Justice Breyer, you are a damned liar.

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
breyer says founders would have allowed restrictions on guns

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.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Breyer said history stands with the dissenters in the court's decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., handgun ban in the 2008 case "D.C. v. Heller."
Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.

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.
Click to expand...

and in appeasing the states, the Second Amendment prohibits the feds from regulating guns, period.
 
Too bad the scotus throughout history disagrees with your acessment of the constitution and what it says.
 
evince said:
Too bad the scotus throughout history disagrees with your acessment of the constitution and what it says.
Click to expand...
Really? Can you point out a decision of theirs that concurs with this statement? All I can find from the SCOTUS is three decisions. Miller, Heller, and Mcdonald. All of which disagree with your assessment, as well as the assessment of justice Breyer
 
The Miller decision(1939)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html
The Heller decision(2008)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
The Mcdonald decision(2010)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Not a single one points towards any sort of regulation that Breyer is talking about. Miller mentions regulating weapons that would not be in keeping with the common defense (at the time the court was apparently unaware of the use of short barreled shotguns by the military), but otherwise is silent on such things. Indeed such language specifically means that military weapons are protected for use by the general population, and as the language in Heller later confirms, so are weapons in common use by the people.
 
Last edited:
So if the SCOTUS disagrees with me then I am wrong? So Dred Scott was right? Plessy v. Ferguson was right? Until Heller, the court had never dealt with the issue of individual gun ownership. The sawed off shotgun case only dealt with whether or not that was a weapon within the meaning of the Second amendment at the time the Amendment was written. Heller was right on the nose. As Lawrence Tribe, one of the most leftist constitutional scholars ever, is want to say, tell me what the difference is between "the people" in the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments. How can you tell that the first and fourth amendment's "people" are individuals, and they are a "collective" in the second?
 
Socrtease said:
So if the SCOTUS disagrees with me then I am wrong?
Click to expand...

That's your stance on discrimination against white males in the form of Affirmative Action programs. In your view, obvious race/gender discrimination isn't obvious race/gender discrimination unless the supremes court says so.

Why do you have situational logic?
 
Threedee said:
Why don't you have situational awareness?
Click to expand...

But i do have situational awareness. Im aware of different things in different situations, due to the perceivable stimuli changing from situation to situation.

But this is unrelated to scrotaltease's legal hypocrisy about discrimination against white males, which he loves so much, and feels is a form of justice.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No it's not. It's an unconstitutional form of race/gender discrimination. But thanks for playing, imbecilic douchebag sniffer.
Click to expand...

When referring to "douche bag sniffer" are you using "douche bag" to refer to the appliance or as a derogatory term for an individual?
 
Stephen Breye betrayed America in not promoting this stance when he was on the bench. Freedom and guns are diametric opposites. There can be no freedom in a world with guns.

The justices who did not argue strongly enough in favor of banning the indisputable and final evil that is handguns should all be executed, for depriving us from the freedom from the ultimate evil that is guns. I cannot wait to kill as many gun owners as possible in the final revolution. Everyone who owns guns is deserv-ed of death. I will enjoy watching them beg me for mercy as I end their undeserved life. :)
 
Last edited:
Toki Wartooth said:
The Miller decision(1939)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html
The Heller decision(2008)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
The Mcdonald decision(2010)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Not a single one points towards any sort of regulation that Breyer is talking about. Miller mentions regulating weapons that would not be in keeping with the common defense (at the time the court was apparently unaware of the use of short barreled shotguns by the military), but otherwise is silent on such things. Indeed such language specifically means that military weapons are protected for use by the general population, and as the language in Heller later confirms, so are weapons in common use by the people.
Click to expand...

So nuclear weapons should be perfectly legal?

If so, then it is a time to draft a constitutional amendment repealing the ultimate deprivation of freedom that is the second amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top