From the “No one wants to take away your guns file” – retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens penned an editorial in the New York Times this morning, in which he provided clear and concise insight into what we knew all along: Stevens despises freedom and wants nothing more than for the federal government to wield its power over the very people who voted to put these politicians into office in the first place.

As a friend of mine recently said, “You know what else John Paul Stevens supports? The government taking away your house so people like Donald Trump can build casinos on your property.” So forgive me if I don’t take anything that doddering imbecile says seriously, especially when it comes to the Second Amendment.

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. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

Well, here we go again with the emotionally-driven rhetoric of “THE CHILDREN!” as if the histrionics demand a change in public policy.

For the record, no they do not demand our respect or anything else, for that matter, since these demonstrations are funded by big government statists who want nothing more than to relieve the People of their means of self defense, both against armed goblins of the private and of the government variety.

No, they do not demand our respect, because that drive to “minimize the risk of mass killings” is based on false data and hysterical media reports, rather than facts. And fact is mass shootings are NOT on the rise and violent crime writ large has been declining since at least 1992 – since before NICS, and since before the so-called “assault weapons” ban of 1994.

No, they do not demand our respect, because they are being manipulated by hysterical media reports, opportunistic, anti-freedom organizations, and government institutions and teachers’ unions. Most of these kids don’t know the difference between a semi-automatic firearm and a machine gun; nor do they understand the difference between the First and Fourth Amendments. But hey… they’re scared and emotional, so why not allow them dictate domestic policy that impacts millions and millions of law-abiding citizens, right?

Apparently so, according to the thankfully-retired statist dinosaur John Paul Stevens.

His advice: just repeal the Second Amendment, because it’s a “relic of the 18th century.” The NRA has been perpetrating a fraud on the American people, Stevens claims, because somehow “shall not be infringed” doesn’t really mean that, and the federal government’s regulation of firearms isn’t really an infringement on the Second Amendment rights of the citizens.

Stevens also cites the infamous 1939 Miller decision as justification for the federal government’s consistent and significant curtailment of the People’s right to keep and bear arms over the decades. In case you were wondering, the Miller decision basically said that the populace is not allowed to keep and bear shotguns with barrels shorter than 18 inches, because they have no military purpose.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

I find it instructive that the decision actually said that the People’s right to own only military-style weaponry was protected under the Second Amendment, and that the Court based its erroneous opinion on the fact the justices were ignorant of short-barreled shotgun’s use by the US military since the Civil War, in which case there’s an Abrams Main Battle Tank for sale somewhere in the Internet with my name on it.

But that’s beside the point.

Miller has been used to curtail Second Amendment rights ever since, and Stevens – like most good little petty tyrants – loves to use that decision to claim that “shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean what it says it means.

The solution, according to Stevens, is to simply repeal the Second Amendment.

Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the NRA’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.

There you have it. Get rid of the Amendment that protects the People’s right to remove a tyrannical government by force, if necessary, and these kids’ dreams of a safe and secure utopia will be achieved! (Also, Stevens’ and other leftist, anti-freedom shitbags’ dreams of a government that’s not controlled by the People, but rather wields its power over them.)

Typical leftist. If you can’t erode the People’s rights through legislation, merely amend the Constitution to increase government power, and you’ll be set!

Hell, they’re not even trying to hide it any longer. And if you think that this is an extremist view, it’s not so outrageous anymore. A poll conducted by the Economist shows that 12 percent of respondents, including four percent of Republicans favor the repeal of the Second Amendment.

Twelve percent doesn’t seem like a lot, given the requirement that both houses of Congress propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote, or two thirds of state legislatures calling on Congress to hold a constitutional convention. The Amendment would then have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states or state legislatures. Good luck with that, assholes.

That said, it seems more and more statists are admitting their true mission: to relieve you of your rights and your firearms.

While it’s nothing surprising coming from a tyrannical asshole like Stevens, who loved himself some government authority, having dissented from United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison – two cases in which the Court held that Congress had exceeded its constitutional power under the commerce clause. He also authored Gonzales v. Raich, which permits the federal government to arrest, prosecute, and imprison patients who use medical marijuana regardless of whether such use is legally permissible under state law. He also dissented in Kyllo v. United States,  which held that the use of thermal imaging requires a warrant.

Stevens also wrote the majority opinion in the travesty that was the Kelo decision that held the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Stevens, along with his fellow Marxist scumbags Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer ruled that individual property rights didn’t matter. They ruled for developers over individuals.

Stevens had a pattern of ruling against individual rights, against freedom, and against the People, and as such he can get fucked with a cactus, wrapped in barbed wire and dipped in battery acid.

We should all consider ourselves lucky that the statist dinosaur has retired and that all he has left is his pathetic opinion.