Sandbagging the 2. Change: Ex-justice hurts its own cause with the New York Times op-ed

in the vicinity


Kurtz: Like John Paul Stevens to undermine gun control

‘MediaBuzz’ host Howard Kurtz weighs in on the former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ statement that the Second Amendment should be repealed and how it created an even greater divide in the gun control debate.

You might be thinking, a 93-year-old man, who has not been heard in years, would have the fire power to influence the gun control debate.

But then, John Paul Stevens came and called for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

And he did it with the megaphone of the New York Times op-ed page.

My first thought was, of course, that this will never happen, even if a former judge believes the Supreme court, it is a good idea.

And my second thought was that Stevens hoped really the concern of the reformers, to pass modest gun legislation in the Wake of the Florida school shooting.

Now it is easy for the gun rights side to say that the reform supporters secretly hope for a radical agenda, like Stevens, would be the abolition of constitutional protection for gun owners.

In the Times, the ex-justice of the amendment rejects,”a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to and bear arms, shall not be infringed”—as “a relic of the 18th century. Century.”

The Gerald Ford-officer describes how he was one of the four dissenters, in the 2008 Heller case that affirmed the right to bear arms, the suppression of the District of Columbia’s handgun ban.

But Stevens seems to be really out of touch when he says junking that part of the ” Bill of Rights “would be easy,” as well as the weaknesses of the NRA ‘ s weight.

Easy? Not a scholar, a lawyer, not to understand how hard it is, or repeal any amendment to the Constitution a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress, together with the approval of three-quarters of the States—let alone on such a divisive topic?

President Trump, the embracing of certain gun-control measures in the televised meeting, before the fuse is removed, broke the all-caps on his Twitter:

“THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED! As much as Democrats would like this to happen … “

You can see how he returned to Stevens’ sense of the “Democrats”—and turned into a vote-GOP-pitch for the year 2018.

Dianne Feinstein said she believes that it is possible by the Second Amendment, and renewed their pitch for a ban on assault-style weapons and the raising of the age limit for handgun purchases to 21.

The Washington Post column Fix explains that “it’s rare to see such a senseless premature and fanciful idea has been introduced, retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens.” This said, the piece is about the best hope for the Republicans.

A columnist on law and crime went so far as to write that it was “” to publish the “Times” piece:

“Stevens and the New York Times, only the climate-debate about guns it is even worse than it already is. The op-ed confirms in a simple way, what many people already believe that arms control: weapons possession and weapon attack. Or, in other words, stripping people of the rights guaranteed as an American.”

I’m happen to agree. But to publish a newspaper opinion pages, provocative ideas, even if they are politically unrealistic. So, the criticism is exaggerated.

If John Paul Stevens, who retired eight years ago, and wanted to stir a debate, I think he succeeded. But there is little question that he’s hurt because he’s trying to hug you.

Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and host of “MediaBuzz” (Sundays 11 p.m.). He is the author of “media madness: Donald Trump, the press, and The war for the truth.” You can follow him at @Howard Kurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Follow us

Don't be shy, get in touch. We love meeting interesting people and making new friends.

Most popular