(Thanks DuncanWaring for the ping!)
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 12/16/2010 10:07:01 PM PST by neverdem
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is an ideologue, a judicial activist who rules by his own political and personal philosophy, rather than the rule of law and what our founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights more than 200 years ago.
The left-leaning justice recently made remarks that further the suspicion that has been held for years - he doesn’t rule in regard to the Constitution, but rather a far-left political philosophy.
On Sunday, Breyer, a Bill Clinton appointee, said the founding fathers never intended guns to go unregulated.
Breyer said history stands with the dissenters in the court’s decision to overturn the Washington, D.C., handgun ban in 2008 case “D.C. v. Heller.”
Language in the Heller decision,however, acknowledged the constitutionality of some restrictions on guns.
Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. 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 might not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.
Mr. Breyer, you couldn’t be more wrong. Breyer even went on to ask: “What is the scope of the right to keep and bear arms? Machine guns, torpedoes? Handguns?”
There are limitations on the right to keep and bear arms just as their are limitations on freedom of speech and of the press, as well as other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Madison, along with other patriot founders of our nation had something very compelling reasons for protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
Perhaps Mr. Breyer should look at the murder rate in the nation’s capital - many were killed because of the handgun ban. The city of Chicago and several other large cities that ban handguns also see very high murder rates, many people would likely still be alive today if they had the right to possess a handgun in those cities, as the founders intended, to defend themselves.
Mr. Breyer seems to be engaged in an exercise of revisionist history.
It is unlikely that the former 13 colonies would have ratified the Constitution without the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, which included the Second Amendment.
The 13 former colonies had recently secured their independence after a protracted and bloody struggle against British tyranny.
A laundry list of grievances against the British crown and Parliament as outlined in the Declaration of Independence is insightful.
Given a genuine concern that they might exchange one government that ran roughshod over their rights for another, the insistence on the inclusion of the Bill of Rights as a condition of ratification is hardly surprising.
Americans of that day were well aware of the important role of an armed citizenry at Lexington and Concord at the dawn of the revolution.
Moreover, Americans relied on their guns to protect their homes and settlements during the French and Indian wars.
During the revolution, settlers had to depend on their guns for protection against marauding bands of Indians incited by the British.
Perhaps Breyer should read the account of the siege of Fort Boonesborough in our own state of Kentucky.
But perhaps not, since Breyer seems more partial to history of the revisionist variety.
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals;- The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents, December 12, 1787
(Thanks DuncanWaring for the ping!)
The Founders never intended arms to be unregulated but they just never got around to doing it??
That's easy. Any weapon that can be carried by an infantryman including crew served machine guns is covered by the 2nd Amendment.
Justice Bryer peddles the notion of a ‘living constitution’, code words for it says what he wants it to say. A morally bankrupt belief as our document provides a mechanism for changes to keep it evergreen which does not include the participation of SCOTUS.
We seriously need judicial reform so we can get justices on the bench who can read and comprehend our supreme law of the land that was written in plain and straight forward english for a reason.
This Bryer guy is nothing but a tyrant in a robe.
squatting ??? only if he has to pee...
lol. Good point! How can !?
No, it doesn’t. But any other larger weapons are generally covered under the clause that allows the federal government to issue Letters of Marque.
No, it doesn't. I put that in there, just as did John Adams, when he said "This Constitution is intended solely for a moral (i.e., law abiding!) and religious people, for if a man will not obey God's laws, who can expect him to respect the Laws of Men?
See, the Founders expected a few things from us. To be morally upright. To use our God-given brains. To employ, and apply, common sense.
So while the Constitution doesn't "spell out" "law abiding," it most certainly implies it, or else what good is it to even have a "Constitution" (a list of "laws") in the first place? You simpering chimpanzee!!
I can't believe you're really that cravenly, vilely ignorant. Are you?
Merry Christmas, Comic.
8^D
:0)
U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Yep. Seems to fit exactly as the authors of the Constitution stated.
That's actually a quote from John Adams (one of America's Founding Fathers and authors of "The Constitution,"). It refers to those who will likely be guided by the document, and constrained by its laws, not those who are "entitled to" its provisions.
It's a fairly obvious distinction to anyone with a functioning brain, or who isn't addled from years of swilling 'shine. There's a good hick. Better luck next time.
;-\
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.