Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Madison "was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. 'That can't happen,' said Madison," said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison's priority as, "I've got to get this document ratified."

Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.

Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns - FoxNews.com

What complete and utter bullshit. Everybody had a gun in those days. They needed it for hunting and they needed them for self defense, particularly with the British at their door step. There weren't local police forces in most places. There were no gun laws at the federal level or even the state level. Gun control wasn't even a term that existed in colonial America.

Not that his use of foreign laws in making his decisions isn't enough evidence already, this is just further proof that Stephen Breyer is unfit for service on the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[ConHog]

Psst, everyone DID have guns back then, but everyone did NOT have military grade cannons and such. Wonder why that was.

I thought he gave a good interview. He was merely saying that NO right is absolute, and that the FF couldn't possibly have conceived of every possible future.

 

[Intense]

Psst, everyone DID have guns back then, but everyone did NOT have military grade cannons and such. Wonder why that was.

I thought he gave a good interview. He was merely saying that NO right is absolute, and that the FF couldn't possibly have conceived of every possible future.

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.
Madison "was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. 'That can't happen,' said Madison," said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison's priority as, "I've got to get this document ratified."


Read more: Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns - FoxNews.com

Bullshit! He's hallucinating and babbling. Look at the line up on the opinion.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Psst, everyone DID have guns back then, but everyone did NOT have military grade cannons and such. Wonder why that was.

I thought he gave a good interview. He was merely saying that NO right is absolute, and that the FF couldn't possibly have conceived of every possible future.

The case of D.C. v Heller did not involve the request of a resident to own a military grade cannon.

 

[ConHog]

Psst, everyone DID have guns back then, but everyone did NOT have military grade cannons and such. Wonder why that was.

I thought he gave a good interview. He was merely saying that NO right is absolute, and that the FF couldn't possibly have conceived of every possible future.

The case of D.C. v Heller did not involve the request of a resident to own a military grade cannon.

I was merely illustrating a point. You just think that all rights should be absolute? Take his example of what if FoxNews wanted to have a show on how to build a bomb? Is that free speech?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Psst, everyone DID have guns back then, but everyone did NOT have military grade cannons and such. Wonder why that was.

I thought he gave a good interview. He was merely saying that NO right is absolute, and that the FF couldn't possibly have conceived of every possible future.

What he said did not conform to the facts...

George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights:"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)

The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)

The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.

Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 and members of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)

Further, I would rather have a Supreme Court Justice who definitively stated that international law did not pertain to any USSC decison....

"Justice Breyer explained his frustration with those who complain about the Supreme Court potentially looking at other countries when they are resolving cases involving U.S. law. He noted, “I say that's a wonderful political debate. It’s good, but it’s pretty irrelevant because when I do read things, I can read what I want.” While recognizing that the U.S. Constitution is a unique document, he explained that if something has been written “by a man or a woman who has a job like mine in another country, and who is interpreting a document somewhat like mine and who in fact has a problem in front of the Court somewhat like mine, why can’t I read it, see what they’ve done? I might learn something.”
Justice Watch: Justice Breyer on the Role of International Law

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I was merely illustrating a point.

One that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[ConHog]

I was merely illustrating a point.

One that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

How so? You mentioned his talking about the 2nd Amendment. That opened it up to discussion.

Oh and PC chick on the matter of international law, I agree with you, it has no place in our courts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il are all Progressives who had the benefit of unarmed populations.

 

[Intense]

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. -Madison Federalist #46 http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

Oh well, win some , lose some I guess. Nobody is perfect.

 

[Intense]

Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. Federalist #46 Madison
Federalist Papers Index

Wow! Four out of Nine Supreme Court Justices got that wrong! OMG! Where do they get their understanding from, Cliff Notes? I wonder how the numbers will be counted 4 years from now.