Skip to comments.
Justice Breyer’s remarks on guns revisionist thinking
Bowling Green Daily News (Ky) ^
| December 14, 2010
| Masthead Editorial
Posted on 12/16/2010 10:07:01 PM PST by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 last
To: neverdem
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
41
posted on
12/17/2010 11:05:16 AM PST
by
jdege
To: Quix; Whenifhow; houeto; null and void; Squantos; xrmusn; bronxville; Screaming_Gerbil; ...
Look-what's-squatting-on-the-Supreme-Court ping.
(Thanks DuncanWaring for the ping!)
"Enemies Domestic" ping.
Increasing volume ping list monitoring the Leftist/government axis agitprop, psyops, and instigation of violence.
FReepmail me if you want on or off The Comedian's "Enemies Domestic" ping list...
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
42
posted on
12/17/2010 12:42:44 PM PST
by
The Comedian
(Government: Saving people from freedom since time immemorial.)
To: neverdem
The Founders never intended arms to be unregulated but they just never got around to doing it??
43
posted on
12/17/2010 3:12:55 PM PST
by
Eagle Eye
(A blind clock finds a nut at least twice a day.)
To: neverdem
What is the scope of the right to keep and bear arms?"That's easy. Any weapon that can be carried by an infantryman including crew served machine guns is covered by the 2nd Amendment.
44
posted on
12/17/2010 4:11:55 PM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
To: B4Ranch
lol. sure. i'll confirm. ;-) (at least i think i feel something a goin' side to side back there). hope it is a swinging till the day I die though.
45
posted on
12/17/2010 4:48:50 PM PST
by
GOP Poet
(Obama is an OLYMPIC failure.)
To: neverdem
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.
46
posted on
12/17/2010 7:44:03 PM PST
by
dajeeps
To: The Comedian
squatting ??? only if he has to pee...
47
posted on
12/17/2010 8:10:44 PM PST
by
Gilbo_3
(Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
To: Still Thinking
Aw, come on! How can you say a thing like that with those three hotties on the court!lol. Good point! How can !?
48
posted on
12/17/2010 10:32:15 PM PST
by
GOP Poet
(Obama is an OLYMPIC failure.)
To: Gargantua
The Constitution doesn't say anything about the right to bear arms being limited to "law abiding citizens". It says "the people". If you're going to talk about what the Constitution "really" means, try not to make stuff up along the way.
49
posted on
12/18/2010 5:42:11 AM PST
by
Bellows
To: Blood of Tyrants
Any weapon that can be carried by an infantryman including crew served machine guns is covered by the 2nd Amendment.
The Constitution doesn't limit the right to bear arms to "any weapon that can be carried by an infantryman". Saying that this must be what the Founding Fathers intended, when they easily could have said exactly that if they'd wanted to (but didn't), isn't any different from any other crackpot interpretation that finds no support in the language of the 2A itself.
50
posted on
12/18/2010 5:49:47 AM PST
by
Bellows
To: FreedomPoster
"The term regulated applied to clocks means accurate in keeping time. It made sense, particularly in 18th Century armies, to have to pay a lot of attention to how well soldiers could operate in massed formations."
This would be a fine interpretation if the 2A were talking about the need for regular practice in mass formations. But it doesn't, and your explanation bears no relationship to the other language of the 2A. The need for well coordinated mass formations being being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? This rings "most true" to you? Really?
51
posted on
12/18/2010 6:05:23 AM PST
by
Bellows
To: Bellows
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.
52
posted on
12/18/2010 9:07:18 AM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
To: Bellows
"
The Constitution doesn't say anything about the right to bear arms being limited to "law abiding citizens".
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?
53
posted on
12/18/2010 10:40:10 AM PST
by
Gargantua
(Palin ~ Bachmann 2012... cuz "Pa-Bach's a bitch!" (if you're a Liberal or a PDS snart))
To: The Comedian
I want on the list. Thank you.
Merry Christmas, Comic.
8^D
54
posted on
12/18/2010 10:43:59 AM PST
by
Gargantua
(Palin ~ Bachmann 2012... cuz "Pa-Bach's a bitch!" (if you're a Liberal or a PDS snart))
To: Gargantua
You're on the list, Tarantula! ;-)
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
55
posted on
12/18/2010 2:19:45 PM PST
by
The Comedian
(Government: Saving people from freedom since time immemorial.)
To: The Comedian
I can't explain it, and I make no apology... but every time you call me that, I just want to take my smoothest stone to the already scalpel-like edge of my K-Bar...
:0)
56
posted on
12/18/2010 5:24:01 PM PST
by
Gargantua
(Palin ~ Bachmann 2012... cuz "Pa-Bach's a bitch!" (if you're a Liberal or a PDS snart))
To: Gargantua
Breyer is an assh*le, because he knows this to be true, and he lies to further his radical agenda. He should have his neck stretched after being found guilty of Treason before a jury of his betters. 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.
57
posted on
12/19/2010 2:37:17 PM PST
by
archy
(I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!)
To: Gargantua
"This Constitution is intended solely for a moral (i.e., law abiding!) and religious people....
So in your view only religious and moral people are entitled to Constitutional rights. This just gets better and better. No wonder you find it necessary to lace your posts with personal insults.
58
posted on
12/21/2010 5:33:46 PM PST
by
Bellows
To: Bellows
I can envision the drool running through your rotted teeth and down your unshaven chin to stain your bib-overalls, eyes squinting as you struggle to come up with this clever little gem.
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.
;-\
59
posted on
12/22/2010 2:19:33 PM PST
by
Gargantua
(Palin ~ Bachmann 2012... cuz "Pa-Bach's a bitch!" (if you're a Liberal or a PDS snart))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson