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

SouthernBoy · Dec 15, 2010

1245A Defender said:
+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.

rpyne · Dec 16, 2010

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.

SouthernBoy · Dec 16, 2010

rpyne said:
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.

palerider116 · Dec 17, 2010

"A republic, if you can keep it" - Ben Franklin

Alexcabbie · Dec 17, 2010

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.

eye95 · Dec 17, 2010

Alexcabbie said:
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.

Part of the problem is the we have folks right here in this movement claiming that the "arms" in the 2A include nukes. That helps antis like Justice Breyer make their arguments.

You nailed what they meant, essentially weapons that individuals would likely have for civilian purposes (such as hunting and self-defense), but could be used, in a pinch, as one's personal weapon in battle.

rodbender · Dec 17, 2010

Actually it included all arms. Jackson borrowed 3 cannons from a family in Louisiana to help fight the British in the battle for New Orleans.

PrayingForWar · Dec 18, 2010

rodbender said:
Actually it included all arms. Jackson borrowed 3 cannons from a family in Louisiana to help fight the British in the battle for New Orleans.

Right...

I just doubt anyone can justify private ownership of thermonuclear weapons. I wouldn't object to private ownership of artillery myself though.

oak1971 · Dec 18, 2010

I would like my own Howitzer.

SouthernBoy · Dec 18, 2010

rodbender said:
Actually it included all arms. Jackson borrowed 3 cannons from a family in Louisiana to help fight the British in the battle for New Orleans.

That act came over twenty years after the drafting of the Bill of Rights. Remember, the salient phrase in the Second Amendment is, "to keep and bear arms". The word "keep" meant to own and have ready. The word "bear" meant able to be carried on or about the person. I am not arguing about cannons and artillery pieces as they may or may not relate to the Second Amendment. I am more concerned with the original intent of the Founders at the time of its writing.

PrayingForWar · Dec 18, 2010

SouthernBoy said:
That act came over twenty years after the drafting of the Bill of Rights. Remember, the salient phrase in the Second Amendment is, "to keep and bear arms". The word "keep" meant to own and have ready. The word "bear" meant able to be carried on or about the person. I am not arguing about cannons and artillery pieces as they may or may not relate to the Second Amendment. I am more concerned with the original intent of the Founders at the time of its writing.

It's my understanding that they envisioned even the most powerful weapons available, cannon at the time, be privately owned and deployed upon a declaration of war. Since it was the obligation of all able bodied men to muster for the defense of the states, those who owned cannons would bring them. I doubt they could have concieved of nukes, but if we also kept ourselves out of the euroweenie wars in the first place we probably would not have been the first country to have any.

eye95 · Dec 19, 2010

As do many others mistakenly believe. However, that argument was absolutely dismantled about a week ago. I will try to find the thread and the post.

rodbender · Dec 19, 2010

eye95 said:
As do many others mistakenly believe. However, that argument was absolutely dismantled about a week ago. I will try to find the thread and the post.

I remember the thread and it was nowhere near dismantled.

eye95 · Dec 19, 2010

I am having great difficulty finding that thread. As expected, the typical search terms to look for such a thread find about 90% of the threads ever posted! If anyone recalls this thread, please link it.

I thought about bookmarking it at the time. I regret not having done so.

The thread had a post that had some quotes from the Founders that clearly outlined the kind of arms that the enumerated right covered.

Thanks in advance.

PrayingForWar · Dec 19, 2010

I would like to see it myself. I cannot believe the founders, specifically Jefferson and Washington would have endorsed a system where the people were only allowed small arms, while the federal government or state had sole possesion of the most deadly weapons available.

eye95 · Dec 19, 2010

PrayingForWar said:
I would like to see it myself. I cannot believe the founders, specifically Jefferson and Washington would have endorsed a system where the people were only allowed small arms, while the federal government or state had sole possesion of the most deadly weapons available.

That is not what I said. It is critical that one thoroughly understand any point he is refuting and to be clear and accurate in any restatement of that point.

My point is that the intent of the 2A was to enumerate a specific RKBA to keep and BEAR arms that are typical of the ones BORNE in combat for individual use. The 2A imposes no restrictions, nor has anyone said it does.

PrayingForWar · Dec 19, 2010

eye95 said:
That is not what I said. It is critical that one thoroughly understand any point he is refuting and to be clear and accurate in any restatement of that point.

My point is that the intent of the 2A was to enumerate a specific RKBA to keep and BEAR arms that are typical of the ones BORNE in combat for individual use. The 2A imposes no restrictions, nor has anyone said it does.

OK perhaps I misunderstood your point. You might break it down into layman's terms so that I could understand it, but it seems like we're not disagreeing anyway.

eye95 · Dec 19, 2010

My point is that the 2A specifically protects the right as it relates to arms that an individual might own for civilian purposes (such as, but not limited to, self-defense and hunting), that might also be used, in a pinch, as a personal weapon in battle, should the militia be called up. Today's analogs would include handguns, rifles, shotguns, and knives.

The 2A in no way restricts any other weapons. It just does not explicitly protect the right to keep and bear them. Such restrictions would have to be legislated, with such legislation subject to judicial review (and overturn if they are found to violate a natural right, even if not the enumerated one).

The intent of the Founders was not to protect the right to keep and bear team weapons, explosives, or the unanticipated WMD. But neither was it to outlaw such exercise.

sudden valley gunner · Dec 20, 2010

Let's not skip over what the 2A was written for!!!!! For overthrowing or keeping our own government in check.

nobama · Dec 20, 2010

You are correct, I have stated before that the 2A is not for hunting or keeping a J frame in your night stand, which by the way is what alot of so called pro gun people harp about. The 2A is to make sure we stay FREE!!

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

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Founder's Club Member

Well-known member

Founder's Club Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

New member