Listening to Stephen Breyer on Fox News Sunday

[Idahoser]

if they've succeeded we no longer refer to it as an "attempt"

[Webleymkv]

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.

[RDak]

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.

[langenc]

""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..

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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.

[alloy]

I like this quote from James Madison.

“…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.