Well, this is definitely the kind of thing you want to hear from someone who served on the Supreme Court. Ladies and gentlemen, John Paul Stevens:

Stevens concludes:

[District of Columbia v. Heller] — 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.

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.

Honestly, it’s not all that shocking to see that kind of drivel on the New York Times opinion page.

What is disturbing is that this time, it’s coming from someone whose job was to uphold the Constitution. Which, as it happens, contains the Second Amendment.

Yeah … it’s not subtle. Not even a little bit.


Editor’s note: This post has been updated with additional tweets.



‘Check your hearing’! Journo tries to own Rubio with ABSURD claim about #MarchForOurLives