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?
It’s because of Supreme Judges such as Breyer that the Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment.
The scales of liberty are teetering at 5-4 way too often. It would only take one change to tip the other way.
I like the way Hadley Arkes turns it around, “Why does the government want to restrict my right to protect myself, my children and my family?” Breyer totally rips it out of historical context, as Madison’s contemporaries on the frontier certainly required their guns for protection.
They may have until the Bill of Rights came along.
I thought that was Souter’s town in New Hampshire that wanted to take away his house...maybe Breyer’s home town tried it on him too.
It sounds like the same selection bias regarding foreign law.
Was there a Cannon Control Act similar to the Gun Control Act of 68?
Didn’t think so.
Sarah can increase the number and pack the court when we elect her in 2012.
We almost didn’t have a second amendment, because they thought those things were so self evident they didn’t need to be in writing. Thankfully they did write them down.
What’s far more disturbing is that — excepting most of those here at FR — so few “citizens” even understand that let alone reject it.
What an a-hole.
The Constitution is clear, there are no restrictions on guns and there are no restrictions on speech.
Of course the 2nd means exactly what it was intended to mean as written.
People who debate the gun issue have been found citing Madison one way, and Mason another way.
Mason, et al, finally voted for the Constitution ONLY after being assured by Madison (etc) that the State's lists of enumerated rights for the people would not be endangered by the absence of a Bill of Rights at the federal level
Breyer takes that as an argument that only the militia rights of the states were at risk of a federal problem. This is "EVASIVE BEHAVIOR" that clearly suggests that he, Breyer, KNOWS he is lying about both Mason and Madison when it comes to the Bill of Rights.
Wouldn't trust that puke near an empty cashregister.
It would be difficult for Breyer to have looked into what Madison and Mason thought about the Bill of Rights without recognizing that for the Founders knowledge of the plight of the Huguenots in France was still important.
Many Americans knew that their own grandparents were Huguenots and that they had refused to surrender their arms at the end of the Religious Wars (in France) and knew that those arms were all that stood between them and a tyrant.
In the end they were correct, which is why the Huguenots had to flee France forever. So, it wasn't concern over "the militia" that was at issue, but "freedom of religion" which had to be understood in America as best protected by private individuals armed to the nines!
Breyer is such a enemy to the American people ~ can we send him back where his kind came from?
"Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland."
Dear Lord, what an idiot.
By his reasoning, he should ask some law-breakers living in Maryland---Do you like to shoot pistols at people? Well, get on the subway and go to D.C., where if I had my way everyone would be defenseless.
The Founders placed restrictions on black slaves owning guns.
In the matter of the right to keep and bear arms, the relenat question is not what the intent of the Founders was, but rather what was the intent of the author of the 2nd Amendment, and the intent of the States that ratified it.
He belongs in the proletariate, because he’s the worst type of snob: ignorant, arrogant and incompetant.
The man isn’t even book smart. He’s learned nothing from history or from our Founders. He’s cherry picked to suit his own Marxist “feelings.”
He apparently has never heard of the Minutemen.
Very well put.
No. They thought it was a good idea for the citizenry to be armed, especially against powers like him.
Stevie has been drinking the bong water again.
...you will see that the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated...
Cannons were unregulated. You would have thunk that they would have been regulated if anything was.
The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.”
Elliot’s Debates, vol. 3 “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.”
the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms;
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”
The Founding Fathers on Arms
“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
First President of the United States
“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside
Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788
“The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
Third President of the United States
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that
it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.
“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
Can you believe that a sitting Supreme Court justice, who is sworn to rule on the Constitution alone, would say such a thing? It calls into questions his very qualification to serve.
I agree with you on two of the three and raise you an Alito. Thomas is an idiot and comes off as one whenever he opens his mouth. He was a token pick who would never have been selected were he a white man but tokens can vote and he votes just fine.
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.