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

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...hers-allowed-restrictions-guns/#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.

Click to expand...

If this man actually believes his own dribble, he's a moron.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

rodbender said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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...

The Founding Fathers would have tarred 'n feathered a 'Breyer' as a closet Torie 'n been done with it.

Sonora Rebel said:

The Founding Fathers would have tarred 'n feathered a 'Breyer' as a closet Torie 'n been done with it.

Click to expand...

What's closet about him. He's been out of the closet for years.

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.

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

OldCurlyWolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

KansasMustang said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Slayer of Paper said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Slayer of Paper said:

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?

Click to expand...

See post #2

Slayer of Paper said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

It's for this very reason that I believe the Bill of Rights were not just for the Fed.

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.

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

Slayer of Paper said:

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.

Click to expand...

Slayer, our thoughts echo the same things. You beat me to it!

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

Slayer of Paper said:

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.

Click to expand...

OC4me said:

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

Click to expand...

+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!