout
Award for the total payout received

Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.

To support your work, I also upvoted your post!
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here

If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Upvote this notification to help all Steemit users. Learn why here!

Well, here's the breaking point...

When was the last push for government to have less rights and the people carry full constitutional rights in any national debate? Why is it the law abiding must surrender their rights due to lack of trust of the government in the people? With all due respect, we do have a constitutional crisis, and it's not what's going on with the show trial kangaroo court involving the criminalizing of the past presidential elections, which has become far too much of a newly developed value and tradition in national politics.

@cryptkeeper17 I think the constitution is pretty much eroded away... Considering these sanctuary cities, or cities like Chicago, hijacking of the money supply via federal reserve, hijacking of congress via deepstate/media... It really feels like that constitution is in a coma on a life support.. Hopefully Trump can bring some integrity back to our government.

Of course he's not that dumb or sick... well, if by sick you mean evil as hell, then yeah lol...

smile in crying cry in a smile,
may we be shunned from the dhalim leaders and judges

At any time during this argument, have you actually looked into America's history with the 2nd Amendment or merely looked at other countries at how despotic they became?

Nothing about that gets into the 2nd Amendment being used by slave patrols in the South or how the North heavily regulated guns. So when are you going to look and see how the state actually regulated guns before the 1970s?

Amazing and powerful post.the Information is jaw dropping

The image speaks for itself. thanks for sharing.

This (honestly) is way better than cut and pasting the exact same text. Hope you actually liked it.

Steady your posts, knowledgeable, innovative and I like, thank you for sharing

I remember as a child visiting speakers corner in london I revisited back a couple of years ago I was shocked no longer could you hear anybody speaking out the teuth as they saw it just a bunch of politicly correct morons afraid to touch any uncomfortable topic

John Paul Stevens is a conservative. He knows the way to make Republicans to come out and vote is to bring out the boogieman of taking people's guns away. He knows this is a bad idea and could never happen. He is just trolling.