If you look at the values and the historical record, you will see that the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer contended Sunday.

"We're acting as judges. If we're going to decide everything on the basis of history -- by the way, what is the scope of the right to keep and bear arms? Machine guns? Torpedoes? Handguns?" he asked. "Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don't think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun."

Maybe he should understand that it is the law of the land no matter the reason he believes it was offered for a vote to our Founders?

Nah, because that would actually be examining the LAW.

But, he thinks it would be GOOD to have the nation adapt to his philosophy.

You, of all people, should understand that.

Of course. He apparently feels he's fulfilling his duty though. He even feels he's honoring the framers of the constitution's intent.

Personally, I'm very happy that he's in the minority.

That said, I'm thinking this is an excellent example of why the status quo should be maintained except in situations where there is an overwhelming majority that seek change, and not always then, even.

That said, I'm thinking this is an excellent example of why the status quo should be maintained except in situations where there is an overwhelming majority that seek change, and not always then, even.

WALLACE: I understand. But it certainly didn't provide for a ban, at least that's what the court's decision was, your court's -- it didn't provide for a ban on all handguns as they have here in Washington, D.C.

BREYER: Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don't think, for anyone who really wants to have...

WALLACE: But -- but it's...

BREYER: ... a gun.

The most disconcerting part of the statement is that the Justice thinks the subway runs to Maryland.

Legend: Overwhelming majority =! simple majority

Because it does?

http://www.wmata.com/rail/maps/map.cfm

Montgomery County is Maryland.

And?...

Or do you mean: overwhelming majority = (!simple majority) ?

If so, you have an odd definition of "overwhelming", but whatever.

I just don't see how "greater than 51%" = "overwhelming". I've honestly never heard anyone use it to mean that.

As to the rest ... What the **** ever, man. I'm not going to engage your trolling.

not to nitpick, but isn't it usually written != instead of =!

That might be the source of confusion? Just speculating.