Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer says Founding Fathers wanted gun control.

  1. #1
    Regular Member CenTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ,,
    Posts
    276

    Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer says Founding Fathers wanted gun control.

    Posted on Fox News:
    "Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer says the Founding Fathers never intended for guns to go unregulated, if you look at their values and the historical record."
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...rictions-guns/
    The words of a tyrant: “I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.”

    Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Madison "was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. 'That can't happen,' said Madison," said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison's priority as, "I've got to get this document ratified."
    This isn't even true. The Constitution was already ratified by the time the amendments started to be considered.

    "We're acting as judges. If we're going to decide everything on the basis of history -- by the way, what is the scope of the right to keep and bear arms? Machine guns? Torpedoes? Handguns?"
    Heller already hints at the answer on page 55.

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.
    Do infantrymen get machine guns? Sometimes. Do infantrymen get handguns? Yes. Do infantrymen get torpedoes? No.

  3. #3
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    /facepalm

  4. #4
    Regular Member CenTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ,,
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    This isn't even true. The Constitution was already ratified by the time the amendments started to be considered.



    Heller already hints at the answer on page 55.



    Do infantrymen get machine guns? Sometimes. Do infantrymen get handguns? Yes. Do infantrymen get torpedoes? No.
    They do get bazookas, rocket launchers, and other weapons just as destructive as some torpedoes.

    http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/

    http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyw...my_Weapons.htm

    http://www.g2mil.com/squads.htm

    There are many more sites listing weaponry.
    The words of a tyrant: “I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.”

    Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

  5. #5
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    I want an Abrama M1A2 main battle tank, full of ammo.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Kloutier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Spanish Fork Utah, Utah, USA
    Posts
    193
    A ton of the arms where privately owned in the revolutionary war. Thats right Founding fathers wanted gun controls....

  7. #7
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    They wanted gun control, so they used the words....."shall not be infringed"
    Yeah right.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  8. #8
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    what GunDude said!

    10 to the power of 10

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289
    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”



    Signed;
    All the other Founding Fathers

  10. #10
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    "Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states". Well even if that was the case does that change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms was protected? History will prove the minority in Heller correct? The overwhelming writings and commentaries prior too, during and after ratification do not lend themselves to Breyer's future vindication on the subject. Classic denial.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    45
    Yes, regardless of what was intended, the fact remains that the right to keep and BEAR arms cannot be infringed upon. Even if they intended for firearms to be regulated they obviously never intended that regulation to be a complete ban.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Breyer also omits to say that the Founders who did not want a Bill of Rights used the primary argument that the Constitution was complete without a Bill of Rights; it only authorized what it authorized, all else being reserved to the people. Alexander Hamilton said something to this effect in the Federalist Papers, too.
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-12-2010 at 10:45 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Breyer also omits to say that the Founders who did not want a Bill of Rights used the primary argument that the Constitution was complete without a Bill of Rights; it only authorized what it authorized, all else being reserved to the people. Alexander Hamilton said something to this effect in the Federalist Papers, too.
    Hamilton and the other there is no need for a Bill of Rights group because its sooooo ovious we have these rights were soooooo wrong. They also objected the the 9th Amamdment on the grounds that it was not needed, same reasoning.

  14. #14
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Just more "creative" thinking from the progressive left. Sore loser.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...rictions-guns/

    (Quote) "Breyer, who just published "Making Our Democracy Work," a book about the role of the court in American life, outlined his judicial philosophy as one in which the court must take a pragmatic approach in which it "should regard the Constitution as containing unwavering values that must be applied flexibly to ever-changing circumstances."

    Since the Founding Fathers could not foresee the impact of modern day communications and technology, the only option is to take the values of the Founding Fathers and apply them to today's challenges.

    "The difficult job in open cases where there is no clear answer is to take those values in this document, which all Americans hold, which do not change, and to apply them to a world that is ever changing," Breyer said. "It's not a matter of policy. It is a matter of what those framers intended." (End Quote)

    Breyer said that judges "should regard the Constitution as containing unwavering values that must be applied flexibly to ever-changing circumstances."

    What if my 'unwavering values' are different from Stephen Breyer's 'unwavering values'? Stephen Breyer purports to know and embody the 'unwavering' values that all American's hold, not just those of the Founding Fathers. What a stupendous statement.

    The Constitution says what it say, in plain English and it cannot, must not, be construed 'flexibly' to ever-changing circumstances. There is a process, after all, to amend the Constitution.

    I can't even begin to describe how 'horrified' I am that a Supreme Court Justice could say such things publicly. Well at least now he is out of the closet with his insanity!

  16. #16
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by CenTex View Post
    Breyer is and always has been an *******. They scraped the bottom of the barrel for him along with the two new marxists on the court. "The right of the people shall not be infringed" is obviously too cerebral for anyone but him to correctly interpret as "the right of the government to infringe God given rights of the people shall not be infringed. **** him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member AtackDuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    King George, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    214

    Breyer's willful ignorance is plain:

    “Progressives confuse their own cowardice with conviction and syntax with sensibility.” Zed of DBD/ Chris Muir.

  18. #18
    Regular Member RockerFor2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lemon Grove, CA
    Posts
    145
    Always liked Justice SCALIA best of all. Especially when he likes to say that it's NOT a "living document"-- it's "dead." You can't MAKE it say something that ISN'T there.

    EDIT: I said Alito by mistake. It was Scalia who I have heard say this.

  19. #19
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by AtackDuck View Post
    “Progressives confuse their own cowardice with conviction and syntax with sensibility.” Zed of DBD/ Chris Muir.
    Which is a nice way of saying they like to rewrite history to suit their fancy.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    Which is a nice way of saying they like to rewrite history to suit their fancy.
    I fancy rewriting them into history in a nice way.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •