Rich Zeoli Column: It's Time To Repeal The 21st Amendment

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) -- After I read the op-ed by former Supreme Court Justice super lefty John Paul (Ringo & George) Stevens advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, it occurred to me. He's on to something. Sure, his op-ed was nothing more than a snarky reminder to Democrats that they will never repeal the 2nd Amendment because the will of the people isn't there, so their only chance is to overturn Heller.

This is a fundamental truth about leftists and Supreme Court rulings. When they like the ruling, ie Roe v Wade, it's settled law. It can't be overturned. It's settled law. When they don't like the ruling, as in DC v Heller, it's a controversial decision that should be revisited, ie overturned, by a future, more lefty, Supreme Court.

Stevens really wants you to know that the only way to abolish guns is to get a Democrat president to appoint a lefty justice who will rule that the 2nd Amendment is not the individual right Justice Antonin Scalia so artfully opined in the 5-4 majority opinion.

So it got me thinking, why don't we repeal the 21st Amendment which repealed the 18th Amendment, which banned booze. I mean come on, it's clear that booze has gotten stronger since 1932. Do you really need a beer with 12% alcohol? Not on my watch. And then we can finally ban pumpkin beer once and for all. And most fruit beers as well.

Don't get me started on sulfites in wine. Or Yellowtail.

Prohibition works. Every time. How do I know? History. Not a single person drank during prohibition. Not one. Don't believe all those stories about Al Capone and Elliot Ness. Or Joe Kennedy. Actually believe that one. That guy made serious loot during prohibition.

When the 21st Amendment was ratified on December 5, 1933 everyone started drinking again. Not a drop before.

Okay, maybe you doubt me on this. Well, take the logic, and I'm being generous here, of Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz who wants to institute a background check on ammunition sales:

"Under current law, just as criminals, domestic abusers, and dangerously mentally ill individuals are prohibited from purchasing a firearm, they are also prohibited from purchasing ammunition. Unlike firearms, however, federal law does not require a background check to prevent the illegal purchase of bullets, said Schultz.

Then she added this gem, "You don't have the right to bear bullets." I love that logic. I'm sure the delegates to the constitutional convention debated the infamous 'Right to bear bullets Amendment' to the Bill of Rights, but it failed. So a constitutionally protected firearm, without a constitutionally protected projectile, was the best they could do.

But back to the people who aren't allowed to buy guns. Why would they need bullets if they are prohibited from buying a firearm in the first place? That seems to be a giant waste of time to buy bullets when you can't buy a gun. Unless the Congresswoman is suggesting that bans don't work? That criminals and other people who shouldn't have guns will still find a way to get guns? Surely she is confused. Bans work. Every time. Everyone respects the ban, as evidenced by the enormous success of prohibition. So a background check on bullets is just silly. No ONE and I mean no ONE who isn't legally allowed to have a firearm will obtain a firearm and thus have a need for bullets.

And believe you me, if they can't buy them from a licensed gun dealer, ain't no way they are buying bullets on the black market. Guns maybe, but no upstanding illegal gun seller is going to also stoop so low as to also sell bullets. That's just common sense.

And no more than ever, we need common sense.