Breyer: Madison wrote 2nd Amendment to appease the states

Except that none of what Breyer states is true. The US Bill of Rights is based on James Mason’s Virginia Bill of Rights. Madison didn’t write this. He merely introduced it.

Mason’s Virginia Bill of Rights was based on the English 1689 Bill of Rights, which specifically included the right to bear arms.

This guy is a liar or a moron.

Men who were far wiser than mock justice Breyer thought the 2nd was so important that they placed it just after free speech. Think about that. Without the 2nd, the 1st is ripped away. Without the 1st and 2nd, there is nothing. Arm yourselves and do not let this happen.

The order is immaterial to anything. The fact is that the 2nd is part of the Constitution, thereby forbidding the federal government from infringing upon that right. I'd argue that the 2nd applies to the states (because it doesn't say - unlike the 1st - "Congress shall pass no law...."), but certainly it does via the 14th right now. The order makes no difference - one amendment is no more important than any other, or than any clause in the main body, unless it specifically supercedes another amendment (like the 21st supercedes the 18th).

Madison was brilliant. He couldn't foretell the future, but he could see the possibilities.

The Germans felt just as safe that there couldn't be a complete takeover by one party either, but it did happen.

Here, I believe there would be more than enough armed citizens(which the Germans did not have) to allow this to happen, but you know the leftists would try it if they got even half the chance.

I was amazed to learn that Supreme Court justices do not take an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

(But also note they do not swear to perform the duties incumbant upon them under the presumed intentions of any of the founders of the nation. Breyer is hacking up a fur ball here.)

He is Dishonest and arrogant.

The colonies, which became the states, which joined in the rebellion, which formed the United States, we a people that well understood their "rights as Englishmen."

This arrogant usurper knows that the colonists knew that local citizenry was lawfully and constitutionally obligated to "bear arms" and not only bear, but obliged to be accessed as noted by Joyce Malcolm in the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly summarizes:

Citizens were not only expected to have suitable weapons at the ready for these duties, but, since passage of the Statute of Winchester in 1285, were assessed according to their wealth for a contribution of arms for the militia. [41] When not in use for musters or emergencies, nearly all of this equipment remained in private hands. A series of later statutes spelled out in detail the arms each household was required to own and the frequency of practice sessions. [42] During the reign of Queen Elizabeth, for example, every family was commanded to provide a bow and two shafts for each son between the ages of seven and seventeen and to train them in their use or be subject to a fine. [43] To promote proficiency in arms, Henry VIII and his successors ordered every village to maintain targets on its green at which local men were to practice shooting "in holy days and other times convenient." [44]

To summarize this twit Judge's argument overall, he says that instead of the people being sovereign and the founders being plain men who outlined a written format for Federal Government to limit it, the twit thinks that the founder's were demi-gods who crafted a temporary document as an expression of enlightenment sentimentality and those sentiments (as opposed to virtues) must be sanctified and then eternal. His process for making them eternal is for he and his ilk as judges to be the successors to a false sovereign-founder-sentiment that he reimposes by reinterpretation and application in each passing era and age.

It is hard to imagine a greater personal arrogance and conciet.

It is as false as the "general will" of the French Revolution and similar sentiment passing on down to Marx and every other facilitator for tyrants.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.