It ain't over yet ...

[Guest CJK]

Stark reminder that Heller was but a single victory; the war's far from over:

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

[eapking]

I doubt it. They had cannons and the like back then. Did the FF's disqualify them from the 2A? No.

"Where do you draw the line?" is as applicable a question then, as it is now.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That was a good interview, enjoyed hearing his

comments. He was probably right in saying Madison

would agree with him, but I don't recall him using

anyone else's name. It was a rare event seeing a

justice interviewed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1gewehr]

Breyer absolutely cannot accept that the Constitution says anything he does not agree with. He will twist and miscontrue words until he can convince himself that the plain language of the Consitution say something entirely opposite of what it clearly does say.

How can the 2nd amendment, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", be twisted to add the phrase "except as the Federal Government desires."? Breyer is exactly the guy to figure out the answer to that question!

Until 1934, Americans had every right to own anything in the Army or Navy arsenal without having to ask anyone's permission. In fact, prior to WWI, it was very common for American merchant ships to have light cannon mounted. Back then there were pirates in some areas of Africa and Asia (just like now). Back then, pirates knew better than to attack American ships!

At the beginning of the War Between the States, most of the field artillery used by both the Northern and Southern armies was privately owned. Both sides also impressed privately-owned armed ships into their navies. The Thompson Submachine Gun was marketed to corporations and individuals in the period following WWI. For that matter, so was the Browning Automatic Rifle.

The concept that the Federal Government has ANY right to regulate firearms is a very recent development. Even the 1934 National Firearms Act was a TAX Act, as it was believed that any other form of regulation was blatantly in violation of the 2nd amendment. Even so, several lower courts found that it was un-Constitutional as it was an infringement on our right to keep and bear arms.

If 'Justice' Breyer told me it was snowing, I'd assume he was lying until I checked it for myself.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

He says that the framers could not have envisioned this or that which is reasonable enough but I am pretty sure they never would have envisioned the Gov acting like they do now either.

[Guest Jamie]

He says that the framers could not have envisioned this or that which is reasonable enough but I am pretty sure they never would have envisioned the Gov acting like they do now either.

I pretty sure they envisioned that very thing, therefore the "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

I pretty sure they envisioned that very thing, therefore the "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

OK I'll give ya that much.

But then what they did not envision was that the populace would get lazy and not pay attention to what the Gov was doing for so long that it allowed things to get as bad as they have.

Freedom was a new concept to those folks and they intended to keep it, and for the most part we have. But as this country grew and became stronger and stronger people no longer paid attention and took it all for granted, now folks are looking around wondering just what the heck happened to some of the freedoms that we did have and are worried about what may happen to what we have left.

But....

Remember that it was only 3% or so of the people that even cared enough even back then. I really have to wonder if that percentage would actually be any higher today than it was back then if push ever became shove. I would like to think that it would be much higher but it is amazing what people will give up if you promise them the moon.

Kinda like the 08 election where people did not pay attention to experience, past relationships and such things because they were promised "Change you can believe in" a simple phrase that has no real content or value. They certainly didnt understand or care what "fundamental change" meant.

The question is...would the majority of the people rather have Freedom or FreeStuff, and I submitt that far too many these days would rather have the free stuff than to stand up for freedom.

[Guest Jamie]

But then what they did not envision was that the populace would get lazy and not pay attention to what the Gov was doing for so long that it allowed things to get as bad as they have.

Here's the problem... you can give people the tools they need to do what needs doing. BUT... you can't give them the skill to use them, the motivation to use them, or the wisdom to recognize that they NEED to use them.

... and then there's the habit far too many people have of trading off things they might need later for some shiny something-or-other that catches their eye right now.

No, in the end I think the founding fathers did what they could, but recognized that it would be up to future generations to do what was needed. It's just too bad that the future generation turned out to be little better than what the founding fathers fought so hard to escape. But then history should have taught them that lesson too.

Edit: BTW, that 3% figure only confirms what I've long suspected... that 97% of the people on this planet should be shot. And quickly.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Jamie

[Chucktshoes]

One this to take comfort in, using the 3% rule, that means if it came down to it, over 9,000,000 people here in the US would stand and fight.

[Dolomite_supafly]

One this to take comfort in, using the 3% rule, that means if it came down to it, over 9,000,000 people here in the US would stand and fight.

Yeah but there are a lot more than that who would fight those 9,000,000 if told to if they were told they would lose their government benefits if they didn't. There isn't a state in the US that doesn't have at least 3% of its population on the government tit with some having much, much more. In September of last year over 50 million (16+% of the US population) received some sort of benefit from the government and that number has no doubt increased since then because of the economy.

There is already a large population that believe they are entitled to a portion of what we have and all they need is permission to take it.

Dolomite

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I said it was an interesting interview, not that I agreed with him. They had a snippet of Roberts

at a law school.

[LagerHead]

Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.

Because Madison was the sole decision maker regarding the Constitution. No other "framer" had anything to do with it.

[zgunbear]

How many of those that are dependant on the government have the means and fortitude to take on the 3%

[E4 No More]

Since when does Madison constitute the Founding Fathers anyway? Man it is a stretch to take what one person may have felt and translate that to mean everyone felt that way.

[Dolomite_supafly]

How many of those that are dependant on the government have the means and fortitude to take on the 3%

They are shooting and killing each other every day in the inner cities, maybe as bad here as other places but it still happens. It isn't much of a stretch for them to turn their sights on someone other than a rival gang especially if they think they can get away with it. Also consider this, they have been living in war zones a lot longer than most of us and this has become a way of life for some. If it came down to loosing their benefits or pulling a trigger I suspect they would have no problems doing the later.

As far as equipment to do it. They are just as well equipped as most gun owners and probably better. They have body armor as well as the same weapons we have. At a show last year I saw several thug types buying up every drum mag they could for their AK's.

Dolomite

[mikegideon]

Edit: BTW, that 3% figure only confirms what I've long suspected... that 97% of the people on this planet should be shot. And quickly.

Damn! I'm gonna need more ammo.

[Guest HexHead]

Of course he thinks "historians" would agree with him. Most are liberal, academic eggheads who spend their lives sequestered in gun free zones.

[Guest Jamie]

Damn! I'm gonna need more ammo.

97 rounds should handle your share. You'll only need more if you're gonna cover for some of the slackers.

... or if you think you'll miss a lot.

[mikegideon]

97 rounds should handle your share. You'll only need more if you're gonna cover for some of the slackers.

... or if you think you'll miss a lot.

I got that much living in PMAGs aready. Don't plan on missing much.

[Guest CJK]

Of course he thinks "historians" would agree with him. Most are liberal, academic eggheads who spend their lives sequestered in gun free zones.

I am sure he means those revisionist historians who think (as he does) that the Framers couldn't possibly have REALLY meant what they quite plainly wrote.

BTW, there are plenty of non-liberal, 2A-supporting historians too. My brother is one of them, in fact. Unfortunately, just as with the anti-gun movement in general, they so shrilly trumpet their views that the sheeple frequently come to believe their opinions are the majority view.

[JAB]

Since when does Madison constitute the Founding Fathers anyway? Man it is a stretch to take what one person may have felt and translate that to mean everyone felt that way.

Especially when something written in support of the Second Amendment by that one person (The Federalist #46) explains why the Second Amendment is a good thing, says nothing about 'reasonable restrictions' and, in fact, argues against the same. It doesn't matter why he wrote the paper - whether to get support for the Constitution or not - he did write it and he did clearly come out in support of the ideas that:

1. Militia means any and all able-bodied citizens and has no component, whatsoever, that requires any sort of formal, military service or affiliation and

2. The main reason for the Amendment is so that the people - not the National Guard, not the Army, not the cops but the PEOPLE can and will have the means to resist tyranny.

The only way that #2 could have even a reasonable chance of success in today's world would be if the PEOPLE have immediate access to 'military' type weapons. In other words, the 2A protects the very weapons that 'reasonable restrictions' would ban or limit - full auto, armor piercing ammo, high capacity magazines, etc. - even more than it protects a .357 revolver or a deer rifle (although the latter could certainly be pressed into service if necessary, as well.)

This is based on what Madison said/wrote, not on a bunch of BS that some old liberal judge fantasizes Madison might have believed. Further, it is just more arrogance on the part of an appointed-for-life Justice who thoroughly believes that he and his fellow Justices - being so much more 'advanced' in their thinking than the common, American riff-raff that they rule...er...'serve' - should be able to throw out both history and the Constitution in order to legislate from the bench whenever the Constitution inconveniently disagrees with their ideals. If he can't support his argument with evidence based on what Madison and the other Founders actually said and wrote, he'll tell you how Madison really felt (even though that disagrees with what the man wrote and said) and get a bunch of so-called 'historians' - somehow equally gifted with abilities both psychic and necromantic as he seems to believe himself to be - to support his hogwash.

Edited December 14, 2010 by JAB

[Worriedman]

+1