Skip to comments.Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns
Posted on 12/12/2010 11:33:59 AM PST by driftdiver
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.
Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Breyer said history stands with the dissenters in the court's decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., handgun ban in the 2008 case "D.C. v. Heller."
Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Well he is old enough to have been there so maybe he did hear them say that. /sarc.
A doddering old Communist.
Breyer has just proven the old saying...
“Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool... than to Speak..and REMOVE ALL DOUBT!!”
That a Supreme Court judge would talk about the Constitution granting rights is just stunning. But sadly, not surprising these days.
For the life of me, I will never understand why people believe that Supreme Court justices are any smarter than the common politician.....
The only restrictions our Founding Fathers would have placed on guns is Felons...while incarcerated.
If the felony was bad enough (murder) they would have immediately hung the scum and been done with it instead of worrying about their rights later on.
“liberals” are only ever about liberty when it involves committing atrocities against the innocent.
Liberal justices invoking the Founding Fathers? Isn’t that kind of like atheists citing Scripture?
Although I would like to take credit for it.
I will coin a phrase used by another freeper today,
“a judge is a lawyer with a robe acting like a socialworker”
Breyer is an over-educated idiot. He has decided that the role of the USSC is to accept the words and opinions of “historians” above the actual words on the Constitution, and rule in favor of the “historians” without regard for the Constitution as written.
To quote another freeper today also;Natural causes-and soon.
More damage to the country from the Clinton administration. This man is a dolt.
Breyer is the asshat that almost had his house taken away from him after he ruled that it was fine for towns to steal peoples land away from them. For him to find one view out of hundred of statements made by the founders is foolish. I believe the statement the founders wanted to make WAS the 2nd admendment!
A judge is nothing but a lawyer who golfs with politicians.
Sweet Merciful Crap! The pure ignorance and arrogance of the man is staggering. It’s quite obvious from the airy-fairy comments he tosses off that he hasn’t spent a single hour studying the history of the 2nd Amendment. He sure doesn’t sound like he ever read The Federalist Papers, that’s for damn sure. His entire attitude is pure self-appointed philosopher-king. “Living Document” all the way.
Since they are playing around in the hypothetical and the what-if and the pretend, in my world the Founding Fathers would have lined up every pathetic liberal and shot them in the head, burned their bodies and would have sewn salt on the cursed farms. There is my pretend-like....what a waste....
At the Founding, there were privately owned CANNON that would have cleared out a schoolyard much faster than any AK-47.
How could such an ignoramus get on the Supreme Court?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.