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 ...
The same Founding Fathers who drafted a Constitution with an implicit right of civilian ownership of naval artillery? Those Founding fathers? Or the ones he wishes had existed, and based on the Constitution that exists only in Breyer’s head?
Since the judiciary is clearly interested in precedent, this earlier justice would have to admit to ownership and use of all arms up to the first gun control legislation that was passed. I am curious if we are talking about the 1930's now.
implicit right of civilian ownership of naval artillery?
***Interesting. This is the first I’ve heard of this angle. Do you have some further references or links?
When that happens, there is really nothing left to do short of a revolution or find another country that still has it’s values. Yes, there are some, you must have to do your4 research. We MUST win in 2012. It is a MUST!
The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;Letters of Marque and Reprisal allowed armed civilian ships to capture enemy shipping in a manner that would otherwise be piracy. That these and other civilian ships would be armed was a given in the 18th century.
That is a pretty ignorant comment. Thomas has a very unique and Originalist view of the Constitution, and it is one that is both deep in thought and far more reflective of the founders intent than most others. Thomas sometimes gets things wrong (all of the Justices do) but he also gets a whole lot of things right. In fact, he sometimes gets things right when Scalia gets them wrong (IE: Raich).
Which leftwing blockhead said that? That's like saying freedom of the press only applied to printing presses and only to those of the type available in the 18th century.
Damned right they would have supported restrictions. That’s why the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr never happened.
Indeed! Did that Justice, or his security own Tommyguns at the time? Precedent set! My christmas shopping just got a whole lot easier.
Basically privateers, right? Sounds a lot like militia to me. Thanks for the link.
Please send those quotes to each member of the SCOTUS.
He’s right about living in a visual age. Watching his interview two words came to my mind: Arrogant and Creepy.
There are so many laws & precedents & rabbit holes in the constitution now, that even members of the SCOTUS are just following their own emotional opinions rather than seriously deliberating the issues. It’s a tragedy, and a sign that this republic could be doomed.
I think a studied person would realize that Justice Thomas ia a steady proponent of natural law.
I’m siding with you on this one also!
>The son-of-a-bitch is only 72. After that statement though, we should move to have him retired non compos mentis.
What’s sad is that such a statement isn’t considered treason, which the Constitution defines as “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
The reasoning is simple; the Second Amendment states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now, obviously there is a relationship between the militia and the right to bear arms shown here, namely: an individual member of society cannot function as a member of the militia without the equipment thereof. Therefore to bar access to such “terrible implements of war” is exactly equivalent (constitutionally speaking) to refusing to supply the army.
Therefore, because this is an exact equivalence, forbidding the general citizen the right to keep and bear arms *IS* supplying aid and comfort to America’s enemies, precisely because it denies otherwise capable militia members from the militia which *IS* the security for the free state.
Unless you're Assange, and you have the goods on banksters.
From the Constitution:
“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”
In the days of fighting sail, a Letter of Marque and Reprisal was a government license authorizing a private vessel to attack and capture enemy vessels, and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale. Cruising for prizes with a Letter of Marque was considered an honorable calling combining patriotism and profit, in contrast to unlicensed piracy which was universally reviled.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque ]
So, obviously the Letter of Marque requires a fully stocked and armed warship.
The Judiciary was not meant to be a nascent Krytocracy.
>He’s a Supreme Court Justice and hasn’t figured out the govt didn’t grant individuals squat.
There are actually some rights that are NOT inherent, those ARE granted by some institution/group; the right to vote is an example. There is, in a strict monarchy, no right to vote; however, there is *ALWAYS* the right for you to defend yourself... even in our own prisons, where weapons aren’t allowed & freedom restricted, the inmate has the right to defend himself.
Voting is a privilege granted to citizens who meet certain requirements.
"And if gun laws render you unarmed and result in your murder at the hands of an armed home invader," Breyer added, "well, that's what you get for electing the kind of liberal Democrats who appoint and confirm scumbags like me to the freaking US supreme Court. Hahaha-haaa."
Yep your correct it was the dishonorable asshat Souter not the dishonorable asshat Breyer...
Yup, a few wealthy types privately owned what was the days equivalent of a fully armed Navy destroyer. You could own whatever weaponry you could afford, no questions asked.
he ought to go back to making ice cream
What a dunce.
(ping of interest DLR).
If one understands society of the day, that is like saying they would have allowed restrictions on forks or axes. It was a tool of everyday life. It not only was an item to defend your life, liberty, and property, but it was a tool to sustain your family.
It is obvious that the Founders saw and new of attempts to limit arms by those who wanted to control liberty, which is why they explicitly forbid the government to infringe on ownership. The European they escaped from and rebelled against had one of the early forms of arms control where lords forbid the serfs to own arms (unless they deemed necessary) in order to hold on to their power. Seems we are moving back to that old European feudalistic culture under Breyer.
A. "Your Honor"
We would be better off reducing the court back to five as it was before Roosevelt raised it to nine and packed it. I'll pick the four to retire. You can trust me.
What is this idiot doing on the supreme court? Does he not know the purpose of the second amendment? Does he not understand the consequences of an all-powerful government?
Oh, I think he understands perfectly. It’s just that he’s a leftie and lefties don’t like sharing power with the masses. He knows that the second amendment is the only thing left with which to defend the rest of the constitution and he hates that.
What amazes me is that this cretin is considered ‘qualified’ to be a justice on the SCOTUS. Firearms were the rule, not the exception in the time our Founders lived. As common to see as horse shite in the road.
Amen to that. We sure do give them godlike status as well as godlike powers
I've met the man, he's sharp and he's knowledgeable. Just because he doesn't run his mouth at oral argument doesn't mean he's "an idiot".
Look online for the recording of a talk and question-and-answer session he had with a group of high school students. He's very articulate and has some interesting things to say - one of the first questions is why he doesn't ask many questions at OA. He gives a thoughtful answer which may interest you -- I say may because it sounds like your mind is already made up.
You might want to verify those quotes. The George Washington one I know is bogus - not sure about some of the others. The Franklin one sounds much too modern.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Dumb as a box of rocks.
You met Clarence Thomas? Well, I met Thomas Sowell, so there!
In other news, Bill got an improbably high PSAT score. We’re all still in shock. Probably not a National Merit Scholarship, but the Army ROTC recruiter is going to be climbing in throught dryer vent.
The Federalist Papers
A prolifically idiotic and moronic statement.
My husband was able to choose his branch back in '73 at GA Tech (he chose Chemical Corps, he's a chemist). That may have been a special deal with Tech, don't know for sure.
But I've heard him speak, and he's good. And I'm not just saying that because he's from right down the road from my parents' house!
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.
With love from Alexander Hamilton [Federalist #28]
Sounds like good news!
Wow. What an ignorant statement. I guess you haven't read My Grandfather's Son; or talked to anyone who has worked with him. Maybe you could share two or three idiotic statements you've heard even attributed to the man?
It is good news. With a little more work on his math, he can have a stratospheric SAT score and get substantial financial aid from a respectable state college, if he decides against ROTC. My husband and I are pushing it, because it’s not only a paid college education but a job afterward.
Bill would like artillery, I think. The Army recruiter is the man who caught him frisking on the church roof ;-).
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.