Justice Breyer's view on The Second Amendment

[woodandsteel]

Apparenlty the Founding Fathers didn't mean it when they authored The Second Amendment.

From his interview with Fox News;
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/12/breyer-founding-fathers-allowed-restrictions-guns/


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."

Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said

Yep! The General Elction in 2012 is very important, if for no other reason than to keep The U.S. Supreme Court from moving any farther left.

[bkb0000]

"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."

amazing how they manage to completely skirt the real issues.

[theblackknight]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWxRnK751MM

Id like to cripple this smug asshole.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I had a choice between watching the SCOTUS scrotum or Bloomberg. Talk about the lesser of two evils, or the evil of two lessers.

I thought Beyers was very well spoken, but came across a bit condescending. His specific arguements seemed to be non sequitors, but his point about values being the guiding light for interpreting the constitution could play well with people, especially if they like the background. He seemed to imply that the conservative look of the court is just a passing politcal fancy.

Interesting that he took the quote from a Rabi that there is an objective right and wrong but then muddled that message be saying judges could see different right and wrong to each other. So much for universal truths.

Hope the next president singles him out as a dumb-ass at the State of Union and calls him a dumb-ass. See how he likes that Freedom of Speech.

Seemed like a typical egghead who hides behind theory and tailored arguements, even when you can prove him wrong. If I were Wallace I would have gone after him for his dissenting positions being 'wrong' and when he tried to defend them go after him for not admitting he was fallible. Make him point out s decision he got wrong.

[theblackknight]

telling DC residents who wish to protect their homes to simply hop a train to Maryland sounds like a modern "Let them Eat Cake" to me.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sdop6KEGRM4/S-4QujvvXpI/AAAAAAAAAXs/vKiowgCsDOE/s1600/Smug.jpg

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

It was not OK to put blacks in the back of the bus, and I can't even get on the bus with my black gun.


The two questions I always wanted to ask Obama is "What do you have against black guns, and what did your mother have against white guys?"

[500grains]

Breyer has a whole bunch of short circuits in that blob he calls a brain.

[variablebinary]

This is just an extension of the "living breathing document" philosophy, where the Constitution is molded to meet modern political goals, rather than preserving original intent.

And I didn't know Madison was the end all, be all of determining the intent of the founders when it comes to the 2nd.

Breyer strikes me as just another academic liberal twat. Lots of words, little substance. This is a direct contrast to someone like Justice Thomas, who speaks very little, but tends to direct, and not concerned with modern political goals.

"Get on the subway"? Are you freaking kidding me

Also, I was reminded of how disrespectful Obama was to the high court during the state of the union. In very poor taste.

[GermanSynergy]

During the SOTU, he could have had Clinton take over, saying he had a dinner party to attend or something. :laugh:


This is just an extension of the "living breathing document" philosophy, where the Constitution is molded to meet modern political goals, rather than preserving original intent.

And I didn't know Madison was the end all, be all of determining the intent of the founders when it comes to the 2nd.

Breyer strikes me as just another academic liberal twat. Lots of words, little substance. This is a direct contrast to someone like Justice Thomas, who speaks very little, but tends to direct, and not concerned with modern political goals.

"Get on the subway"? Are you freaking kidding me

Also, I was reminded of how disrespectful Obama was to the high court during the state of the union. In very poor taste.

[Palmguy]

This is just an extension of the "living breathing document" philosophy, where the Constitution is molded to meet modern political goals, rather than preserving original intent.

And I didn't know Madison was the end all, be all of determining the intent of the founders when it comes to the 2nd.

Breyer strikes me as just another academic liberal twat. Lots of words, little substance. This is a direct contrast to someone like Justice Thomas, who speaks very little, but tends to direct, and not concerned with modern political goals.

"Get on the subway"? Are you freaking kidding me

Also, I was reminded of how disrespectful Obama was to the high court during the state of the union. In very poor taste.

Saw this comment on another forum...I think Breyer's argument about Madison's intent kind of works against him...


"Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said."

Without even arguing his point and just taking it at face value, it's clear he's aware that without inclusion of the Second Amendment, the states would have held the line and refused to ratify the Constitution.

The very ratification of the Constitution hinging on the inclusion of the Second Amendment, it is inconceivable that those founders would have supported controls on arms.

When the British came to Lexington/Concord to seize the armories, they got shot and the war was on. Were that mindset not acceptable to the population, those in charge could have later surrendered the armories and apologized for the actions of the crazed "gun loving" rabble. Instead, they went out and, using their firearms, shot a whole bunch more British and continued doing so for years.

Some people just read what they want into things.

As he's busting out the Madison, I'll close with Madison as well;

"I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution."

[variablebinary]

During the SOTU, he could have had Clinton take over, saying he had a dinner party to attend or something. :laugh:

Jesus Christ. Can you personally recall anytime in your lifetime when a sitting president basically ceded authority to a previous President.

Its not for me to criticize the president, and normally I don't because he is the CIC, but come on. Ceding presidential authority is just...I don't even know what it is.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

When they remake "The Fountianhead" movie, they should use Breyer as a prototype for Elsworth Touhey.

[500grains]

Its not for me to criticize the president, and normally I don't because he is the CIC, but come on. Ceding presidential authority is just...I don't even know what it is.

Why shouldn't he cede authority? He usurped that authority in the first place.

[Belmont31R]

The liberals on the court use every opportunity to circumvent the original intent.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html




ETA: All of his arguments are full of fail. When the 2nd was ratified people owned cannons and mortars which are more powerful and destructive than any small arms today they think should be regulated. Even the old huge French black powder mortars from the 1700's could lob huge shells a good distance. Hate to point to a movie but in the new Last of the Mohicans they showed the French mortars.



Also in the 1700's people do not grasp the fact there were several different types of muskets in various calibers. Im not a musket expert but they ranged from calibers in the 30's and up. The lower caliber muskets were mainly used for hunting small game, and the bigger ones for large game and for military use. That would seem to invalidate the "hunting guns" vs. "military guns" argument since the guns our founders used were ideal for military service, and were not used for most hunting.


If you also go back to the start of the war...Lexington and Concorde....that was started for British red coats attempting to seize military style arms and powder caches from the colonists. Seems hardly worth an argument to say the 2nd is about sporting purposes and hunting when the war started over the attempted seizure of military guns and components. Another great example of our founders shooting the statist ****wads in the face.

[Belmont31R]

Shot in the face:

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/10/62610-050-C4D0B146.jpg

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I'd love to see Krauthammer interview Breyer. Charles has this way of seeing thru the BS of an argument and taking things to their base truth. At the same time you can't snow him with facts and details that are misleading, he doesn't get snowed.

Breyer says that the 2A is a collective right, but when people collect and try to exert their 1A rights he gets his robes in a bunch.

[The_War_Wagon]

Breyer should stick to making ice cream. :rolleyes:

Leave the mental heavy-lifting of constitutional law, to those with IQ's higher than a houseplant. :mad:

[GermanSynergy]

I'm with you. In fact, I was discussing this incident with a very left wing family member yesterday. Even she was at a loss for words.


Jesus Christ. Can you personally recall anytime in your lifetime when a sitting president basically ceded authority to a previous President.

Its not for me to criticize the president, and normally I don't because he is the CIC, but come on. Ceding presidential authority is just...I don't even know what it is.

[Bolt_Overide]

what a ****wit.