Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns - FoxNews.com

[right winger]

This is the mentality of Obama's Supreme Court nominees,now Justices.
This is the mentality millions of legal gun owners are fighting.
Elections Have Consequences.Think before you vote.

Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns - FoxNews.com

 

[Roadie]

What's next? The argument that the Founding Fathers could not have imagined telephones and the Internet as means of communications, so the 1st can be restricted on those?

The mind boggles

 

[thompal]

What's next? The argument that the Founding Fathers could not have imagined telephones and the Internet as means of communications, so the 1st can be restricted on those?

The mind boggles

Yes it does. Read some Lysander Spooner.

 

[Bill of Rights]

This is the mentality of Obama's Supreme Court nominees,now Justices.
This is the mentality millions of legal gun owners are fighting.
Elections Have Consequences.Think before you vote.

[quote="Justice" Stephen Breyer]Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on (government ownership of) Guns

[/quote]

Fixed that for you, Stevie-boy. You can play with the words all you like, but the obvious intent of Mr. Madison was to comply with the wishes of the majority of freemen of the several states, most of whom had placed the RKBA in their own state Constitutions. Don't forget that before the US Constitution, the states were supreme over the central gov't. To think that the people would have voluntarily ceded power over their means of feeding their families, protecting their homes, serving in the local militias, and, as the Declaration of Independence puts it, "to pursue their right, their duty, to throw off unjust government" would be laughable if it was not so bloody tragic coming from the quisling uttering it. Personally, I'd like to see the four "Justices" who voted against Heller, the new one who voted against McDonald, the current leaders of the two Houses of Congress, and the current occupant of the office of the President all impeached, tried, and convicted, both in the Congress and then in the courts.

Seems to me that someone just wants to sell a few more copies of his book and doesn't care to what depths he must stoop to do so.

IMHO, whale is not so low as that.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[wtfd661]

I wonder what the founding fathers would've thought about the current crop of politicians and Supreme Court Justices

 

[Bill of Rights]

I wonder what the founding fathers would've thought about the current crop of politicians and Supreme Court Justices

I can only guess that they would have thought it was time for:

• a tarring and feathering
• a hanging -------or
• a trip to the wall, with a cigarette and a blindfold

in many cases.

A few might be able to get by with just being removed from office.

Just my guess, though.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jeremy]

LOL...
Really the Libtards actually think that...
Sigh...

 

[kludge]

The Founders had printing presses that could only copy one sheet of paper at a time before a new sheet paper had to be inserted in to the printing press, therefore Xerox machines that could hold two whole reams of paper in the "copier feeding device" and make 500 copies with "one press of the copy button" can't possibly be what they meant when they wrote the protections of speech and press in the First Amendment.

 

[ghostinthewood]

I wonder how quickly I would get banned if I called conservatives names? Hmm...

Anywho, back in moderate land, I dont think the founding fathers were mystics. I dont think they could see the future, and they knew they couldnt. I dont see what the problem is with the way things are now (save some caveats). You can still get a lot of the weapons the government can (how you go about it can be where the nit picky stuff comes in). Law abiding citizens can generally still get weapons. I dont know much about class 3, but last I knew it was a $200 tax on a silencer. Its a chunk of change, but I dont know if you guys know this or not...but guns can get expensive quickly.

On the other hand, the 2nd amendment explicitly says right to bear arms. It doesn't say, selective right to bear arms. If people wanted to be anal, it doesn't say everything the government has. I don't buy in to that type of thinking, I'm just playing the devil's advocate.

So my opinion, a little regulation is fine. If it's still possible, and probable (thats the real problem but thats another topic) for people to get weapons then its fine by me. However, I think this guy will take it too far since he seems shady. I just wanted to stir things up and see how many times I get called "libtard" for being moderate...

 

[MTC]

To paraphrase, "It's a Constititional Republic, if you can keep it."
Some don't want to keep it.

Breyer calls his book Making Our Democracy Work.

As far as his and other collective(ist) interpretations of the 2nd Amendment...
What always struck me was the sheer amount of intellectual dishonesty required to shovel such horse in an effort to find a way around a fundamental, specifically enumerated constitutional right, by redefining the right out of existence.

LOL...
Really the Libtards actually think that...
Sigh...

Well, the dupes among them, anyway. Those actually pushing the collective rights interpretations of the 2nd Amendment see in it a way to impose or uphold new or existing statutory infringements that they like on the RKBA. Some of them even post on gun forums. It comes out one way or the other in their initial or subsequent posts. For example, whenever someone prefaces his remarks with phrases like...
"I'm all for constitutional carry, but..." or
"I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but... [hint: no, you're not]

...it's a dead giveaway, and you can bet the next thing out of his mouth (or keyboard) will be some sort of rationalization for infringement, especially with regard to licensing and registration of the entire adult population of a given area, state or the whole nation, as a precondition to the purchase, ownership, or carrying of arms. This is nearly always done under the pretext of "public safety".

Those who view constitutional right to keep and bear arms provisions with an eye toward infringement attempt to get around the plain text meaning by redefining the terms according to the restrictions they want, then working backwards to get people to "reasonably" compromise away their birthright as an American.

 

[mrjarrell]

What's next? The argument that the Founding Fathers could not have imagined telephones and the Internet as means of communications, so the 1st can be restricted on those?

The mind boggles

Shoot, we've got people here on INGO that make arguments against the 2nd, 1st, 4th and other amendments all the time. How's it surprising that a left leaning justice does the same?

 

[indykid]

I have said this many times in many forums, and will say it one more time. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That does not restrict barrel length, overall length, number of rounds per trigger pull, weight, color, configuration, or anything else.

I can't see where reasonable restrictions come into play, or any restrictions for that matter. Shall not be infringed is pretty straight forward.

 

[ghostinthewood]

I have said this many times in many forums, and will say it one more time. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That does not restrict barrel length, overall length, number of rounds per trigger pull, weight, color, configuration, or anything else.

I can't see where reasonable restrictions come into play, or any restrictions for that matter. Shall not be infringed is pretty straight forward.

For the record, I think those type of (AWB) restrictions are unreasonable.

I'm just saying I dont see anything wrong with FFL/Class 2/3. Some stuff is more dangerous, you pay a fee and you give up your info. If you're a law abiding citizen then there's no problem. If the government comes to take your weapons, you have weapons to fight back with anyway. =o Like i said, there are minor things that are a PITA or unreasonable involving those things, but in general I think we have a system that works. (In Indiana). Hawaii, Chicago, and DC did/do not. Ha. I also realize that I'm lumping up the Feds and State. Its just easier to speak in general..

 

[gunowner930]

I wonder how quickly I would get banned if I called conservatives names? Hmm...

Anywho, back in moderate land, I dont think the founding fathers were mystics. I dont think they could see the future, and they knew they couldnt. I dont see what the problem is with the way things are now (save some caveats). You can still get a lot of the weapons the government can (how you go about it can be where the nit picky stuff comes in). Law abiding citizens can generally still get weapons. I dont know much about class 3, but last I knew it was a $200 tax on a silencer. Its a chunk of change, but I dont know if you guys know this or not...but guns can get expensive quickly.

On the other hand, the 2nd amendment explicitly says right to bear arms. It doesn't say, selective right to bear arms. If people wanted to be anal, it doesn't say everything the government has. I don't buy in to that type of thinking, I'm just playing the devil's advocate.

So my opinion, a little regulation is fine. If it's still possible, and probable (thats the real problem but thats another topic) for people to get weapons then its fine by me. However, I think this guy will take it too far since he seems shady. I just wanted to stir things up and see how many times I get called "libtard" for being moderate...

I'm not an expert on Class III either. a $200 permission slip from the government for a suppressor is absurd. Yes. citizens can still get automatic weapons. But you can't legally own new automatic weapons because of the Hughes Amendment. This has driven prices through the roof and out of out of reach for many Americans that may want automatic weapons. Is this reasonable regulation?

 

[singlestacksig]

the framers of the constitution did see large jumps in weapon technology, lowgbows Crossbows - rifles - improvements in cannon..
all those steps had been outlawed by one government or another..
So if they wanted limits, they would have put those limits on some of the current day weapons..

 

[ghostinthewood]

Would you like for those things to be cheap? o.O

The $200 bit doesn't sit well with me, but I dont think it's absurd. It's a very good argument to say that gun licenses would only stop law abiding citizens. Sure I buy that, but automatic weapons? I don't think people shouldn't have a way to get them, nor do I think the prices should be unreasonable, but I don't think they should be easy to come by either..

I buy in to the argument of "well if I have a gun, i can shoot someone with a gun."

However, its harder for me to swallow..."well if I have a gau mounted to my truck, I can stop someone else with a gau mounted to their truck."

 

[Que]

This is the mentality of [STRIKE]Obama's[/STRIKE] Clinton's Supreme Court nominees,now Justices.
This is the mentality millions of legal gun owners are fighting.
Elections Have Consequences.Think before you vote.

Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns - FoxNews.com

I agree with you overall, but Breyer was not an Obama nominee.

 

[miguel]

Would you like for those things to be cheap? o.O

Yes.

 

[gunowner930]

Would you like for those things to be cheap? o.O

The $200 bit doesn't sit well with me, but I dont think it's absurd. It's a very good argument to say that gun licenses would only stop law abiding citizens. Sure I buy that, but automatic weapons? I don't think people shouldn't have a way to get them, nor do I think the prices should be unreasonable, but I don't think they should be easy to come by either..

I buy in to the argument of "well if I have a gun, i can shoot someone with a gun."

However, its harder for me to swallow..."well if I have a gau mounted to my truck, I can stop someone else with a gau mounted to their truck."

If automatic weapons were still being produced they would be affordable for an average citizen. Again, I'm not that familiar with Class III weapons but a quick google search yielded a M16A1 for $19,500.

Machineguns | M16 Rifles for Sale | Thousands of Machine Guns, Semi Automatic Rifles, Handguns, and Accessories | Huge Selection

A friend of mine waited months to get a suppressor for his AR after paying the $200 stamp. $200 on something as simple as a suppressor and months of waiting is absurd.

 

[Garb]

Would you like for those things to be cheap? o.O

The $200 bit doesn't sit well with me, but I dont think it's absurd. It's a very good argument to say that gun licenses would only stop law abiding citizens. Sure I buy that, but automatic weapons? I don't think people shouldn't have a way to get them, nor do I think the prices should be unreasonable, but I don't think they should be easy to come by either..

I buy in to the argument of "well if I have a gun, i can shoot someone with a gun."

However, its harder for me to swallow..."well if I have a gau mounted to my truck, I can stop someone else with a gau mounted to their truck."

I think you misunderstand the function of the second amendment.