Will SCOTUS Justice Breyer change his opinion on the 2nd Amendment now?

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

Perhaps Justice Breyer will change his opinion after this. Doubtful. But you never know.





http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...acation-home/?test=latestnews?test=latestnews

.
Justice Breyer robbed by machete-wielding intruder at West Indies vacation home

Published February 13, 2012 | Associated Press


WASHINGTON – Justice Stephen Breyer was robbed last week by a machete-wielding intruder at his vacation home in the West Indies, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said Monday.
.

"Nowhere do academic theories dissolve faster than during an encounter with violent criminals."



.

 

[1911Tuner]

He's probably already had an epiphany, but it's doubtful that he'll admit to it publicly. Most people who don't support our right to keep and bear arms for protection are all for theirs...especially the ones who are so much more important than we are. <---(snark)

I've known two rabid antis who...after they got the soup scared out of'em...made the statement: "If I'd had a gun." One actually went out and bought a shotgun after asking me for advice and basic training. He got it. The other one probably never will.

 

[JellyJar]

I wonder if he will sell his house in Nevis now.

From what I have read about crime there it is unsafe to walk alone at night there. Not a place where I would want to own an expensive vacation home!

 

[jsimmons]

How will being robbed by someone with a big knife change his mind on guns? If anything, he will now add knives to his generally anti-weapon stance.

 

[armarsh]

^^^ Because he knows now that if he was armed, the robbery would have never happened. That is, if he is honest with himself.

 

[jsimmons]

^^^ Because he knows now that if he was armed, the robbery would have never happened. That is, if he is honest with himself.

Well, it was a break-in, and the bad guy had no idea whether or not the home-owener was armed, so in effect, the burglary would still have happened. The outcome would probably have been different, but the event itself would still have occurred. If the judge *had* been armed, and depending on any anti-gun statements he may have made, he could have been labeled as a hypocrite.

In this case, nobody was hurt, so he can still hold to his existing anti-gun views.

Nothing changes, and it's essentially a non-story for the pro-gun crowd.

 

[vito]

Being so anti-gun up until now I think this incident will solidify his beliefs in gun control. After all, no one was hurt and property and cash can be replaced by insurance coverage. He probably thinks that if he had a gun it might have been taken from him and used against him or his wife, or if he had used a gun it would have ended with a wounded or dead perpetrator. While most of us on this forum would think that this second ending was highly desirable, this Justice probably thinks it would be an unnecessary tragedy. I would not be surprised if the end result is that the U.S. Government provides him with round-the-clock armed guards at his vacation home.

 

[Ryanxia]

We can only hope he'll think 'boy if I had had a gun I could have protected my family if it came to that.'

 

[Salmoneye]

Of course he won't change his mind...

His mindset before was "Give robbers what they want, and all will be well"

All this did was 'prove' it to him...

 

[SEE IT LIKE A NATIVE]

I don't think he would be allowed to own a gun there ! I bet he spends money on a guard instead ! He only needs one while he is there , here we pay for his security ! Kevin

 

[Husker_Fan]

I almost hope he doesn't.

I don't want judges ruling one way or another based on emotional reactions. I want them to make a ruling based on what they believe the Constitution means, even if I disagree with them. Having a judge reach a decision because he likes the outcome, and not because of what he honestly believes the law to be is the heart of judicial activism, whether we like the end result or not.

There is a difference between thinking something is a good idea (being armed for self defense) and thinking that it is protected by the constitution.

The best way to correct the disconnect is to find and promote judges whose view of the second amendment agrees with ours.

 

[medalguy]

How about this line of "thinking": "Boy, I'm sure glad that robber didn't have a gun but only a big knife. If he had had a gun, we might all be dead now."

I'm not aware of firearms laws in the West Indies, but it was once French, so I will "assume" that they have very liberal, anti-individual rights laws on the books. Perhaps that is one reason Justice Breyer has a home there.

The anti-gun crowd never seems to take note of the fact that possession of a firearm in may cases prevents or stops a crime in progress. After all, they seem to believe that the police are there to prevent crime, not simply write a report after the fact.

 

[mortablunt]

Nope, he'll just open up a second front against knives.

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

Sorry, still off topic.