1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Justice Breyer: Founders wanted gun control

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by JACK, Dec 12, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JACK

    JACK Well-Known Member Supporting Vendor

    Apr 28, 2006
    NW Wisconsin

    You may hove to copy/paste the long url rather than clicking on the link. But this is what wireguy was talking about.

  2. Don Steele

    Don Steele Well-Known Member

    Jan 29, 1998
    Florida's beautiful E. Coast
    According to Breyer,it is valid for a Justice to apply what HE THINKS Madison would have wanted...NOT what is actually in the document. He says the Second amendment was only included (according to him..)to ensure the document would be ratified. That's Interesting. Consider this: I've been told most of my life that the reason the Founders did not end slavery with the Constitution was to keep from alienating the Southern states and thereby lose their support for ratification. By Breyer's reasoning then...the government has the right to regulate firearms, and slavery is perfectly constitutional.
  3. HSLDS

    HSLDS Well-Known Member

    Nov 2, 2006
    S-E PA
    "That the people have a Right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power."

    From the original draft of the Bill of Rights to the U. S. Constitution, which consisted of twenty amendments, later condensed to the ten contained in the Bill of Rights.

    First, notice that the word "state" is not in caps - an argument can be made that the word is referring to a human condition (e.g., state of mind) as opposed to one of the fifty named states... This changes the meaning and denies the idea of a collective right at the onset.

    Always like to throw this into the mix when someone makes such a claim. If Madison 'meant' for the second amendment to be a collective right as Justice Breyer believes, then how would he explain this form of it??

    Food for thought
  4. davidjayuden

    davidjayuden Well-Known Member

    Jul 9, 2009
    This must be how they found the right to abortion in the constitution too.
  5. BAD 303

    BAD 303 Active Member

    Apr 13, 2006
    He is lucky his job is not dependant on what Americans "think" of his BS. Libs will never quit trying to destroy this nation one brick at a time.
  6. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Jan 29, 1998
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    What a load of asinine horsecrap.

    Notice how they try to make up what one of the Founding Fathers had in mind, yet totally ignore what the Founding Fathers actually said.

    A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.<br>
    --- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.<br>
    --- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

    We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;<br>
    ---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

    No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.<br>
    ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.<br>
    ---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

    To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.<br>
    ---Alexander Hamilton

    Quotes from the Founders During the Ratification Period of the Constitution

    [The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.<br>
    ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

    To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.<br>
    ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

    John Adams recognizes the fundamental right of citizens, as individuals, to defend themselves with arms, however he states militias must be controlled by government and the rule of law. To have otherwise is to invite anarchy.

    The material and commentary that follows is excerpted from Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991.

    Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.<br>
    ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

    Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.<br>
    ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

    During the Massachusetts ratifying convention William Symmes warned that the new government at some point "shall be too firmly fixed in the saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection." Yet fears of standing armies were groundless, affirmed Theodore Sedwick, who queried, "if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"

    [W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.<br>
    ---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

    The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:

    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

    Henry sneered,

    O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?

    More quotes from the Virginia convention:

    [W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...<br>
    ---George Mason

    Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because:

    [T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.

    The Virginia delegation's recommended bill of rights included the following:

    That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    The following quote is from Halbrook, Stephen P., That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, University of New Mexico Press, 1984.

    The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.<br>
    ---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.

    Gallatin's use of the words "some rights," doesn't mean some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, rather there are many rights not enumerated by the Bill of Rights, those rights that are listed are being established as unalienable.

    Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):

    [C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.<br>
    --- 14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.
  7. slic lee

    slic lee Active Member

    Oct 18, 2008
    Miami Beach florida
    The use of words and removal of letters from the original document began years ago as the dumocrats began attacking the meaning of the constitution.
    Printers were paid or blackmailed when printing new Constitutions for the people.
    Compare if you can the exact wording of the original, if you can find a exacting copy, to what it says today, the spelling of the words, the meaning can be changed.
    Lets look at the 4th amendment, there is controversy now.The news media lies about as well as the congress. Nowhere does it say anyone can come here have, give birth to a child and it becomes a citizen or another come here before 5 years and the child gets citizenship or social security, these are all dumocrate tricks to attain votes.
    Nothing even close to that. The words are exact like a bullet hole in a target, it cannot be disputed that its there.
    As all the words in the Declaration, the Papers, the Constitution our fore fathers were exact as to the wording, the letters, the intent, so only one meaning is there.
    A problem I find today is people dont read, they skim, they glance, why read watch it on TV or my new ipad.
  8. alfermann66

    alfermann66 Member

    Jan 29, 1998
    Justice Breyer is a disgrace to the U.S. Constitution and to the American people.

  9. sliverbulletexpress

    sliverbulletexpress TS Member

    Jul 1, 2009
    The founders would have hung Justice Breyer at the first opportunity.
  10. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Jan 29, 1998
    For long I have said there is one failure the founders made. They failed to attach an independent assasination militia to each of the 3 branches of the federal government to monitor the doings of the other two. The militias would be essentially asassin squads who would each constantly monitor what the other two branches of government were doing. Using the original constitution as their yardstick, and being thoroughly educated in it, every legislator, every supreme court justice, and the president would know they were being watched. They would know if they stepped over a line, they would die. THEY would have to know the constitution as well as their watchers, because THEY would have to know where that line was. The big 3 would fund them, yet never know who they were. It might be one of their own fellow legislators, or a cook in the Congressional kitchen, or a yard keeper at the White House - or their own security. What a braking action that would put on the arrogant bastards who have taken control of our country.
  11. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Jan 29, 1998
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    There are actually two militias...

    Both militias are comprised of those who are NOT serving, retired or reserve officers in the regular military.

    One militia is organized. These are the state level militias that are comprised of trained men. A classic example from that time period are the "Green Mountain Boys". (Unfortunately most state militias have been disbanded or subjugated into federalized National Guard units. The Founding Fathers did not want federalized militias.) There were also private militias that were commissioned. I'm not aware of any private militias existing with official government sanction, though there are a number of ad hoc ones extant.

    The other is the unorganized militia. This would be everyone who is not in a regular militia. The unorganized militia was expected to show up with its own personal weapons. This is an important point, because when the anti-gunners seek to deny gun ownership to ordinary citizens, they are in effect disarming the unorganized militia.

    "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.