Justice Breyer’s remarks on guns revisionist thinking

Bowling Green Daily News (Ky) ^ | December 14, 2010 | Masthead Editorial

[jdege]

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals;

- The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents, December 12, 1787

[The Comedian]

Look-what's-squatting-on-the-Supreme-Court ping.

(Thanks DuncanWaring for the ping!)

"Enemies Domestic" ping.

Increasing volume ping list monitoring the Leftist/government axis agitprop, psyops, and instigation of violence.

FReepmail me if you want on or off The Comedian's "Enemies Domestic" ping list...

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Eagle Eye]

The Founders never intended arms to be unregulated but they just never got around to doing it??

[Blood of Tyrants]

“What is the scope of the right to keep and bear arms?"

That's easy. Any weapon that can be carried by an infantryman including crew served machine guns is covered by the 2nd Amendment.

[GOP Poet]

lol. sure. i'll confirm. ;-) (at least i think i feel something a goin' side to side back there). hope it is a swinging till the day I die though.

[dajeeps]

Justice Bryer peddles the notion of a ‘living constitution’, code words for it says what he wants it to say. A morally bankrupt belief as our document provides a mechanism for changes to keep it evergreen which does not include the participation of SCOTUS.

We seriously need judicial reform so we can get justices on the bench who can read and comprehend our supreme law of the land that was written in plain and straight forward english for a reason.

This Bryer guy is nothing but a tyrant in a robe.

[Gilbo_3]

squatting ??? only if he has to pee...

[GOP Poet]

Aw, come on! How can you say a thing like that with those three hotties on the court!

lol. Good point! How can !?

[Bellows]

The Constitution doesn't say anything about the right to bear arms being limited to "law abiding citizens". It says "the people". If you're going to talk about what the Constitution "really" means, try not to make stuff up along the way.

[Bellows]

Any weapon that can be carried by an infantryman including crew served machine guns is covered by the 2nd Amendment.

The Constitution doesn't limit the right to bear arms to "any weapon that can be carried by an infantryman". Saying that this must be what the Founding Fathers intended, when they easily could have said exactly that if they'd wanted to (but didn't), isn't any different from any other crackpot interpretation that finds no support in the language of the 2A itself.

[Bellows]

"The term “regulated” applied to clocks means “accurate in keeping time”. It made sense, particularly in 18th Century armies, to have to pay a lot of attention to how well soldiers could operate in massed formations."

This would be a fine interpretation if the 2A were talking about the need for regular practice in mass formations. But it doesn't, and your explanation bears no relationship to the other language of the 2A. The need for well coordinated mass formations being being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? This rings "most true" to you? Really?

[Blood of Tyrants]

No, it doesn’t. But any other larger weapons are generally covered under the clause that allows the federal government to issue Letters of Marque.

[Gargantua]

"The Constitution doesn't say anything about the right to bear arms being limited to "law abiding citizens".

No, it doesn't. I put that in there, just as did John Adams, when he said "This Constitution is intended solely for a moral (i.e., law abiding!) and religious people, for if a man will not obey God's laws, who can expect him to respect the Laws of Men?

See, the Founders expected a few things from us. To be morally upright. To use our God-given brains. To employ, and apply, common sense.

So while the Constitution doesn't "spell out" "law abiding," it most certainly implies it, or else what good is it to even have a "Constitution" (a list of "laws") in the first place? You simpering chimpanzee!!

I can't believe you're really that cravenly, vilely ignorant. Are you?

[Gargantua]

I want on the list. Thank you.

Merry Christmas, Comic.

8^D

[The Comedian]

You're on the list, Tarantula! ;-)

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Gargantua]

I can't explain it, and I make no apology... but every time you call me that, I just want to take my smoothest stone to the already scalpel-like edge of my K-Bar...

:0)

[archy]

Breyer is an assh*le, because he knows this to be true, and he lies to further his radical agenda. He should have his neck stretched after being found guilty of Treason before a jury of his betters.

U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Yep. Seems to fit exactly as the authors of the Constitution stated.

[Bellows]

"This Constitution is intended solely for a moral (i.e., law abiding!) and religious people....

So in your view only religious and moral people are entitled to Constitutional rights. This just gets better and better. No wonder you find it necessary to lace your posts with personal insults.

[Gargantua]

I can envision the drool running through your rotted teeth and down your unshaven chin to stain your bib-overalls, eyes squinting as you struggle to come up with this clever little gem.

That's actually a quote from John Adams (one of America's Founding Fathers and authors of "The Constitution,"). It refers to those who will likely be guided by the document, and constrained by its laws, not those who are "entitled to" its provisions.

It's a fairly obvious distinction to anyone with a functioning brain, or who isn't addled from years of swilling 'shine. There's a good hick. Better luck next time.

;-\