Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns FoxNews.com 12 Dec 2

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns FoxNews.com 12 Dec 2

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...#ixzz17w8diqCq

    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.

  2. #2
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    If this man actually believes his own dribble, he's a moron.

    Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.
    Madison did not "include" the second amendment in the Constitution. The second amendment was drafted and included in the Bill of Rights passed by the first congress in 1789 and ratified by the states in 1791. It was part 2 of the first change to the Constitution.

    Oh, that means he's a moron whether he believes it or not.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    That being the case, and particularly since the Founding Fathers did not foresee how modern day would change individual behavior, government bodies can impose regulations on guns, Breyer concluded.
    This tells us what we really need to know about Breyer's opinion. He believes that current conditions change the meaning of the Constitution, i.e. it is a "living document."

    The Founders absolutely believed in the RKBA. If not, Breyer would have been able to cite specific quotations indicating otherwise, instead of crafting a roundabout argument that Madison threw in this right to appease the States.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    If this man actually believes his own dribble, he's a moron.



    Madison did not "include" the second amendment in the Constitution. The second amendment was drafted and included in the Bill of Rights passed by the first congress in 1789 and ratified by the states in 1791. It was part 2 of the first change to the Constitution.

    Oh, that means he's a moron whether he believes it or not.
    You kinda have to be a moron in order to be a liberal in the first place. Breyer on the other hand suffers from more than simple idiocy. He clearly suffers from delusions and narcism as well. "People" like that are always dangerous when given power.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    You have to remember where Breyer is coming from...

    Standford... Oxford... Harvard...

    His father was counsel for the San Francisco Board of Education.

    He was assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in 1973.

    He was appointed by Carter to the First Circuit.

    He was appointed to SCOTUS by Clinton.

    His wife is a psychologist, and a member of British aristocracy (the youngest daughter of John Hare, 1st Viscount Blakenham).

    Cass Sunstein is one of his diciples, and thinks Breyer's "attack on originalism is powerful and convincing."


    'nuff sed...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  6. #6
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    The Founding Fathers would have tarred 'n feathered a 'Breyer' as a closet Torie 'n been done with it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonora Rebel View Post
    The Founding Fathers would have tarred 'n feathered a 'Breyer' as a closet Torie 'n been done with it.
    What's closet about him. He's been out of the closet for years.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  8. #8
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    It took all of 30 seconds of that interview for me to decide that he was a moron. The fool doesn't even understand what he reads when he reads the federalist papers.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  9. #9
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005
    Liberalism is a psychological disorder. Plain and simple.

    "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption
    of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the
    Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers
    of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to
    govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good
    masters, but they mean to be masters."
    -- Daniel Webster
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  10. #10
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
    It took all of 30 seconds of that interview for me to decide that he was a moron. The fool doesn't even understand what he reads when he reads the federalist papers.
    It's not so much that he doesn't understand it; he probably does. But he practices something we all do whether we sit on the left, center, or the right side of the socio-political fence. He formulates his views and opinions filtered through his own personal biases and belief system. The problem arises here because the results of his examinations affect the entire nation now and for years to come.

    He can read Federalist paper #46 and come away with a different perspective and meaning than can one of us. Same with the Second Amendment, the salient paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, or the writings of many of the Founders. His reading of these texts is colored through something he deeply believes in; interpretation of the writings... not an understanding of their original intent. In this, he's not alone.

    What is so disturbing is his remarks in that interview. Justice Warren Burger made similar comments after he retired his bench position. They are human. The problem is that they allow their human traits to color their decisions and renderings.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  11. #11
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by KansasMustang View Post
    Liberalism is a psychological disorder. Plain and simple.

    "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption
    of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the
    Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers
    of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to
    govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good
    masters, but they mean to be masters."
    -- Daniel Webster
    I have been telling liberals that for months. I use the phrase "a Mental Disease". They sure do set up a howl. I haven't seen any froth at the mouth YET.

    If we use it enough at the right times, we can negate a lot of their votes and may actually get a significant number put where they belong. In the nut house or the pen.

    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460
    So, is he saying that he believes that Madison included the 2nd Amendment in order to get the states to ratify the Constitution, with the intention of removing it later, if he could?

    If so, wouldn't that mean he negotiated with the states in bad faith, and wouldn't that make the ratification null and void?

    If anything, I think this says that without the right to keep and bear arms (as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights), there IS NO NATION, and is a clear indication that governments can NOT legislate gun control.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not incomplete to just try to discern what the framers of the Constitution intended? Is it not also necessary to discern what the states that finally RATIFIED the Constitution believed it meant, as well?

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Slayer of Paper View Post
    So, is he saying that he believes that Madison included the 2nd Amendment in order to get the states to ratify the Constitution, with the intention of removing it later, if he could?

    If so, wouldn't that mean he negotiated with the states in bad faith, and wouldn't that make the ratification null and void?

    If anything, I think this says that without the right to keep and bear arms (as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights), there IS NO NATION, and is a clear indication that governments can NOT legislate gun control.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not incomplete to just try to discern what the framers of the Constitution intended? Is it not also necessary to discern what the states that finally RATIFIED the Constitution believed it meant, as well?

    Yes and what we the people believed it meant at the time. We knew the bill of rights was our inalienable rights that the fed or state gov. was not to mess with.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Slayer of Paper View Post
    So, is he saying that he believes that Madison included the 2nd Amendment in order to get the states to ratify the Constitution, with the intention of removing it later, if he could?

    If so, wouldn't that mean he negotiated with the states in bad faith, and wouldn't that make the ratification null and void?

    If anything, I think this says that without the right to keep and bear arms (as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights), there IS NO NATION, and is a clear indication that governments can NOT legislate gun control.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not incomplete to just try to discern what the framers of the Constitution intended? Is it not also necessary to discern what the states that finally RATIFIED the Constitution believed it meant, as well?
    See post #2
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  15. #15
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Slayer of Paper View Post
    So, is he saying that he believes that Madison included the 2nd Amendment in order to get the states to ratify the Constitution, with the intention of removing it later, if he could?

    If so, wouldn't that mean he negotiated with the states in bad faith, and wouldn't that make the ratification null and void?

    If anything, I think this says that without the right to keep and bear arms (as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights), there IS NO NATION, and is a clear indication that governments can NOT legislate gun control.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not incomplete to just try to discern what the framers of the Constitution intended? Is it not also necessary to discern what the states that finally RATIFIED the Constitution believed it meant, as well?
    Remember, the Bill of Rights came after the Constitution, i.e., it is a separate document which stands alone from the Constitution (I know, this is almost never considered, but it's true) and while it is loosely addressed as Amendments, which it is, it is still a separate document and should be viewed as such for good reason. That reason is something that Jefferson and Madison, among others, firmly believed; that the Bill of Rights was not amendable, that it was never to be altered or dissolved in part or in whole.

    The force which resulted in the Bill of Rights was mostly the product of two of the Founders; George Mason and Patrick Henry. These two gentlemen believed that the Constitution was not complete... that it didn't go far enough in protecting the people from future potential abuses. Madison believed that that was enough in the Constitution to guarantee against such concerns but Mason and Henry held out and insisted that because there were no fundamental rights addressed in the Constitution, future congresses could pretty much do anything they wished at the expense of the people's liberty. Madison came around and became an ardent supporter of the Bill of Rights after it was drafted and went on for ratification.

    The Bill of Rights is a package deal. All ten amendments are fundamental to the continuance of a free people and therefore they all must be accepted, protected, and supported. It is not a Buffet of Rights where one can say, "I like this one, but I'm not so sure about that one and I definitely don't like this other one". They all come together as one and must be considered untouchable. In our history, they have never been altered. But they have been interpreted to the point where they may as well have been altered. This is the evil and insidious method of those who would see our rights trampled and made insignificant.

    It is the Bill of Rights and the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence that sets this nation apart from all the others and makes us unique in the annals of history. We are the only nation in the history of the world which at its founding, reserved such guarantees of power and authority to the people. It is this, we are rapidly forgetting and loosing and once gone, we will never see it again.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    It's for this very reason that I believe the Bill of Rights were not just for the Fed.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460
    Several states would not ratify the Constitution without including language that their ratification was dependent on the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. Two states did not ratify the Constitution at all until the Bill of Rights had passed the Congress.

    What I was saying is that in order to discern the intent of the founding fathers, it is necessary to consider not just what the 55 or so delegates that wrote it were trying to accomplish, but also what the state legislatures that ratified it wanted to accomplish. That intent is clear: that without the protection of individual rights (including the right to keep and bear arms), there is NO DEAL: there is no Constitution, and there is no nation.

    The Bill of Rights was not just ratified by the 3/4 necessary for it to be included, but by ALL, including the 14th state, Vermont, which was granted statehood during the process. I'm not sure there are any other Amendments which have been ratified with unanimous support of the states.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Dear Justice Breyer,

    If the Constitution would not have been ratified by the People WITHOUT the promise of a Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, then doesn't that OBVIOUSLY mean that the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment WERE extremely IMPORTANT to the American people? After all, the thrust of your 'insightful' argument is that without those amendments the original Constitution would not have been acceptable to the American People.

    I find it amusing to know that revisionist historians are concluding that the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) were tools of appeasement. Elevating the Second Amendment to the status of 'deal-breaker' only serves to strengthen the rightful claim that keeping and bearing arms meant a great deal to a free People.

    So Mr. Breyer, you should be looking to the ratifiers of the Bill of Rights (the People of the newly-formed States) first and foremost for clues as to what 'shall not be infringed' meant to THEM rather than pretend to have special knowledge and Divine insight into the mind of the amendment's long-dead author.

    Thank you Mr. Breyer.

    David M. Bennett
    A Freedom-loving Citizen from St. Petersburg, Florida

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by Slayer of Paper View Post
    Several states would not ratify the Constitution without including language that their ratification was dependent on the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. Two states did not ratify the Constitution at all until the Bill of Rights had passed the Congress.

    What I was saying is that in order to discern the intent of the founding fathers, it is necessary to consider not just what the 55 or so delegates that wrote it were trying to accomplish, but also what the state legislatures that ratified it wanted to accomplish. That intent is clear: that without the protection of individual rights (including the right to keep and bear arms), there is NO DEAL: there is no Constitution, and there is no nation.

    The Bill of Rights was not just ratified by the 3/4 necessary for it to be included, but by ALL, including the 14th state, Vermont, which was granted statehood during the process. I'm not sure there are any other Amendments which have been ratified with unanimous support of the states.
    Slayer, our thoughts echo the same things. You beat me to it!

  20. #20
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    i would never inflate my post count just to plus 1 some posts, BUT!

    Quote Originally Posted by Slayer of Paper View Post
    Several states would not ratify the Constitution without including language that their ratification was dependent on the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. Two states did not ratify the Constitution at all until the Bill of Rights had passed the Congress.

    What I was saying is that in order to discern the intent of the founding fathers, it is necessary to consider not just what the 55 or so delegates that wrote it were trying to accomplish, but also what the state legislatures that ratified it wanted to accomplish. That intent is clear: that without the protection of individual rights (including the right to keep and bear arms), there is NO DEAL: there is no Constitution, and there is no nation.

    The Bill of Rights was not just ratified by the 3/4 necessary for it to be included, but by ALL, including the 14th state, Vermont, which was granted statehood during the process. I'm not sure there are any other Amendments which have been ratified with unanimous support of the states.
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Dear Justice Breyer,

    If the Constitution would not have been ratified by the People WITHOUT the promise of a Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, then doesn't that OBVIOUSLY mean that the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment WERE extremely IMPORTANT to the American people? After all, the thrust of your 'insightful' argument is that without those amendments the original Constitution would not have been acceptable to the American People.

    I find it amusing to know that revisionist historians are concluding that the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) were tools of appeasement. Elevating the Second Amendment to the status of 'deal-breaker' only serves to strengthen the rightful claim that keeping and bearing arms meant a great deal to a free People.

    So Mr. Breyer, you should be looking to the ratifiers of the Bill of Rights (the People of the newly-formed States) first and foremost for clues as to what 'shall not be infringed' meant to THEM rather than pretend to have special knowledge and Divine insight into the mind of the amendment's long-dead author.

    Thank you Mr. Breyer.

    David M. Bennett
    A Freedom-loving Citizen from St. Petersburg, Florida

    +1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

    this is /are such good explanations of the importance of the 2nd amendment to OUR country!
    thank you both for writing this down so eloquently! bravo!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  21. #21
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    +1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

    this is /are such good explanations of the importance of the 2nd amendment to OUR country!
    thank you both for writing this down so eloquently! bravo!
    I also applaud these gentlemen members. Well done.

    For the "honorable" former justice, he should do some homework to discover what the spark was that ignited the American Revolution. So just in case he has forgotten his elementary history, that event was not started over taxes or the occupying of the homes of colonists or the carting off to England for trial of individuals deemed dangerous to the crown. All of those things were party to what led up to the revolution, but the actual spark which set it off that April morning in 1775 was gun control. The British were on the move and under orders to disband the militias, take their arms, and gain control of their powder magazines.

    Knowing this and the fact that it had happened just a few short years before, the Founders were VERY leery of government in general and strong central ones in particular... at least a good many of them.

    Without the Bill of Rights, this land would no longer be America. The Bill of Rights is an absolute necessity to guard against an over-extending government and the Second Amendment is the teeth of that document.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 12-15-2010 at 12:38 PM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Breyer also thinks the U.S. is a democracy. Show me even one place where the founding documents of the founding fathers refer to it as a democracy.

  23. #23
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by rpyne View Post
    Breyer also thinks the U.S. is a democracy. Show me even one place where the founding documents of the founding fathers refer to it as a democracy.
    Absolutely correct and another example of how concepts and terminologies have been "interpreted" to the detriment of subsequent generations of Americans. I believe it was Franklin who said (paraphrased),

    "A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is an armed sheep."

    The word democracy does not appear in the Constitution however, the word Republican does when referencing the form of government being designed.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    581
    "A republic, if you can keep it" - Ben Franklin

  25. #25
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290
    Breyer used the hoary old "what do you mean by arms? rifles? torpedoes? atomic bombs?" garbage in his response.

    By "Arms" it is my opinion that "Arms" means ANY weapon up to and including the standard equipment for a modern light infantryman. Which means anything from a sap up to and including a select-fire rifle.

    That mooing and lowing you hear is the liberals who monitor this site and just read this post, having a ccw. Whether birthing it or "having" it in the carnal sense, I cannot say.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •