View Single Post
Old January 1, 2011, 08:23 AM   #28
RDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 734
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.

Last edited by RDak; January 1, 2011 at 08:34 AM.
RDak is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.06643 seconds with 8 queries