Posted on 08/23/2017 9:19:16 AM PDT by rktman
Asked about his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Breyer recalled that in Article I of the Constitution "it gives to the Congress the power to call up and regulate state militias."
"There was a lot of concern, if you read the Federalist Papers, you will just get a feeling for it. There was a lot of concern and fear that Congress might do that and disband them, and replace the state militias after they had disbanded them with a federal army. And that, many people said, vote no on the Constitution because if they can do that, then the federal government can destroy your freedom," he said. "Well, said Madison, in a sense, if I paraphrase him, never fear. We will put in the Constitution an amendment which says Congress can't do that. It cannot call up and disband the state militias. Why? Because a well-armed militia is necessary for the security of a free state, i.e. a state militia."
"And therefore the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In other words, they were talking about that. That's what I thought they were talking about, which is not the right of an individual to keep a gun next to his bed."
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
If it’s not, we have a, (ahem), “Problem”.
and Breyer, where does a “state militia” come from?
December 12, 1787
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals;
Hey dumbass,
The “militia” was every able body male who would have to bring their OWN WEAPONS.
Breyer simply ignores the pre-established right to bear arms that the colonists, as English citizens, had enjoyed long before the Constitution, as well as the natural right that had long been recognized by philosophers even before the English law codified it.
The important part is “ the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and could not be any clearer.
Leftists like to muddy the water with the preamble, which simply explains why “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
It does not say the right of the states, it says the people.
It simply codifies the natural law right to self-defense that is inherent and God-given.
Extreme, willful and dangerous stupidity. If I was a waste-of-air con-gress critter, I would immediately start pushing to have him removed.
Dear Justice Breyer,
the constitution does NOT give the courts (or any part of the government) any power whatsoever to regulate, limit, restrict, license, control, authorize, tax, or otherwise infringe on our rights to keep and bear arms. Any court orders or laws to the contrary are ultra vires illegal and will not be complied with. Period. End of file. Any attempt to confiscate our property will me responded to with whatever force is required to terminate it. (This is America, not Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Get a copy of the United States Constitution and read it, please.)
So why shoot your silly mouth off, just to make a fool of yoruself?
The Founders knew that an armed citizenry is a free citizenry...’the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed......this couldn’t be more clear.
it’s for hunting ... /s
And therefore the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
His thinking is technically correct regarding the REASON for the second. However, what it says is what it says. The “reason” for the freedom is not paramount. What is paramount is the freedom itself.
And he leaves out “the people” in his statement. Wherever the constitution uses the phrase, “the people”, it means “each and every citizen, individually”.
Every time.
The foundation upon which the bill of rights rests is the rights of the individual citizen.
That’s a globalist wolf whistle if I ever heard one.
If the founding fathers had intended for the people to give up their guns, they would have confiscated them at the very beginning.
I tired of these so-called enlightened intellectuals, who appear to me to be half-wit morons that can’t reason their way out of a wet paper bag. What Breyer says about it is utter nonsense.
BS. If one reads AND comprehends the Federalist Papers it is obvious that is not at all what they say.
You don't "feel" anything. Typical leftist.
The Constitution Says What It Means & Means What It Says - Justice Scalia
ps: numerous police chiefs and sheriffs have pointed out the OBVIOUS, that they CANNOT protect American citizens from attack, they can only respond after the fact (and help the coroner clean up your blood, perhaps)
The police chiefs and sheriffs have recommended people arm themselves if they want any actual protection from attack
and yes, the 2d amendment is not about the people’s right to have a firearm by the bed. the 2d amendment is about the people’s right to have a firearm by their beds, in their homes, and with them anywhere they wish to go and travel in America. it is a right to keep AND BEAR arms, not just keep them under your mattress. Americans have the right to self-defense IN AMERICA, not just by their bedsides.
Please, Breyer, get a United States Constitution and at least read the 2d amendment. It will only take a minute or two of your valuable time. Thank you.
Similar interpretation by the press of Trump’s comments. “The people” only means white supremacists. Or something. ;-) A country full of fidiots. Sadly, some are in positions of power.
Intentional logical fallacy.
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.