• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...hers-allowed-restrictions-guns/#ixzz17vzeJtiE

<snip>
If you look at the values and the historical record, you will see that the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer contended Sunday.


<snip>
"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?" he asked. "Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don't think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun."


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...hers-allowed-restrictions-guns/#ixzz17vzeJtiE
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Nonsense...

This should demonstrate that a one term O presidency may result in the court moving more in favor of individual liberties. Breyer and Ginsburg are both 72 and on the liberal wing. Ginsburg has had health issues in the past and may be seeking retirement in the next 6-10 years. A two term GOP president begining in 2012 may tip the scales by 2020.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...hers-allowed-restrictions-guns/#ixzz17vzeJtiE

<snip>
If you look at the values and the historical record, you will see that the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer contended Sunday.


<snip>
"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?" he asked. "Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don't think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun."


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...hers-allowed-restrictions-guns/#ixzz17vzeJtiE


After all, they are the Progressive ELITISTS who know all and we sheep simply know nothing. The people are to stupid to know that what we (progressives) are doing is for their own good.

Yep, the Founding Fathers wanted gun control so much the 2nd amendment makes the case by stating...."... the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" (emphasis mine).
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
After all, they are the Progressive ELITISTS who know all and we sheep simply know nothing. The people are to stupid to know that what we (progressives) are doing is for their own good.

Yep, the Founding Fathers wanted gun control so much the 2nd amendment makes the case by stating...."... the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" (emphasis mine).

No but wait that is to be interpretative don't you know? (Sarcasm)

The only problem is conservative make anti-liberty decisions too usually in favor of authority and control.
 

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
No but wait that is to be interpretative don't you know? (Sarcasm)

The only problem is conservative make anti-liberty decisions too usually in favor of authority and control.

Not only that, but oft times they say one thing to get elected and do the opposite once they're in office. "An honest politician" is an oxymoron any more.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
This should demonstrate that a one term O presidency may result in the court moving more in favor of individual liberties. Breyer and Ginsburg are both 72 and on the liberal wing. Ginsburg has had health issues in the past and may be seeking retirement in the next 6-10 years. A two term GOP president begining in 2012 may tip the scales by 2020.


The above quote is just packed with wishful thinking. There will be no (R) in the WH, not for at least six more years.
 

daddy4count

Regular Member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
513
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
I am all for gun control... where it does not infringe on a law abiding citizens right and ability to legally acquire a firearm.

I have no problem keeping guns out of the hands of those society has deemed dangerous, mentally handicapped, or otherwise proven they should not be trusted with a weapon.

Sadly the politicians see only one form of gun control...
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
I am all for gun control... where it does not infringe on a law abiding citizens right and ability to legally acquire a firearm.

I have no problem keeping guns out of the hands of those society has deemed dangerous, mentally handicapped, or otherwise proven they should not be trusted with a weapon.

Sadly the politicians see only one form of gun control...

Who in society gets to determine who is dangerious, mentally handicapped or should not be trusted with a weapon? You are already sliding down the slippery slope the only thing left to determine is how fast will you slide. Shall not be infringed, remember.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Fundamentally wrong.

I am all for gun control... where it does not infringe on a law abiding citizens right and ability to legally acquire a firearm.

I have no problem keeping guns out of the hands of those society has deemed dangerous, mentally handicapped, or otherwise proven they should not be trusted with a weapon.

Sadly the politicians see only one form of gun control...

Fundamentally wrong.

I have no problem keeping those in society who are deemed dangerous, mentally hadicapped or otherwise proven they should not be trusted....

....OUT OF SOCIETY.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
+1.

If an individual is dangerous, they are so whether or not they are armed. It's not the tool that creates the danger.

But it is the tool that aids in the degree of danger they are able to be. A crazed maniac with a butter knife is less lethal that a crazed maniac armed with an AR. The person creates the danger but the tool they choose to use determines how dangerous they are actually going to be.
 
Last edited:

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
But it is the tool that aids in the degree of danger they are able to be. A crazed maniac with a butter knife is less lethal that a crazed maniac armed with an AR. The person creates the danger but the tool they choose to use determines how dangerous they are actually going to be.

Yet it is not the tool that makes them dangerous. A crazed maniac behind the wheel of a bus could do more damage than crazed maniacs with an AR & Butcher knife combined. IF the person is a danger, they should not be in society.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Yet it is not the tool that makes them dangerous. A crazed maniac behind the wheel of a bus could do more damage than crazed maniacs with an AR & Butcher knife combined. IF the person is a danger, they should not be in society.

I agree! Just reading in the times, a man that has been attacking women in the park...All of these nonsense laws and I have a .20 cent solution...heck...10 cents if we reload!
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
I agree! Just reading in the times, a man that has been attacking women in the park...All of these nonsense laws and I have a .20 cent solution...heck...10 cents if we reload!

I would support legislation that also makes the criminal financially liable for any expense incurred by the victim in the victim's own defense including projectiles expended, payable by the criminal's "estate" upon his demise in the act. Could be a problem tho if you hit him with a Ming vase....
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I would support legislation that also makes the criminal financially liable for any expense incurred by the victim in the victim's own defense including projectiles expended, payable by the criminal's "estate" upon his demise in the act. Could be a problem tho if you hit him with a Ming vase....


Probably save the fine china for the feast that follows. Successful self-defense situations should be celebrated.
 

Jayd1981

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Richland, Washington, USA
But it is the tool that aids in the degree of danger they are able to be. A crazed maniac with a butter knife is less lethal that a crazed maniac armed with an AR. The person creates the danger but the tool they choose to use determines how dangerous they are actually going to be.

I would support that view if anyone can come up with a law that has actually prevented a criminal from getting a gun. Until we can find one that prevents crime, the only solution I can see is to remove the person from society also.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
This should demonstrate that a one term O presidency may result in the court moving more in favor of individual liberties. Breyer and Ginsburg are both 72 and on the liberal wing. Ginsburg has had health issues in the past and may be seeking retirement in the next 6-10 years. A two term GOP president begining in 2012 may tip the scales by 2020.

Unless one of these Justices also notice what you are pointing out. They may well decide to resign so BO can keep the current "balance" on the Court by appointing another "Liberal Moron". Ginsburg may have another "medical emergency" and decide to resign while she's sure her replacement will be selected by another 'looney liberal' like her.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
I would support that view if anyone can come up with a law that has actually prevented a criminal from getting a gun. Until we can find one that prevents crime, the only solution I can see is to remove the person from society also.

There are several laws that have prevented criminals from getting guns. It's often those so called "law abiding citizens" that go around the law to make a little profit that result in many criminals getting guns. Not all guns in the possession of criminals were stolen.

Look at recent news here in the Puget Sound area. The law would have kept guns away from criminals IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

The "Instant Check" (which is part of a law) does stop criminals from purchasing guns from legitimate sources. Between November 1998 and November 2010, over 800,000 sales were denied to various "restricted" parties.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ni...ed because not everyone can use common sense.
 
Last edited:

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
No but wait that is to be interpretative don't you know? (Sarcasm)

The only problem is conservative make anti-liberty decisions too usually in favor of authority and control.

This is why we aren't looking for "conservative" judges vs "liberal" judges. We are looking for judges who will follow original intent.

Thomas Sowell wrote an excellent piece called Judicial Activism Reconsidered in which he discusses the writings of Blackstone and Holmes on how and when to "interpret" the Constitution. The main thrust of their arguments was that if the meaning of the words is clear "according to the definitions and common understanding of the words at the time of the writing of the article or legislation" then NO interpretation is needed. Doesn't matter what they were thinking, just what they wrote. Only if the meaning was unclear was a justice to try to determine from context the meaning of the statute, and only if that meaning was still unclear was the motivation of the legislators to be used to attempt to divine context. Blackstone laid out a hierarchy of steps that he felt should be used in any analysis of legislation.

If judges, conservative or liberal, would rule by original intent I wouldn't care by whom they were nominated or what their personal views were. Holmes frequently ruled against actions by people who he had supported in their elective bids because he understood that it was his knowledge of the law, not his beliefs that were relevant to his position on the bench.

If you want to read the article you can download or read it here Judicial Activism Reconsidered
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
The "Instant Check" (which is part of a law) does stop criminals from purchasing guns from legitimate sources. Between November 1998 and November 2010, over 800,000 sales were denied to various "restricted" parties.

Any idea how many of those 800,000 were people who are allowed to own firearms but an error on the part of the NICS system falsely denied their application? You cite a statistic from the FBI's website on use of the NICS system, but I have seen other figures that suggest that a significant number of those 800,000 were denied incorrectly and later allowed to purchase their firearms. Just can't remember where I saw that info or how many it was.
 
Top