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 ...
Excellent summary!
Or more honest.
Memo to "Justice" Breyer:
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]
Let’s not mince words here.
Breyer is a fascist who stands against the Constitution, the separation of powers, states rights, and most importantly he is against freedom of the individual if it conflicts with the interests of the state.
Had Breyer been a man of means in 1800 he would have been a slave owner. And proud of it.
I watched just a few minutes of that charade before I got so pist(sic) and clicked off. The final straw was when the gun ban in Washington, DC preventing citizen ownership was mentioned. He said something like, "If you are a sportsman and want to target shoot, you can always go to Maryland." I would have slammed my fist down on the table and tell him, "That was the sound of a thug kicking in your door at 2 a.m., looking for drugs. He will not take 'NO' for an answer. What do you do - run to Maryland?". He was so smug I wanted to belt him, old age not withstanding.
I thought SCOTUS judges didn’t grant (or rarely granted) interviews. This certainly illustrates the wisdom in that practice.
The Franklin one is genuine, although many people have quoted him over the years and then been given credit for the quote, much like Lincoln gets the credit for, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
As for the G.W. quote, what is your source for it being bogus? I’m happy to correct myself, but I’ve seen it in many different sources.
This is in the Constitution or only in the head of someone on this thread?
ML/NJ
Bill’s verbal scores on the PSAT were 99th percentile, and his math score about 75%. We’ll have him do more drill with his present program, but if his first run at the SAT disappoints, a tutor is definitely a possibility. He could get admitted anywhere he cares to go at his present level, but he needs financial aid.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Later on in Dred Scott the Court confirmed the common belief ~ to wit: slaves had no rights.
That is a RESTRICTION ON RIGHTS
So what class of citizens does that still apply to?
Then he would beat them whenever his rages came.
I think everybody has this puke's number.
Well, to start with, people who live in New Jersey, Maryland, ..... those sorts of places, and you don’t have to be black anymore to be a government slave with no rights.
Yeah you can work at the post office. :)
Surprising how many people these days have no idea what slavery really meant. When I was a kid we'd have these old folks stop by the school to speak and they'd tell us how it was to be a slave. They'd been slaves and they were really old.
Where does this highly educated individual think the Minute Men, Roger's Ranges, the Green Mountain Boys, the Swamp Fox's men, to name a few, got their weapons during the American Revolution?
Our founding fathers knew full well the importance of the private, individual, ownership of modern firearms.
They knew this from practical experience growing up, various wars and Indian raids, the Revolutionary War itself, plus the recent histories of various Scottish and Irish revolts against the Crown.
Without firearms we’ll all be slaves once again.
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.