Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Here is the video link: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4456314/reps-ryan-van-hollen-on-fns/?playlist_id=87937#/v/4456313/justice-stephen-breyer-on-fns/?playlist_id=87937
I was really struck by how somebody so smart and educated could be so off on their history. I am wondering what he has read that would lead to a statement like:
And then says:
I am wondering what history he is reading. Not any I have seen unless it is the discredited work of Michael Bellisiles.
Of course the states were worried about their militias and that the newly created Congress could disarm them if they choose to but the right was clearly aimed at the people as well as the state militias. Scalia and the majority point that out very well.
Finally, here is the one that really threw me:
What does being a sportsman have to do with the Second Amendment? If as Justice Breyer stated earlier the Founders could not foresee the Internet then how did they foresee IPDA or IPSC or trap and skeet ranges?
Wow, reading stuff like that is scary. I hope Scalia and Kennedy hang on and Breyer leaves before them. :barf:
I was really struck by how somebody so smart and educated could be so off on their history. I am wondering what he has read that would lead to a statement like:
Madison "was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. 'That can't happen,' said Madison," said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison's priority as, "I've got to get this document ratified." Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.
And then says:
"If you're interested in history, and in this one history was important, then I think you do have to pay attention to the story," Breyer said. "If that was his motive historically, the dissenters were right. And I think more of the historians were with us."
I am wondering what history he is reading. Not any I have seen unless it is the discredited work of Michael Bellisiles.
Of course the states were worried about their militias and that the newly created Congress could disarm them if they choose to but the right was clearly aimed at the people as well as the state militias. Scalia and the majority point that out very well.
Finally, here is the one that really threw me:
If we're going to decide everything on the basis of history -- by the way, what is the scope of the right to keep and bear arms? Machine guns? Torpedoes? Handguns?" he asked. "Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don't think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun."
What does being a sportsman have to do with the Second Amendment? If as Justice Breyer stated earlier the Founders could not foresee the Internet then how did they foresee IPDA or IPSC or trap and skeet ranges?
Wow, reading stuff like that is scary. I hope Scalia and Kennedy hang on and Breyer leaves before them. :barf: