Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Dont Taz Me Bro, Dec 12, 2010.

  1. Dont Taz Me Bro
    Offline

    Dont Taz Me Bro USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    31,570
    Thanks Received:
    6,677
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Ratings:
    +17,430
    What complete and utter bullshit. Everybody had a gun in those days. They needed it for hunting and they needed them for self defense, particularly with the British at their door step. There weren't local police forces in most places. There were no gun laws at the federal level or even the state level. Gun control wasn't even a term that existed in colonial America.

    Not that his use of foreign laws in making his decisions isn't enough evidence already, this is just further proof that Stephen Breyer is unfit for service on the U.S. Supreme Court.
     
  2. ConHog
    Offline

    ConHog BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Thanks Received:
    897
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +897
    Psst, everyone DID have guns back then, but everyone did NOT have military grade cannons and such. Wonder why that was.

    I thought he gave a good interview. He was merely saying that NO right is absolute, and that the FF couldn't possibly have conceived of every possible future.
     
  3. Intense
    Offline

    Intense Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44,909
    Thanks Received:
    5,849
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,863
    Bullshit! He's hallucinating and babbling. Look at the line up on the opinion.
     
  4. Dont Taz Me Bro
    Offline

    Dont Taz Me Bro USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    31,570
    Thanks Received:
    6,677
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Ratings:
    +17,430
    The case of D.C. v Heller did not involve the request of a resident to own a military grade cannon.
     
  5. ConHog
    Offline

    ConHog BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Thanks Received:
    897
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +897
    I was merely illustrating a point. You just think that all rights should be absolute? Take his example of what if FoxNews wanted to have a show on how to build a bomb? Is that free speech?
     
  6. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,677
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,815

    What he said did not conform to the facts...

    George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights:"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)

    The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)

    The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.

    Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 and members of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)

    Further, I would rather have a Supreme Court Justice who definitively stated that international law did not pertain to any USSC decison....

    "Justice Breyer explained his frustration with those who complain about the Supreme Court potentially looking at other countries when they are resolving cases involving U.S. law. He noted, “I say that's a wonderful political debate. It’s good, but it’s pretty irrelevant because when I do read things, I can read what I want.” While recognizing that the U.S. Constitution is a unique document, he explained that if something has been written “by a man or a woman who has a job like mine in another country, and who is interpreting a document somewhat like mine and who in fact has a problem in front of the Court somewhat like mine, why can’t I read it, see what they’ve done? I might learn something.”
    Justice Watch: Justice Breyer on the Role of International Law
     
  7. Dont Taz Me Bro
    Offline

    Dont Taz Me Bro USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    31,570
    Thanks Received:
    6,677
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Ratings:
    +17,430
    One that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
     
  8. ConHog
    Offline

    ConHog BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Thanks Received:
    897
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +897
    How so? You mentioned his talking about the 2nd Amendment. That opened it up to discussion.

    Oh and PC chick on the matter of international law, I agree with you, it has no place in our courts.
     
  9. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,152
    Thanks Received:
    14,897
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,866
    Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il are all Progressives who had the benefit of unarmed populations.
     
  10. Intense
    Offline

    Intense Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44,909
    Thanks Received:
    5,849
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,863
    Oh well, win some , lose some I guess. Nobody is perfect. ;)
     

Share This Page