>He’s a Supreme Court Justice and hasn’t figured out the govt didn’t grant individuals squat.
There are actually some rights that are NOT inherent, those ARE granted by some institution/group; the right to vote is an example. There is, in a strict monarchy, no right to vote; however, there is *ALWAYS* the right for you to defend yourself... even in our own prisons, where weapons aren’t allowed & freedom restricted, the inmate has the right to defend himself.
"And if gun laws render you unarmed and result in your murder at the hands of an armed home invader," Breyer added, "well, that's what you get for electing the kind of liberal Democrats who appoint and confirm scumbags like me to the freaking US supreme Court. Hahaha-haaa."
he ought to go back to making ice cream
What a dunce.
WTF?
(ping of interest DLR).
If one understands society of the day, that is like saying they would have allowed restrictions on forks or axes. It was a tool of everyday life. It not only was an item to defend your life, liberty, and property, but it was a tool to sustain your family.
It is obvious that the Founders saw and new of attempts to limit arms by those who wanted to control liberty, which is why they explicitly forbid the government to infringe on ownership. The European they escaped from and rebelled against had one of the early forms of arms control where lords forbid the serfs to own arms (unless they deemed necessary) in order to hold on to their power. Seems we are moving back to that old European feudalistic culture under Breyer.
What is this idiot doing on the supreme court? Does he not know the purpose of the second amendment? Does he not understand the consequences of an all-powerful government?
Oh, I think he understands perfectly. It’s just that he’s a leftie and lefties don’t like sharing power with the masses. He knows that the second amendment is the only thing left with which to defend the rest of the constitution and he hates that.
What amazes me is that this cretin is considered ‘qualified’ to be a justice on the SCOTUS. Firearms were the rule, not the exception in the time our Founders lived. As common to see as horse shite in the road.
Dumb as a box of rocks.
The Federalist Papers
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.With love from Alexander Hamilton [Federalist #28]
I saw him on Fox News Sunday. His comments weren’t very well thought out. Had the founders seen fit to remove guns from the hands of early settlers, they would certainly have perished. They would have perished, if for no other reason, for lack of wild game for food. Breyer’s comments were absolutely absurd.
And if so...why would it even be mentioned in the Bill of Rights if it wasn't a right.
The Bill of Rights are individual rights...everyone of them.
The only possible limits would have to do with maintenance of a private army, or display of a loaded weapon in a public. Even that would be primarily the concern of the local and state authorities. The feds could get involved only in case of insurrection against the state.
Breyer’s an idiot; however, idiocy has become the latter day norm in the US.
Let’s not mince words here.
Breyer is a fascist who stands against the Constitution, the separation of powers, states rights, and most importantly he is against freedom of the individual if it conflicts with the interests of the state.
Had Breyer been a man of means in 1800 he would have been a slave owner. And proud of it.
I thought SCOTUS judges didn’t grant (or rarely granted) interviews. This certainly illustrates the wisdom in that practice.
Where does this highly educated individual think the Minute Men, Roger's Ranges, the Green Mountain Boys, the Swamp Fox's men, to name a few, got their weapons during the American Revolution?
Our founding fathers knew full well the importance of the private, individual, ownership of modern firearms.
They knew this from practical experience growing up, various wars and Indian raids, the Revolutionary War itself, plus the recent histories of various Scottish and Irish revolts against the Crown.
“The conclusions seem inescapable that in certain circles a tendency has arisen to fear people who fear government. Government, as the Father of Our Country put it so well, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. People who understand history, especially the history of government, do well to fear it. For a people to express openly their fear of those of us who are afraid of tyranny is alarming. Fear of the state is in no sense subversive. It is, to the contrary, the healthiest political philosophy for a free people.”
Jeff Cooper
Where the people fear their government, there is tyranny...Where the government fears the people, there is liberty...