In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
You Dirty, Filthy Citizens You....
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
No, I don't think that about you but apparently Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer does. By his statement regarding his reason for voting against the 2A giving common citizens a constitutional right to possess firearms, to me he appears to be just one of the many liberal, elitists who think the average citizen is basically an uncivilized brute that cannot be trusted with such "dangerous" objects as guns. Here is his statement:
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Analyze that statement word-by-word and you can see behind his mask what he really thinks about crime, violent criminals and the lawful but common citizen.
For one thing he implies that your constitutional rights can be determined by where you live. He implies that you should not have a right to own a handgun in an urban area, but if you exile yourself to the country then maybe you should be able to own a handgun. Own it that is until he changes his mind about you having it.
He refers to a "crime-ridden urban area." By that reference he admits there are urban areas whereas the police cannot control crime and he admits crime is very high in that area. He is also admitting there has to be a high number of innocent victims in that area that the police were not able to protect. He is also admitting that those numerous victims misplaced any trust they might have given the police because, by the very fact that they DID become victims, their trust was obviously misplaced.
But it appears that Breyer does not want those present and future victims, who the police cannot protect, to try to defend themselves or to have the firearms with which to do so. His laughable advice for those future victims of widespread crime is to continue putting their faith in the police to protect them. That would be like a physician, when he realizes that the medicene he has been prescribing you is not helping but is even hurting you to advise you to continue taking that same medicent.
By his statement and position I believe that he, like most liberal elites, think that all common citizens, even if those citizens are and have been lawful and peaceful, unless firearms are kept from those citizens they at some point will turn into violent, murderous criminals.
If the truth were known, unless Breyer is just a wimp and afraid of firearms, I bet he believes it is fine for people like him, his fellow judges and lawyers and politicians to own guns.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Analyze that statement word-by-word and you can see behind his mask what he really thinks about crime, violent criminals and the lawful but common citizen.
For one thing he implies that your constitutional rights can be determined by where you live. He implies that you should not have a right to own a handgun in an urban area, but if you exile yourself to the country then maybe you should be able to own a handgun. Own it that is until he changes his mind about you having it.
He refers to a "crime-ridden urban area." By that reference he admits there are urban areas whereas the police cannot control crime and he admits crime is very high in that area. He is also admitting there has to be a high number of innocent victims in that area that the police were not able to protect. He is also admitting that those numerous victims misplaced any trust they might have given the police because, by the very fact that they DID become victims, their trust was obviously misplaced.
But it appears that Breyer does not want those present and future victims, who the police cannot protect, to try to defend themselves or to have the firearms with which to do so. His laughable advice for those future victims of widespread crime is to continue putting their faith in the police to protect them. That would be like a physician, when he realizes that the medicene he has been prescribing you is not helping but is even hurting you to advise you to continue taking that same medicent.
By his statement and position I believe that he, like most liberal elites, think that all common citizens, even if those citizens are and have been lawful and peaceful, unless firearms are kept from those citizens they at some point will turn into violent, murderous criminals.
If the truth were known, unless Breyer is just a wimp and afraid of firearms, I bet he believes it is fine for people like him, his fellow judges and lawyers and politicians to own guns.
Comments
No, I don't think that about you but apparently Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer does. By his statement regarding his reason for voting against the 2A giving common citizens a constitutional right to possess firearms, to me he appears to be just one of the many liberal, elitists who think the average citizen is basically an uncivilized brute that cannot be trusted with such "dangerous" objects as guns. Here is his statement:
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Analyze that statement word-by-word and you can see behind his mask what he really thinks about crime, violent criminals and the lawful but common citizen.
For one thing he implies that your constitutional rights can be determined by where you live. He implies that you should not have a right to own a handgun in an urban area, but if you exile yourself to the country then maybe you should be able to own a handgun. Own it that is until he changes his mind about you having it.
He refers to a "crime-ridden urban area." By that reference he admits there are urban areas whereas the police cannot control crime and he admits crime is very high in that area. He is also admitting there has to be a high number of innocent victims in that area that the police were not able to protect. He is also admitting that those numerous victims misplaced any trust they might have given the police because, by the very fact that they DID become victims, their trust was obviously misplaced.
But it appears that Breyer does not want those present and future victims, who the police cannot protect, to try to defend themselves or to have the firearms with which to do so. His laughable advice for those future victims of widespread crime is to continue putting their faith in the police to protect them. That would be like a physician, when he realizes that the medicene he has been prescribing you is not helping but is even hurting you to advise you to continue taking that same medicent.
By his statement and position I believe that he, like most liberal elites, think that all common citizens, even if those citizens are and have been lawful and peaceful, unless firearms are kept from those citizens they at some point will turn into violent, murderous criminals.
If the truth were known, unless Breyer is just a wimp and afraid of firearms, I bet he believes it is fine for people like him, his fellow judges and lawyers and politicians to own guns.
Actually a good post.
He is protected by armed security 24/7,........when he, like I wrote about Daley give that up, I may give some sympathy to their female side that they display so frequently.
The last was a joke if you didn't realize it.
The second amendment is what it is, and the fools need to quit messing with it.
...I bet he believes it is fine for people like him, his fellow judges and lawyers and politicians to own guns.
Whew!
I was getting worried for a moment!
That the criminal has the right to expect that when they unlawfully enter a home belonging to the citizens, they have the right to expect that they not be interfered with, that they not be subject to any molestation from the people they are robbing, rapeing, and generally destroying the lives of.
It's a damn shame when a justice of the supreme court thinks that its unlawful to be able to protect yourself from low life scum when they come to rob you.
I guess I'm lucky that I don't live in one of those areas. and the crooks are lucky too.
surely it would make sense for a law abading citizen to have a gun for self defence if they live in a crime ridden urban area than if they live in a nice safe one with hardly any serious crime?
i appoliagise to you all, i must be stupid to not understand why anyone who lives in a "crime ridden urban area" would want a gun to defend themselves with! [V]
the majority gave facts and reference to research. his minority opinion does not, as such it should be dismissed from consideration. by anybody.
The rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are God-given and inalienable; that so many choose to put their faith in Governments' interpretation of such rights baffles me.
And oh yeah....keep on counting on the police to be there to save you when the SHTF! They will get there to clean up the mess, but 98% of the time, they are not gonna get there while things are going down!
No, I don't think that about you but apparently Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer does. By his statement regarding his reason for voting against the 2A giving common citizens a constitutional right to possess firearms, to me he appears to be just one of the many liberal, elitists who think the average citizen is basically an uncivilized brute that cannot be trusted with such "dangerous" objects as guns. Here is his statement:
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Analyze that statement word-by-word and you can see behind his mask what he really thinks about crime, violent criminals and the lawful but common citizen.
For one thing he implies that your constitutional rights can be determined by where you live. He implies that you should not have a right to own a handgun in an urban area, but if you exile yourself to the country then maybe you should be able to own a handgun. Own it that is until he changes his mind about you having it.
He refers to a "crime-ridden urban area." By that reference he admits there are urban areas whereas the police cannot control crime and he admits crime is very high in that area. He is also admitting there has to be a high number of innocent victims in that area that the police were not able to protect. He is also admitting that those numerous victims misplaced any trust they might have given the police because, by the very fact that they DID become victims, their trust was obviously misplaced.
But it appears that Breyer does not want those present and future victims, who the police cannot protect, to try to defend themselves or to have the firearms with which to do so. His laughable advice for those future victims of widespread crime is to continue putting their faith in the police to protect them. That would be like a physician, when he realizes that the medicene he has been prescribing you is not helping but is even hurting you to advise you to continue taking that same medicent.
By his statement and position I believe that he, like most liberal elites, think that all common citizens, even if those citizens are and have been lawful and peaceful, unless firearms are kept from those citizens they at some point will turn into violent, murderous criminals.
If the truth were known, unless Breyer is just a wimp and afraid of firearms, I bet he believes it is fine for people like him, his fellow judges and lawyers and politicians to own guns.
Spot on.
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain