Note that it was New York that provided Mr. Bevier with his cannon.
Posted on 12/16/2010 10:07:01 PM PST by neverdem
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is an ideologue, a judicial activist who rules by his own political and personal philosophy, rather than the rule of law and what our founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights more than 200 years ago.
The left-leaning justice recently made remarks that further the suspicion that has been held for years - he doesn’t rule in regard to the Constitution, but rather a far-left political philosophy.
On Sunday, Breyer, a Bill Clinton appointee, said the founding fathers never intended guns to go unregulated.
Breyer said history stands with the dissenters in the court’s decision to overturn the Washington, D.C., handgun ban in 2008 case “D.C. v. Heller.”
Language in the Heller decision,however, acknowledged the constitutionality of some restrictions on guns.
Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. 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 might not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.
Mr. Breyer, you couldn’t be more wrong. Breyer even went on to ask: “What is the scope of the right to keep and bear arms? Machine guns, torpedoes? Handguns?”
There are limitations on the right to keep and bear arms just as their are limitations on freedom of speech and of the press, as well as other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Madison, along with other patriot founders of our nation had something very compelling reasons for protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
Perhaps Mr. Breyer should look at the murder rate in the nation’s capital - many were killed because of the handgun ban. The city of Chicago and several other large cities that ban handguns also see very high murder rates, many people would likely still be alive today if they had the right to possess a handgun in those cities, as the founders intended, to defend themselves.
Mr. Breyer seems to be engaged in an exercise of revisionist history.
It is unlikely that the former 13 colonies would have ratified the Constitution without the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, which included the Second Amendment.
The 13 former colonies had recently secured their independence after a protracted and bloody struggle against British tyranny.
A laundry list of grievances against the British crown and Parliament as outlined in the Declaration of Independence is insightful.
Given a genuine concern that they might exchange one government that ran roughshod over their rights for another, the insistence on the inclusion of the Bill of Rights as a condition of ratification is hardly surprising.
Americans of that day were well aware of the important role of an armed citizenry at Lexington and Concord at the dawn of the revolution.
Moreover, Americans relied on their guns to protect their homes and settlements during the French and Indian wars.
During the revolution, settlers had to depend on their guns for protection against marauding bands of Indians incited by the British.
Perhaps Breyer should read the account of the siege of Fort Boonesborough in our own state of Kentucky.
But perhaps not, since Breyer seems more partial to history of the revisionist variety.
I don't know....."thinking" might be a little too strong.
It is amazing how leftists, even on the Supreme Court, have little understanding of our county’s real history. Even a cursory reading of the history of the Revolutionary and early Republic periods shows that guns were extremely important.
"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..." -- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
Bingo! Nice picks!
“The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ...” — James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
Given that our arms are quite infringed/restricted, and most people would argue that is for the best (try taking your gun into a school or university and then arguing that you have the Constitutional right to do so), it stands to reason that either a) America is not using its best/most-natural defense, OR b) America is not [in reality] a free country.
More and more I am inclined to believe that ‘b’ is the true answer.
Indeed.
;-\
Demagogs argue that (1)’The right of the people to to keep and bear arms ...’ is buried into or preceded or defined by (2)’A well regulated militia composed of the body of the people...’. These people dismiss/deny that (1) actually by Madison’s construction(which I believe was deliberate) precedes (2) and defines which is paramount i.e.(1) and which should have results of (2).
Demagogs argue that (1)’The right of the people to to keep and bear arms ...’ is buried into or preceded or defined by (2)’A well regulated militia composed of the body of the people...’. These people dismiss/deny that (1) actually by Madison’s construction(which I believe was deliberate) precedes (2) and defines which is paramount i.e.(1) and which should have results of (2).
He struck me as an obvious narcissist and quite taken with himself and his lamo logic and studies. I can't imagine he would let a ‘little thing’ such as the constitution get in the way of his rulings and opinions.
By the way the topic of the presentation I attended was NOT in Justice Breyer’s area of expertise (not even close!). Yet this did not stop him from talking the entire time about his point of view regarding the subject matter. What a self centered bore he was. Although he was positively enthusiastic about his own thoughts!! The speaker’s when he was given the opportunity to talk . . . not so much.
...than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.Any Supreme Court justice who would use the term granting with regard to our rights should be immediately impeached for that alone.
The best analysis/opinion I’ve heard on this was by Mark Levin. I don’t know if it is on his site, but if it is, it is worth listening to.
Note that it was New York that provided Mr. Bevier with his cannon.
Agreed. Will you be calling to request initiation of the process?
He's right cause historians are mostly libtarded morons like himself. Pinged historians not included. ;p
========================================================================
If you have such a problem withe local or state laws, just go to another state to get your guns!
_________________________________________________________________________
If you have such a problem withe local or state laws, just go to another state to get your abortion!
Breyer was appointed by a self-centered bore who seldom closes his mouth.
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.