previous post next post  

Another memo from the Vast Gun Nut Conspiracy

Why voting matters, even if you have to hold your nose sometimes.

Breyer Fires Warning Shot Across Second Amendment’s Bow

Friday, December 17, 2010

On Sunday, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer reminded Americans why it is important to vote for a president whose nominees to the court will likely be faithful to the Constitution, to vote for U.S. senators who will reject nominees who likely will not be faithful, and to vote for federal and state legislators who can check and balance justices like Stephen Breyer who don't believe the Second Amendment protects any meaningful right.

On Sunday, during an interview with Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday,” Clinton nominee Breyer, who dissented from the Supreme Court's decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), claimed that the role of the court is to interpret the Constitution flexibly, in light of ever-changing circumstances. Breyer argues that the court should give consideration not to the Constitution’s “words,” but to the “values” that the Framers had in mind. Fox News’ article on the interview can be viewed here.

The Framers’ “values,” Breyer suggested, would allow a total ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. “It’s not a matter of policy, it’s a matter of what those Framers [of the Bill of Rights] intended,” he said.

What Second Amendment author James Madison intended, Breyer said, was only to prevent Congress from nationalizing state militias. That, of course, is not what Breyer said in his dissent in the Heller case. Then, Breyer said that the amendment was intended to prohibit Congress from disarming state militias.

Regardless of what Breyer was trying to sell on Sunday, Wallace didn’t seem to be buying it. Pointing out the plain language of the amendment’s “keep and bear arms” clause, Wallace asked Breyer whether, in ignoring those words, he was assuming the role of politician or policy-maker, rather than that of a judge.

Breyer grinned smugly, said “no,” and sarcastically asked whether the amendment should be interpreted to allow the ownership of machine guns and torpedoes, as well as handguns. Wallace countered that at the very least, the amendment “certainly . . . didn’t provide for a ban on all handguns, as we have here in Washington, D.C.”

To that, Breyer, still grinning, asked Wallace, “Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland.”

Realizing that Madison and the other Framers surely did not intend for the Second Amendment to mean one thing in Maryland and another in D.C., Wallace pointed out that allowing a ban on handguns in D.C. while not allowing it in Maryland would be “a policy issue, not a constitutional issue.” Breyer changed the subject.

Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683



Activist judges are a threat to our freedom.

Remember in November!  (2012, that is.  Y'all done pretty good in November 2010.)

Meanwhile keep the pressure up on the equine posteriors in the Senate to reject any further judicial nominees with similar radical left activist leanings.

And, also oppose Brian Traver, the current nominee to head the BATFE, another anti-gun liberal BATFE agent from Chicago who is disprespected even amongst the field agents in that somewhat rogue agency.  Alarmingly, Obama will probably make him a recess appointment to get around the opposition to his confirmation.  Even though the recess between the current raging lunatic lame duck session and the new Congress in January will likely be a few hours or days at most.

Our nation's core liberties are being assaulted by evil (or stupid) people, albeit by the process allowed.  They must be fought by the same means.  The threats to our freedom are as serious as, and closely related to, the runaway spending that may destroy us anyway.
Well, at least he didn't mention "culture." Under the laws of the State of Florida, I am not allowed to reach for my revolver right now, anyway, though it be safely unloaded (last time I checked) and near by. Something to do with BAC, or something. Actually, I think that's a pretty good law. Of course it assumes a conscientious law-abiding drunkard...
After working my way through all of the incredulity and explitives that came to mind, the next thing is to wonder how much of this judicial scum's rewriting of the Constitution comes from the lawyer mindset that laws must be complicated ergo the simple language of the Constitution can't possibly be intended as written vs how much comes from simply being a despicable puke who doesn't give a rip about what the Constitution says and is willing to break his oath and lie to get what he wants.  Now I'm going back to cursing him. much comes from simply being a despicable puke who doesn't give a rip about what the Constitution says

Probably all of it.

Lawyerly background or not, despicable pukes *always* have an issue with plain language, and "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is as plain as it gets.

Oh, Cort, as far as I am concerned, the Constitution means exactly what it says, in plain English. I have read that my SAT scores (back before they dumbed that down) will just barely get me into Mensa, but as I said to the guy at the Tea Party, the Constitution is easily understood by anyone of the meanest understanding, even if his IQ be only 90 or so. (That's assuming a good education, which is a huge assumption these days.)
As I read this, it always amazes me, how these  people “think”. This Justice seems to have the idea, that the Second Amendment is merely a suggestion. Our “Founding Fathers” just might have a slightly different view. As I read the Constitution of the United States and its amendments, the “Founding Fathers”, used the term “shall”. I see no room for tolerance on this level. But, the owners of firearms need to remember something, we are talking about “responsible freedom's”. The states may have limits on the behaviors or the actions of an individual in the use of that firearm. My personal view is this, it does not matter how we feel what really matters are our actual actions. The problems revolve around what the other person perceives us to be doing. There is a great wall in how others perceive us to be doing with the firearms, that the Constitution gives us to have.

I personally believe our “Founding Fathers” would have no problem with people using firearms responsibly.
Well, yeah, Grumpy, I have no problem with your walking around with a slung rifle. Now, if you were to carry it at Port Arms, I might get a bit nervous.
I personally believe our “Founding Fathers” would have no problem with people using firearms responsibly.
The Founding Fathers lived in a very different non-urbanised world - probably a little like the one I inhabited as a soldier in Vietnam in 1970. I observed at first hand the weird attitude to firearms demonstrated by American GIs who were as likely to kill themselves or us (their allies) as the VC because of their woeful weapons discipline. When will the USA progress as a society where gun violence is no longer as American as apple pie?
Tough gun laws work in Australia - compare the statistics. The rate is 16 times higher in the USA than here.

Hey 1735099, before you start shooting off statistics, check the B&E rate (breaking and entering) in gun and non-gun areas. The B&E rate in England is much higher then the guns. What's the B&E rate in Asutralia with all that gun control? Or does everyone car a hammer?
1735099 - absent anything else but what you wrote to go with it, that is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" correlation is causation argument.  Nice for rhetorical purposes, but meaningless in and of itself as analysis. 

What was your rate *before* the tough gun laws were instituted?

Here's my "post hoc" back at you:

Here, our laws have been *loosened* and our murder rate is at a 45 year low.

After they seize my weapons, I hope that all of my magazines will be empty, my rifles' butt stocks will be shattered, my bayonets broken and I will be surrounded by the dead bodies of Hell's Honor Guard.

I will not submit.
 "1735 ...." is an Aussie who likes to demonstrate how one can be a Viet vet and be a progressive and caring 'person' as well. He also likes to discuss his lengthy experience, as a school headmaster, who specialised in working with disabled children. Generally, his arrive in a discussion is cause for Diggers to throw verbal things. However, his self regard is sufficient for him to ignore such as being the issue of lesser 'intellects'.  For the most part, his discussions can be easily classified as "Typical REMF".

He also ignores the demographics.  They are ALWAYS good at that.
When will these clowns get the message that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting animals, it's about hunting politicians?
@Mike47, "'s about hunting politicians?"

Mike, do you have your license to do that? Some States require a license. Yeah, a *VARMINTS License*!
For Mike47:

They will get that message shortly AFTER the civil war starts.
*exhales long and slowly*.  Morons.  Yanno, y'all know I was a wimp when it came to boomboom sticks and smaller arms.  However, I decided to grab some before my right to choose was completely taken from me, as per my reading of the 2nd Amendment.  I thought (not felt) it was my right to choose to keep and carry arms, and it was that right to choose that government protected, not infringed on. The requirements for registration at the federal level, and  the background checks annoy me.  Profoundly.  I am forced into a position I sort of didn't want because the alternative, to never be able to protect myself or put food on the table, was unthinkable.

I am no longer a pacifist.  I am not bewailing it, just making a statement here.  One more thing; If this person that is disliked by his own subordinates gets in, the right to inherit might be questioned and it might be required to turn weapons in or pay a hefty 'inheritance tax.'

The Founders created a mechanism for THE PEOPLE to change the Constitution as circumstances and necessity changed, through the Amendment process. They never intended for judges to be able to change it according to their own personal whims or "interpretations".

The Founders wouldn't have bothered codifying or writing any of this stuff down if they'd thought individuals - whether they were judges, legislators, or executives - could be entrusted with the task of modifying the Constitution or interpreting the "values" expressed in it as they pertained to the nation as a whole.
For fdcol63:

That doesn't matter until somebody CONVINCES them it matters.  And who do you expect to convince them?  "Law Enforcement", who conveniently ignored their oath of office as soon as they pinned on the badge?  The ONLY solution to this is the upcoming civil war.  For until enough of them are wiped from the face of the earth, they will continue as they have for YEARS because they know they can.

Are YOU ready?  Or are you satisfied?
It's much more difficult to parse plain speech into a desired contrary statement than it is to do so to a weasle-worded speech. Hence, plain speech must be destroyed.
Mark, I hope that we can avoid the violence and bloodshed of another civil war and effect the changes we need peacefully through the ballot box.  If course, this becomes problematic as the electoral process becomes more and more corrupted, and as fewer and fewer people have confidence in the electoral process.  I think the intentional undermining of the electoral process is one of the central components of the Left's Gramscian strategy of the "long march through the culture". 

I think we may also need to accept the reality, at some point, that the political majorities in the liberal bastions along the Coasts and the Midwest have interests and goals of a different kind of America than the rest of us in traditional Fly-Over America want or will accept.  We may need to face the reality that we will probably reach a point where compromise won't work and mutual alliance is no longer a preferred option.

The Union may need to split along those ideological lines in an attempt to avoid the 2nd Civil War that may result from these differences.  If such a war is not avoidable, then I hope we ALL are ready.
@fdcol63, I wish it were that simple, though I know the process is extremely complex. The problem here is this, on the Federal Level JTheudges make decisions and those sensations have an impact in their district, region war area of responsibility, which can be Nationwide, which in reality carries the same weight as Law. We need to be careful here, which we trapped here. Case in point, On 11 September 2001, this nation was attacked by terrorists. Shortly there after, the Congress followed the lead of The President of the United States, George W. Bush into War. The President used the Congressionally passed ball calls The War Powers Act, there were two of them, both of 1941. Would George W Bush be considered and activists because he used “Established Law”. Personally, I would have preferred that each day under “The US Constitutional Standard”. This would have been a “Declaration of War”. It was my view, that a “Declaration of War ” to me, this was the Constitutional solution. I can now see this as a possible solution with in our nation's Constitution.
Yes, the US Constitution means, in simple reading, precisely what it says.  Remember, the simplest things written (10 Commandments, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights) were not written by lawyers or liberals, but people just like each of us.

Just read a new book that's a must read cause it's Americans (yep, who own guns) who actually take a stand against tyranny/martial law.  It's a thriller & must read so I'm giving it out this Xmas as a stocking stuffer just to get the cause out to others & why we need guns.

I really have little confidence that the Surpeme Court will uphold our right to bear arms.  The times are changing against the U.S. Constitution.  Great article!!
Yes, the US Constitution means, in simple reading, precisely what it says.  Remember, the simplest things written (10 Commandments, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights) were not written by lawyers or liberals, but people just like each of us.

Just read a new book that's a must read cause it's Americans (yep, who own guns) who actually take a stand against tyranny/martial law.  It's a thriller & must read so I'm giving it out this Xmas as a stocking stuffer just to get the cause out to others & why we need guns.

@FDCOL63, it may be a 2nd Civil War, but the novel I just mentioned is about a 2nd American Revolution. 
Albert Einstein once said, “it is very simple to make something complex and very complex to make something simple.” Both sides of the political aisle play this stupid game. The comment about “weasel-would it speech”, if you write something in “plain spoken speech”, every weasel will get through it.” I hate to disappoint you, but we are in VAT very same civil war. I don't even in some distant land, we are fighting a war, right now, here at Castle. “This is not drill, this is*not*an exercise!” The concept that says, “We will have*either* “plain-spoken speech” OR “weasel-worded speech”, that is just plain BS.  
Censoring posts? Sure sign of no guts, no arguments and no brains.....
What a pissweak bunch you are.
Watch your tongue, or rather, typing, sir.  No reason to go to that level of language.

According to my server, you have exactly two posts by the 1735099 label - and both appear in their totality (which, frankly does not redound to your favor), including the link in the first post.

So, please do share the info you believe was redacted.  And do so civilly or not at all.
On 1735099,

As a few of you know I had looked into gun, crime, homocide and suicide statistics of the US and my own country, Australia, after the outrageous claims of the US NRA that Australia was a hotbed of crime compared to the US, due to the tighter gun laws.  There was a long rambling article on that with statisitcs woven into the argument.

Australia does have severe gun control compared to the US.

When you go into the numbers and look at all of the details you find the effect of gun law on  crime, including gun related homocide, is simply not all the different.  In other words, gun law has very little to do with crime outcomes.  It doesn't even significantly influence the type of weapon used.

What this means is that criminals or people under the passion of violence do not care about the gun law and find a way around any legal resistriction with ease.  I think this is hardly surprising.  It also means the small detterrent effect of citizens holding guns such as in the US is countered by the lower gun availability for countries with tighter gun law, such as Australia.

The driving force of crime is not gun law.  It is about attitudes and thus a complex mix of education, family, society and prosperity.  Things like the quality of the overall legal system and poverty matter much more than the ability to own a specific type of weapon or not.

So the NRA was guilty of cherry picking or fabricating statistics to present their crafted ideas to garner US support.  So it is for this new site linked by 1735099.  Cherry picking or fabricating statistics to present their own opposite preferred view.  Thus Australia, due to it's similarity to the US yet its vast difference in the area of gun law, has become the favoured nation to lie about in relation to gun crime.

Practical wisdom is that, if current trends continue, buyiing a firearm (or ammo) will be a sort of anthema.


Well, yes and no, Ponsdorf.  Be nice if it were simply to become unremarkable altogether.  I find that there is much quiet support for me and my bad habits amongst non-gun-owning people. 

Argent - well put, sir.

This was posted on December 18, but did not appear -

@ J.M. Heinrichs

If you're prepared to call me a REMF (which is meaningless in this country - we talk a about POGOs) you'd better also apply the same epithet to the other members of B Company, 7 RAR who along with me participated in Operations Finschaffen and Concrete 1 from March to May in 1970 in Phuoc Tuy. You'd need your running shoes.

We took 1 KIA and 2 WIA as well as one digger who died from heat exhaustion. Unlike the Yanks, we got out and patrolled, rather than sitting in FSBs.....

My posting was rifleman. My record and posting (along with that of every other digger who served in SVN is available for perusal on the Australian War Memorial website. Where's yours?

During these ops I carried an SLR and an M-60 LAW. I know what these weapons can do, so am qualified, I believe, to comment on this topic.

@ Mark Matis
The figures I quoted are factored for population size. They're not raw figures. The proportion of 16 times as many gun deaths in the USA as compared to Oz holds.

@ John of Argghhh -
The rate dropped initially, but rose slightly over the years post Port Arthur. Your 45 year "low" is still exponentially higher than ours. There are two logical explanations. One is the cliché that violence is as American as apple pie, the other is that your gun laws are obscenely weak. You choose.

1735099 - that comment never showed up in my email, so it never posted, officially.  But as many here will attest, comments behave badly sometimes.  Moreso of late, though we're working on trying to fix the problem.

That said - I'll point to Argent's post, and will opt for the cliche you offered.

If you go into our demographics of violence, you'll find if you factor out the drug-war/gang-banger related, our per hundred thousand rate compares favorably to most anglosphere nations, and our rate of breaking and entering related violence is at least much lower than Britain's, I can't speak to Australia. 

However, attacking the demographic aspect of American gun violence raises questions the elites would rather not address, as it crosses into ethnicity and related sub-cultures, a discussion we simply won't allow ourselves up here.

So yes, it is as American as apple pie, in that regard.  And, as Argent (an Australian himself) has noted - gun laws per se don't really have that much impact.

And since getting to the root of the problem involves facing something we'd rather not face, we content ourselves with doing something about the tools of violence.  As the Brits so ably do, such as considering banning knives (even kitchen knives) of any real length, because, oddly enough, the people who want to do bad things to others, or who have really bad impulse control when it comes to their passions, simply deflect to new tools.

So, we pass laws against the tools, which only discomfits the law-abiding - and, in so doing, has the concomitant effect of reducing the respect for an overarching legal construct that seeks to regulate seemingly everything, to little result.
"What this means is that criminals or people under the passion of violence do not care about the gun law and find a way around any legal resistriction with ease. I think this is hardly surprising. It also means the small detterrent effect of citizens holding guns such as in the US is countered by the lower gun availability for countries with tighter gun law, such as Australia."

From what I have read the states who allow more open firearms use and carry have had a steady decrease in crime. Here in Arizona we have open or concealed carry with no permit required (though I maintain mine for other reasons). Twice here in Phoenix I have repelled unwanted behavior just by showing a firearm. Did I call the Police? No, and I believe this happens quite often that a firearm is shown to stop someone and since it was not discharged the Police have no record of it.

Look Mr Aussie, Come visit me here in Phoenix, I would like to take you to a third world country and I promise we won't leave the states. There are areas here that the police will not go without a show of force that little old me has to go for business. So the answer to protecting myself is for the government to take away my firearm? Liberal logic at its finest.

If you want to compare stats compare crime/deaths between Mexico and the USA. If you try to enter Mexico with even a little 22 short you wil spend time in prison. mexico has among the most restrictive gun laws on the planet.
And a lot of Mexico's problem is demographic in nature.  But we can't talk about that!  Instead we'll compare Japan with its restrictive gun laws to America and say that PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT that outlawing guns fixes all problems.

Civil war is coming, and soon.  Since "Law Enforcement" absolutely REFUSE to honor their oath of office, they are nothing more than Thugs with Guns.  Since there is NO Rule of Law...
Demographics! Dang, this is getting to be like a post at Steve Sailer's blog!

Sorry, I'm somewhat grumpy, now, and mah kitteh is feeling right poorly. He _is_ 15+ years old, and FIV-positive, and groaning in my lap right now. Not to whine and bitch or anything, just to say that that is also negatively affecting my mood.
I looked and it was truly splendid, your number was in the database. However, I saw nothing which persuaded me that my assessment was wrong. I should note that I made no attempt to trace my service number through the AWM database because that would be silly. As for weapon qualification and such, I would guess that I have as nearly much time with the "SLR" on the parade square as you might in the bush, or where you might have carried it.

Well,I *have* two SLRs (albeit sans the Ozzie coachwood furniture) and one is even ex-Oz.  Seeing as I've had 'em since the early 90's, I've probably slept under the same roof as an SLR longer  than either of you... 

1735099 - just a suggestion - don't throw your service around trying to do an appeal to authority gambit amongst...  a whole bunch of military guys, some active, most retired, and most of them combat arms, and not a few from your war.  The three founders of this blog, myself, Dusty, and Bill, have in the vicinity of 80+ years of combined experience, stemming from your war right through to the beginning of the current one. 
Breyer is a moron.

I need my guns to ward off the zombies on the left!
@ J M Heinrichs
In which case you owe me and the other members of B Coy, 7 RAR, an apology for your remark of 18th December.
Mind you, ad hominem attacks are par for the course as first response from gun-lovers.
There is a simple solution. One state of the USA can be declared free of any laws on ownership and carry.
Given remarks above (Mark Matis), this state would also lack any law enforcement agency.
By "free of any laws"- I mean just that. Seven year-olds could be running around with M-16s with a round up the spout. Your neighbourhood psychopath could have a Klashnikov slung over his shoulder as he walks down the street. Nightclub bouncers could carry MP5SDs.
Everyone (including the Australians who aspire to this) can be offered a one-way ticket and free transport of weapons. Give it twenty years, and the population will have all but eliminated itself - understanding that the proliferation of assault rifles, M61s, and RPG 7s etc will inevitably lead to this outcome. Either that, or the quality of life would resemble that available in Southern Sudan.
Be careful what you wish for.....
I have one problem with your conclusion that guns will lead to our destruction:  South Sudan et al. are par for the course on our blue marble.  Surely you have an inkling of this from your respected travels?  All Western-based countries lumped together are still the slim minority and as such the exception to the rule.  IOW, pervasive violence is the norm and so-called gun control is just a little peace of mind through denial focused on one of the tools of violence.  And since A to A holds weight with you, I just got back from my 4th trip.
 Hi Armorer, in the back and forth of conversation within this thread there've been some very precious gems of wisdom. You write to a certain Australian, "1735099," the above is very import and principle in the Military, you write about the whole concept of not trying to impress people. You mention the three founders of this blog, they are Dusty, Bill and yourself. This means you have a window on history lasting for more than 80 years. This shows that we have some really*Old Pharts”, you have forgotten more than some of this crowd. There are more perspectives on the "Battle Space' then anybody can begin to believe, especially now. It will be this way for the foreseeable future. We must remember, that we do not control this battle space, and our adversary has a say in the future regardless of of our actions, we need to remember this as we plan ahead. Our planning is just our best SWAG on this issue.

To those three guys who created the Castle, I may kid and joke with you but I respect the work that you have done and are doing this very moment.