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 ...
I loved this one though:
"Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said."
No kidding there Einstein. Why would the states have joined a union that didn't include the laws they wanted?
Clearly, you are the idiot. Thomas is the best judge on the bench.
Liberals and atheists only quote our Sacred text and Constitution when they believe they can use it to cow us. When they believe they can win with their twisted interpretations, they love them both.
The primary purpose of firearms is to enable people to defend their persons, families, and property at times when the police are unable (or unwilling) to do so.
Unable: the police will rarely arrive in time to stop a crime in progress, even if the victim has a chance to call them.
Unwilling: during the LA riots and Crown Heights riots, people were essentially on their own, the police were for the most part standing down.
Bingo.
While researching natural born citizen..in the old newspapers..a Founder was quoted they added the right to bear arms to protect the citizens from the government.
Have lost the newspaper article due to hard drive burn out.
The search began at the Williamsburg website..in the Gazette.
Sarah can increase the number and pack the court when we elect her in 2012.
And how on Earth will that happen? lol. They have to be willing to leave. They cannot be forced out by Sarah. Wow! Stunning how FREEPERS need to know the workings of the government.
Exactly. And would 18th Century Americans have joined a Union that had the right to take away their guns?
but with the ratification of the Constitution it ultimately gave people the right to bear arms so what the hell is Breyer’s point?
It would be useful if you were to read some of Justice Thomas’ decisions before you make such a silly statement.
Breyer does have some facts on his side but draws the wrong conclusions from those facts. The original states did ‘regulate’ gun ownership often requiring citizen’s to own weapons and even specifying the caliber of these weapons (and the quantity of powder and shot). This was done in order to ensure the weapons would be effective on the battlefield and to simplify re-supply of ammunition.
Now, how Breyer goes from these facts to believing this means the FF would support denying gunownership is interesting.
Man I hate these revisionists.
I'm tired of all the idiots that smear Justice Thomas. His opinion on gun ownership is brilliant and will be one of the best opinions ever given by the Supreme Court. He votes with Scalia most of the time because Scalia is also brilliant and often there isn't any reason to add to Scalia’s already well-reasoned opinion.
What history is this puke looking at? Liberal-sanitized, rewritten fiction?
no! Not until the Traitor-in-Chief is out of office.
Since he’s JEWISH, I would ask him about should guns be allowed in Israel!! i THINK he would have a different answer!! What a HYPOCRITE!
For the life of me, I will never understand why people believe that Supreme Court justices are any smarter than the common politician.....
...or any less venal.
Are there any qualified judges in middle America that can be a SCJ?? How about TX, AZ, WY, MT?? Why must they be urban judges all the time?
The Founders original intent is crystal clear.
J Breyer does not speak for Madison.
If they never intended guns to go unregulated, why did they give us the second amendment?
An oft used quote of Benjamin Franklin, “Those who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security are deserving of neither,” is actually addressing the refusal of some to arm themselves to defend the frontier and instead, tried to make deals with the then marauders.
The quote can be read in context in a letter he wrote to the Governor of Pennsylvania at http://www.franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=6&page=238a
The founders gave us the right to bear arms for a reason and Breyer seems to be expressing that reason we need them.
What did he use for his basis for that theory, a seance? Assuming he did, he must have been plugged into the ghost of George III.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
[COMMA-denoting the beginning of a new phrase and defining concept]
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The most powerful comma in the world!
If Madison had to contend with punks invading homes [brandishing guns], drive-by shootings, and nut cases shooting up the Post Office - He sure as hell would have told Breyer to STUFF IT !!!
Other than abortion and gay marriage most libs don’t give a damn about individual rights.
They don’t even agree with individual rights on those issues. People must accept those.
Delusional liberal twit. No business whatsoever being on the Supreme Court. Pompous Jackass!!!
Strange that Breyer airily blows off D.C. gun owners and tells them to go pistol target shooting in Maryland, a state known to be very unfriendly to guns and gun owners.
Of course, the main purpose of pistol target practice is to sharpen one’s skills against the occasion when deadly force is the sole means of defense and survival.
Wonder why Breyer didn’t airily suggest taking the subway to go shooting in Virginia, a much more gun friendly state.
This recalls an earlier chief justice who held that the Second Amendment only guaranteed the right to own weapons of the same technology as the year the Bill of Rights was ratified.
He actually held up a muzzleloader flintlock musket and said this is what you can own under 2A as he saw it.
Smug, arrogant, self-satisfied jerks!
BRAVO!! You certainly did your homework. Thanks for posting.
Breyer is going insane. First hinting that burning a Koran (and ONLY a Koran) might be unconstitutional, then backtracking on Larry King Alive. Now this demented screed. Where are the SNL parodies?
Men are not ‘hung’ (except John Holmes - he's dead).
Men are HANGED:
Is hanged,
Was hanged,
Shall be hanged.
If a man is ‘hung’ this is a family forum and you cannot write about it here.
I do agree with your point BTW.
If he would read about history and natural rights, he would learn that the right to keep and bear arms was considered by the Founders to be an unalienable right connected with and related to the preservation of life, liberty, and property.
I simply don't believe that people in that day and age would have even considered restricting firearms....they (firearms) were actually part of the culture...virtually every family had them
Is he saying they might have, as in if they could it all over? Well, that is not good enough. They did not, so whatever liberal “historians” are saying is meaningless. We don’t elect, or nominate (through elected representatives who nominate said judges) historians to rule on legal issues.
He can now read the minds of dead people. Amazing. /s
I thought that was Souter whose house was involved?
My take on the second. We citizens are the regulators, not Congress. The Complex is the regulated entity, not some ad hoc militia. I include the three branches of government within this Industrial Military Complex.
If the case had been whether or not Moslems were allowed concealed carry because of some 6ull$h!+ made-up ad hoc “belief” that made it impossible to search them, he’d have ruled in favor of the Moslems. He’s just another anti-American a-hole from the Party of the Single Party State / Party of Treason. Thanks driftdiver.
WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known.
... That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;
Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, And in confidence that the Amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature Consideration: We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution.
Although something similar later became the Second Amendment, the New York ratification was not conditional in any way. It was a statement of what the unamended Constitution meant. Hamilton and Jay, two of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, voted for the New York ratification document.
Also from the 1776 Constitution of Pennsylvania:
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state
This is what happens when the Constitution becomes a “living document”, and the idiot elitists appointed to the Supreme Court figure they’re smarter than the Founders.
I wonder, If this "so-called" Justice has Secret Service protection...
..do all retired USSC justices revive such armed protection?
b/c he seems to be obvious to the Criminal element.
Seemed to me that they were more or less running away.
“Thomas is an idiot and comes off as one whenever he opens his mouth”
nonsense.
http://www.2shared.com/audio/sRXOdCPa/Oct_1_07_-_Clarence_Thomas_Int.html
Fast forward to 19th century...Sea to shining sea would not have occurred with unarmed pioneers.
true....
(IIRC)...the town STILL HAS NOT developed the land condemned
for the promised revenue..the "development deal" flew through.
I wonder if any envious councilmember(s) acquired the land.
Stunningly stupid comment
Because the American Revolution was won with registered firearms...
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.