Justice Breyer on the Second Amendment: "Machineguns, Torpedoes, Handguns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G41SV0EHHxU

Justice Breyer's view on the Second Amendment is very strange, or at least his reasoning for how he interprets it is. He goes off on some tangent about how Founding Father and author of the Bill of Rights, James Madison, on how Madison felt the need to put the Second Amendment in the constitution in order to gain support for the adoption of the Constitution by certain states. With all do respect to Supreme Court Justice Breyer, what does that have to do with the interpretation of the Second Amendment?

The fact is that it was put into the constitution by way of the Bill of Rights, and it means what it means. In the Heller case the Court said; "'The people' . . . unambiguously refers to all members of the political community" and "The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.'"
-United States Supreme Court
http://www.newsbull.com/forum/topic.a...

Also, associate Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Gregory Scalia wrote:

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct." Heller v. District of Columbia.

Justice Stephen Gerald Breyer is dead wrong in his reasoning. I have not yet read his dissent in the Heller case, but I did read his full dissent in the second case dealing with applying the Second Amendment to the states. His reasoning in that case was baffling. He wrote about how unreasonable it was that the Supreme Court as a result of its ruling would now be compelled to take up each and every little case dealing with specific gun laws in cities and communities all across the country and decide if they were constitutional or not. I guess he doesn't know it, but that is his job! That is what the court has done with the first Amendment, and now that is what they will do with the Second Amendment.

With all of that said, I have great respect for every member of the United States Supreme Court. I know that a lot of people do not, but I do. It is not that I agree with all of them, or that I even think that they are all the most qualified people to fill their seats on the court. What it boils down to is that even if I think that they may be bias in their opinions, and that they may slant to the right or to the left, I believe that each and every one of them thinks in their hearts that they are doing their job to the best of their ability and in the correct way.

Basically, even though in the past I have disagreed vehemently with many of their decisions and how they came to them, I will always follow their law. If it ever reaches a point in this country where the people or the other braches of government believes that it has come to be so bad that we will disobey the decision of the Supreme Court, then that will be the end of our country as we know it. It will be the end of the rule of law in this great country that we know of as the United States of America.

jbranstetter04

Category:
News & Politics

Justice Breyer: Founding Fathers Wanted Gun Restrictions
Posted: Dec 15, 2010 10:30 AM PST
Updated: Dec 15, 2010 11:27 AM PST

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Our judicial system has become a shadow government. Unless it is reformed -- somehow -- it will only continue to get rot on the vine... For instance:

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer made some alarming statements over the weekend. Breyer believes the Founding Fathers wanted gun restrictions. In fact, he even went so far as to make it sound as though the Founding Fathers didn't even really want gun rights.

Justice Breyer is skewing history.

The second amendment was the least debated amendment at the Constitutional Convention... Why?

Because everyone, from the bigger government types like Alexander Hamilton and the limited government types like James Madison appreciated the fact that We The People have the right to keep and bare arms.

In fact, it was SO well understood, the only debate was, "Do we really and truly need THIS in the Constitution?"

Back then, they thought it literally inconceivable that our government would go so far as to try to take this right away from us.