Tuesday, April 3, 2018


Today, Tuesday, April 3rd from 7 to 9pm EST on American Political Radio, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss A Former Justice, an Op-ed, and Anti-Second Amendment Rhetoric;
liberal subjective thinking; and important news of the day.

A Former Justice, an Op-ed, and Anti-Second Amendment Propaganda
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
- the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

In 2008, the United States Supreme Court decided in The District of Columbia v. Heller (case #554 U.S. 570) that the Second Amendment does indeed protect an individuals right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within but not specifically limited to the home. And yet most on the left with a scattering of some on the right continue to refuse to accept that ruling as basically being what is is...as in case closed.

And sadly, even some who once sat on the High Court's bench refuse to accept said decision.

Take the case of now 97-year old former liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a nay vote in the above cited decision, who when the decision was handed down, wrote in his minority dissenting report that the High Court's ruling overturned a "long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment's limited reach." Also stating that the decision allowed the National Rifle Association (NRA) to become "a propaganda weapon of immense power"...this statement alone reeks of Stevens not interpreting the law as was his sworn duty but of judicial activism, something that most definitely is frowned upon.

But being that he retired in 2010, at age 91...too old to sit on the High Court and make carefully crafted and thought out decisions if you ask me...it was this very same man who one week ago today suddenly reappeared to call for the actual “repeal” of the adopted in 1791, Second Amendment. Obviously forgetting or willingly choosing to ignore the fact that no amendment to the Constitution as set down by our Founders and Framers has ever been repealed (the 18th Amendment regarding prohibition and its subsequent 21st repeal amendment was obviously not done by our Founders and Framers)...former Justice Stevens also forgets that to amend the Constitution is no easy task for it means an amendment must be proposed by either Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the Senate legislatures.

So even if the near impossible regarding the Second Amendment being amended was officially proposed, it would still need ratification by the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or state ratifying conventions in three-quarters of said states, and that I would assume will never happen. And why...because dare we forget that any concerted effort to try and repeal or even amend the Second Amendment would be “political suicide” for those elected officials involved in said task.

Also, to amend the all-important Second Amendment and to go against a Supreme Court ruling already in place, I so believe, would rightfully lead to the Second American Revolution. And really, isn't that the very reason why our Founders and Framers put the Second Amendment into place, as in to give 'We the People' the means by which to overthrow the government in the event it becomes tyrannical. And while such a rightful revolution would likely see America's streets flowing red with the blood of American patriots...remember the old saying,behind every blade of grass”...amending the Second Amendment with the left's goal being the disarming of American citizenry is surely an example of government tyranny to which we have the “natural right” to revolution.

Now as for the above stated Gerald Ford appointee, while former Justice Stevens is certainly entitled to his opinion, even one as obviously wrong and misguided as his saying that, "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," shows that sometimes opinions are given not based upon facts but upon emotions and focused political party ideologies alone...both dangerous as the foundation upon which to base such an important opinion on. 

Writing in-part in his emotionally charged op-ed, John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment, printed in The New York Times, Stevens cited the recent nationwide student protests in response to last month's deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida, as a catalyst for change. Saying that he had, "Concerns that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that a 'well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,'" Stevens added that “Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century"...leaving Stevens' words to be but a slap in the face to not only our Founders and Framers but to the Constitution itself.

Very foolish words indeed for to former Justice Stevens, it seems, how we as individuals in today's society choose to protect ourselves and our families should not be how said protection was done in the 18th century when our country was young, untamed, and still flexing its new found muscle, no matter that our beloved America still sees some of the same problems existing today as it did almost three centuries ago.

One case in point...school shootings...former Justice Stevens' very touch point...which are not just modern day occurrences as most people think...as the liberal media wants you to believe...as Stevens wrote about even while knowing this truth. Writing words strictly based upon last month's events in Parkland, Florida...the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School shooting...what Stevens ignores is the critical fact that school shootings go back to the time of our nation's founding and even before. But most importantly is the reality that school shootings occurred before there was a Second Amendment, before there was any sort of semi-automatic anything, and before the erroneously blamed for every shooting that happens NRA even existed...back to the time of the single shot musket.

And it all started on July 26, 1764. Known as the Enoch Brown School Massacre, this happened during the Pontiac's War when four Delaware Lenape Indians entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, and shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, also murdering nine out of the eleven children present that day. However, some liberals historians love to say that this “incident” as they call it may only “incidentally be considered a school shooting" because only the teacher was shot...remember this was at a time of single-shot muskets and flintlock pistols which were not easily nor quickly reloaded...while the nine children were killed with knives and tomahawks. But no matter the word semantics for it still saw the teacher being fatally shot by a gun.

And children shooting children is not a new occurrence either as the first child to commit a school shooting was 13-year old Mathew Ward of Louisville, Kentucky, who on November 1, 1853 shot his brother's teacher dead on school property at point blank range over what he perceived as excess punishment given to his brother.

And know that school shootings continued unabated throughout the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, right up until last month's Parkland school shooting that left 17 children dead. In fact, you can see for yourself the list and details of all the almost 500 school shootings here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ListofschoolshootingsintheUnitedStates. But the point is that until fairly recently no call to repeal the Second Amendment was made for it seems those in the past could separate the issue of our Second Amendment rights from school and other shooting events...something the liberals seem not able or willing to do today.

Still missing the point that no law or background check will totally prevent school shootings from happening, and also missing the point that neither will the repealing of the Second Amendment keep firearms out of the hands of those wishing to do harm, Stevens' written statement did nothing but fuel the liberal anti-gun agenda by using and capitalizing on the murder of children. By his calling the Parkland shooting an “event” that "demanded our respect”...which by the way goes without saying...Stevens refused to leave it at that for what he went on to do was cloak “respect” into a flowery liberal infused rant about "more effective and more lasting reform"...as in his call for a total repeal of the Second Amendment.

Oblivious, like most liberals are, to the fact that guns do not kill people...not even semi-automatic rifles kill people...it's people that kill people...Stevens never once published these misplaced thoughts of his after Columbine, the Virginia Tech shooting, or any of the other school shootings that occurred while he was a sitting Supreme Court justice. And this leads me to believe that former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens was either willingly recruited by the left, is simply being used by the left in a ploy to get a respected 'person of name' to lead the charge on repealing the Second Amendment, or is sadly just a foolish old man spewing out liberal nonsense in what he perceives as his last hurrah. 

"There is broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society," Stevens went on to say in his op-ed piece forgetting the obvious that no one wants to see any schoolchildren killed, especially in what should be a safe environment. But again as most liberals do, Stevens is missing the obvious point that securing school grounds... that securing school buildings...is the answer the public really supports not more useless legislation that takes away the ability of 'good guys with guns' to stop 'bad guys with guns' from doing their vile deeds.

And besides, a totally useless piece of legislation already exists in regards to firearms...as in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25)...otherwise known as the Gun-Free Zone Act. Enacted by Congress in 1990, this act prohibits any “unauthorized” individual from knowingly possessing a loaded or unsecured firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. And why is the Gun-Free Zone Act useless...because no sign placed on a fence will stop someone hell-bent on committing mass murder as proven by the findings of the much respected Crime Prevention Research Center, which found that from the 1950s through July 10, 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have happened in gun-free zones. Now if you add in last month's Parkland school shooting that percentage goes up even higher.

And former Justice Stevens knows well that legislation is not now nor has it ever been the answer in regards to anything relating to firearms...for no laws passed will succeed in keeping firearms out of the hands of those focused on doing harm nor will any laws passed divert the the left's attention away from their ultimate goal of trying to take away our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And also what Stevens and his leftists cohorts fail to see is that by their very act of trying to negate the Second Amendment it actually results in more support for it. In fact, right after the Parkland school shooting The Economist/YouGuv Poll found that just a total of 21 percent of Americans would support repealing the Second Amendment, and surprisingly that total number included just 39 percent of Democrats who said they would support repealing the Second Amendment.

So while the Trump White House issued a statement via Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders supporting the Second Amendment while still being focused on removing guns from “dangerous individuals” and "not blocking all Americans on their constitutional rights" to keep and bear arms, know that even some on the left did push back against former Justice Stevens' op-ed including one Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor, who argued that repeal would not have the effect that Stevens imagined it would. In fact, he stated that Stevens words would "do little to change America's gun laws," especially in states that are anti-gun control.

But good little liberal that he is and like Stevens one who does not know when to shut-up, Winkler added that, "The Second Amendment is not a barrier to enacting good gun laws...the NRA is. It's the politics of guns that control our gun laws, not the law of the Second Amendment." And those words show just how misguided this discourse has become for the gun-control, anti-Second Amendment sorts still refuse to see let alone understand that not one mass shooter has been an NRA member...yet they continue to focus on the NRA alone instead of on the one who actually pulled the trigger...on the one who actually committed mass murder.

Such is the hallmark of the left...never blame the one who committed the crime but blame the one the media and the 'powers that be' insist we focus on as it will help not only to divert and deflect us from the truth but will help the media move forward the leftist agenda. And former Justice John Paul Stevens and his op-ed reeking of leftist anti-Second Amendment propaganda fits that bill to a tee.

Copyright @ 2018 Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / All Rights Reserved.

For more political commentary please visit my RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS partner Craig Andresen's blog The National Patriot to read his latest article The Method to Liberals Madness


Today, Tuesday, April 3rd from 7 to 9pm EST on American Political Radio, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss A Former Justice, an Op-ed, and Anti-Second Amendment Rhetoric;
liberal subjective thinking; and important news of the day.