Breyer: Founding Fathers OK w/ Gun Control

Discussion in 'In the News' started by GooberTim, Dec 12, 2010.

  1. GooberTim

    GooberTim New Member

    5,247
    0
    0
    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12 ... z17viwm8nn
     
  2. drtybykr

    drtybykr New Member

    2,823
    1
    0
    Total idiot. He pretty much said he will say that healthcare is constitutional as well.
     

  3. fmlaw1

    fmlaw1 Active Member

    3,721
    0
    36
    To say the least, I respectfully and strongly disagree with His Honer. The article might be missing some info, but the Justice is clearly replacing his intent for that of the Founding Fathers via a massive leap of faith.

    He must believe the Constitution is a "living document" that needs to "evolve" with the changing times. I believe he expresses as much in the article, and in this context, the 2A portion of the Constitution. He is either being intellectually dishonest or plain ignorant to say it is not a matter of policy. It very much is a matter of judicial policy to hold the "living document" school of thought, and interpret original intent in such a manner so that it denies the very right it expressly gave to the citizenry.

    But, I am but a simple man, and he one of the most powerful. What do I know?
     
  4. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    62
    48
    In a dozen minutes, I can come up with a dozen quotes by the Founding Fathers telling exactly how they saw the Second Amendment and the relationship between an armed Citizenry and the government that answers to them.


    The fact that Breyer can't seem to come up with a single quite from the writers of the Constitution speaks volumes.
     
  5. CoffeeMate

    CoffeeMate Junior Butt Warmer

    46,427
    9
    0
    Fixed it for him.
     
  6. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    Yeah, that's why the put a PERIOD at the end of the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd amendment.

    It didn't say, "shall not be infringed, unless walking into a government building, walking into a elementary school, a post office, unless the barrel is a certain length, unless the firearm can fire more than one round on a trigger pull, and unless you pay a tax and submit yourself to training and a full background check to make sure you're not a wife abuser, a druggie, or a felon."

    I love how there are all these liberal judges and supreme court justice that can read such a statement and come up that it means exactly the opposite of what is written there.

    Basically, no apparently means yes to some of these idiot judges, and they do little more than support the decline that we see in our country.

    When you have judges that will literally read the law, and then become activist, and put whatever meaning they want onto words, when words cease to have meaning, then you have tyranny. Plain and simple. These judges are just encouraging and enabling tyrants. Nothing more, nothing less.

    We are partly in this mess because of activist liberal judges. I have no respect for a judge that will take a law, written in plain English that any literate man can read, understand and comprehend, and come up with a meaning that is the exact opposite of the words printed on the page. Its disgusting and a disgrace.

    I do not think our Founding Fathers would have agreed with gun control at all, and if you want my candid opinion, they would have shot and hung the bastards a long time ago.
     
  7. atlsrt44

    atlsrt44 Well-Known Member

    3,473
    179
    63
    this is what scares me. This man and many other believe what they are saying to be true.
     
  8. fmlaw1

    fmlaw1 Active Member

    3,721
    0
    36
    Shocking, but apparently very true.
     
  9. Verbal101

    Verbal101 Active Member

    2,133
    14
    38
    I'm definitely not a follower of the "living document" school of thought. That's just a euphemism for "do as we say."

    Why not just go with what's written? All the rest, including whatever back story Breyer is pushing, is eyewash; political horse $#!+.
     
  10. Hock25

    Hock25 New Member

    4,148
    0
    0
    "How many fingers do you see?" :foilhat:
     
  11. Nail Driver

    Nail Driver New Member

    209
    0
    0
    So under his form of thinking...

    Original intent (by historians) is what should be used to determine how the second amendment should be applied today. HMMMMM...OK lets apply this thinking to the 16th amendment: The original intent was to tax the top 1% of wage earners at 7% of their income. I am sure we all agree that that is how historians would view this right.

    Also since Breyer seems, at least at face value to support the zerOcare plan that things are implied in Article1 section8. So using his thinking Article2 section2 paragraph2;

    :and he shall nominate,and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judgeas of the supreme Court, and all other Officers ot hte United States, PROVIDED THEY ARE NOT COMPLETE IDIOTS!!!

    i THINK HISTORIANS WOULD AGREE
     
  12. CoffeeMate

    CoffeeMate Junior Butt Warmer

    46,427
    9
    0
    I think the top 1% of our wage earners would rejoice at an income tax rate of merely 7%.
     
  13. phantoms

    phantoms Senior Mumbler

    6,148
    168
    63
    Do they believe it to be true, or is it an acceptable (to them) lie they tell to get what they want?
     
  14. CoffeeMate

    CoffeeMate Junior Butt Warmer

    46,427
    9
    0
    Good question.

    "Doing the wrong thing for what you have convinced yourself is the right reason is still doing the wrong thing"