You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Listening to Stephen Breyer on Fox News Sunday
- Thread starter Tennessee Gentleman
- Start date
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
1. Based on the dictionary of the day, the word 'regulated' meant 'controlled'.
2. The colonists were afraid of a standing army and their power.
Now lets do a bit of intelligent comparison of words and meanings by making analogies.
Standing army = let's say..... 'Gangs' (potential for violence and mahem).
Standing army = permanent government backed 'militia'.
National Guard = Some fools would call this 'the militia' of today.
The 'People' = every citizen in the colonies (todays populace)
A 'Free State' = Well, I believe this is self explanatory.
Soooooooooooo, Let's try this. I'd really like feedback.
Just for 'kicks and grins', lets suppose the liberals are correct when they say the 'militia' is the National Guard today.
"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."
Translates to:
"A WELL CONTROLLED standing army/gangs/National Guard made up of potentially violent men, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the American population to keep and bear arms in order to keep the standing army/gangs/National Guard well controlled, shall not be infringed."
While that may be a stretch to some, I ask you, is there a better way to insure that a standing army/gangs/National Guard (or any other despotic individual or group of individuals) is 'WELL CONTROLLED' than that "the right of the people (that's you, me and every other American) to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT be infringed"?
1. Based on the dictionary of the day, the word 'regulated' meant 'controlled'.
2. The colonists were afraid of a standing army and their power.
Now lets do a bit of intelligent comparison of words and meanings by making analogies.
Standing army = let's say..... 'Gangs' (potential for violence and mahem).
Standing army = permanent government backed 'militia'.
National Guard = Some fools would call this 'the militia' of today.
The 'People' = every citizen in the colonies (todays populace)
A 'Free State' = Well, I believe this is self explanatory.
Soooooooooooo, Let's try this. I'd really like feedback.
Just for 'kicks and grins', lets suppose the liberals are correct when they say the 'militia' is the National Guard today.
"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."
Translates to:
"A WELL CONTROLLED standing army/gangs/National Guard made up of potentially violent men, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the American population to keep and bear arms in order to keep the standing army/gangs/National Guard well controlled, shall not be infringed."
While that may be a stretch to some, I ask you, is there a better way to insure that a standing army/gangs/National Guard (or any other despotic individual or group of individuals) is 'WELL CONTROLLED' than that "the right of the people (that's you, me and every other American) to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT be infringed"?
A further note:
My family has had 10 members serve in military careers of 20 years or more. We were in the Marine Corps, Army and Air Force. We served in WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, the Gulf wars in Kuwait, Iraq and now Afghanistan. Family members have been wounded and been awarded decorations for valor.
We are like many hundreds of thousands, nay millions, of Americans who served our country, and sacrificed, willingly.
We fought for America and vowed to 'Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against ALL enemies, both foreign AND domestic".
There is only ONE America, ONE Constitution. God help us when we start to deny that.
My oath was/is just that, an OATH! It is for life.
After 22 years in the U.S. Marine Corps and 15 years in civilian law enforcement (sheriffs deputy), I think I'm entitled to my opinion.
Semper Fi,
My family has had 10 members serve in military careers of 20 years or more. We were in the Marine Corps, Army and Air Force. We served in WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, the Gulf wars in Kuwait, Iraq and now Afghanistan. Family members have been wounded and been awarded decorations for valor.
We are like many hundreds of thousands, nay millions, of Americans who served our country, and sacrificed, willingly.
We fought for America and vowed to 'Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against ALL enemies, both foreign AND domestic".
There is only ONE America, ONE Constitution. God help us when we start to deny that.
My oath was/is just that, an OATH! It is for life.
After 22 years in the U.S. Marine Corps and 15 years in civilian law enforcement (sheriffs deputy), I think I'm entitled to my opinion.
Semper Fi,
The whole "living document" theory really strikes me as an attempt by a radical minority to impose their will over that of the rest of the people. You see, the founders did indeed build into the Constitution a way to update it to the changing times as necessary: it's called the Amendment process and it has been used seventeen times since the Constitution was ratified.
If the Second Amendment really was an outdated historical relic as the anti's claim, then the proper thing to do would be to amend the Constitution and repeal it as was done to the Eighteenth Amendment by the Twenty-First. Because they are a radical minority, however, the anti's have never had, and probably never will have, enough support to repeal the Second Amendment so they try to cook up a "living document" scheme. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book really: if you can't win playing by the rules, then try to change the rules.
If the Second Amendment really was an outdated historical relic as the anti's claim, then the proper thing to do would be to amend the Constitution and repeal it as was done to the Eighteenth Amendment by the Twenty-First. Because they are a radical minority, however, the anti's have never had, and probably never will have, enough support to repeal the Second Amendment so they try to cook up a "living document" scheme. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book really: if you can't win playing by the rules, then try to change the rules.
if they've succeeded we no longer refer to it as an "attempt"
Well, every attempt at Federal-level gun control since 1994 has failed, more and more states have recognized the right to carry and have passed the Castle Doctrine, and we've gotten victories in both Heller and McDonald. I'd say the "living document" theorists have far from succeeded when it comes to 2A.
TG: I have always thought that many smart people will make up their minds before really doing the research on 2A issues. IQ has nothing to do with this IMHO.
They will pick and choose those snippets that support their beliefs.
Justice Breyer appears to fall into that camp when it comes to 2A issues. (Same for the other three dissenting Justices in Heller and McDonald IMHO.)
My guess is he is very anti-gun and only sees what his prejudice allows him to see IMHO.
He is definitely smart enough to conclude the 2A was intended to be an individual right, that guards against tyranny and lawlessness, if he researched the issue with a neutral opinion going in.
The "well regulated militia" portion of the 2A is a prefatory clause as Justice Scalia concluded and I can see no other reason to disagree with that conclusion unless you have preconceived notions against the individual right.
Not to mention that roughly 40 States have individual gun rights written into their constitutions, and these States ratified their constitutions long, long ago for the most part.
I'm afraid to say that he probably doesn't have a neutral opinion, thus, the blinders are on making him incapable of forming an unbiased opinion.
The writings are out there (i.e., of the founding fathers) in such HUGE volume supporting the individual right to bear arms that I can only conclude he went into this issue with a preconceived objective. And that objective was anti-gun at all costs IMHO.
They will pick and choose those snippets that support their beliefs.
Justice Breyer appears to fall into that camp when it comes to 2A issues. (Same for the other three dissenting Justices in Heller and McDonald IMHO.)
My guess is he is very anti-gun and only sees what his prejudice allows him to see IMHO.
He is definitely smart enough to conclude the 2A was intended to be an individual right, that guards against tyranny and lawlessness, if he researched the issue with a neutral opinion going in.
The "well regulated militia" portion of the 2A is a prefatory clause as Justice Scalia concluded and I can see no other reason to disagree with that conclusion unless you have preconceived notions against the individual right.
Not to mention that roughly 40 States have individual gun rights written into their constitutions, and these States ratified their constitutions long, long ago for the most part.
I'm afraid to say that he probably doesn't have a neutral opinion, thus, the blinders are on making him incapable of forming an unbiased opinion.
The writings are out there (i.e., of the founding fathers) in such HUGE volume supporting the individual right to bear arms that I can only conclude he went into this issue with a preconceived objective. And that objective was anti-gun at all costs IMHO.
Last edited:
""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?""
from an early post
When the news folks get onto the 1A-tell them that it (1A) dont apply to TV for the same reason. The writers of the constitution could not imagine a TV.
The debaters will think you have been smoking/drinking something pretty strong..
from an early post
When the news folks get onto the 1A-tell them that it (1A) dont apply to TV for the same reason. The writers of the constitution could not imagine a TV.
The debaters will think you have been smoking/drinking something pretty strong..
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Selection bias:
You have preconceived idea. The idea is probably emotionally based.
You then only select information that confirms your position.
While you may have the cognitive ability to analyze a sitation rationally, you don't. You use your abilities to strengthen your existing position.
It takes a tremendous force of will to break this.
Note: This is a characteristic of everyone. Not one side of a debate or political position, so avoid such proclaimations that your side is truth and always rational.
You have preconceived idea. The idea is probably emotionally based.
You then only select information that confirms your position.
While you may have the cognitive ability to analyze a sitation rationally, you don't. You use your abilities to strengthen your existing position.
It takes a tremendous force of will to break this.
Note: This is a characteristic of everyone. Not one side of a debate or political position, so avoid such proclaimations that your side is truth and always rational.
I like this quote from James Madison.
Evidently the living document thing was a problem to Madison, even when it was young. Breyer would approve.
“…I entirely concur with the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its power. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of the law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiased Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption.”
Evidently the living document thing was a problem to Madison, even when it was young. Breyer would approve.