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 ...
Riiiight, Mr Beyer.
And the “right of a free press” doesn’t include radio, T.V and the internet because it’s not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
Not to mention, abortion, gay marriages and government sponsored healthcare!
Stupid fool!!!
it is for hunting
it is for home defense
it is for self defense
it is for national defense
it is for Constitutional defense
The quote said a well regulated militia... not a well armed militia... and well regulated meant one that was well attended and everyone got out and practiced... not regulated in the modern sense of the word.
Best description I’ve read, and essentially my thoughts on the matter.
Bravo Zulu.
Come and take it, Judge Breyer.
That’s the Ticket!
Sad but true
Exactly right.
And if the Federal Government did that we would no longer have individual sovereign states but would have a national government.
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."
He conveniently leaves out the part about “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
But for Breyer the people means individuals everywhere in the Constitution EXCEPT the Second Amendment.
I CCW and have other guns, when my grands come over ALL of them go into the gun safe, and the key in my pocket! If you don't own a gun safe, empty the gun, hide all ammo and the gun in difficult high places. And keep eagle eyes on where the kids are.
Tipton county is closest, we've had 4 murders this year. That is 4 more than we've had is 10 yrs.
Justice Breyer,
Justice Scalia did a thorough job of scholarship on this topic, RE: District of Columbia v. Heller.
Because you do not know the correct answer, you should have copied off of his paper.
He should have been immediately summoned before Congress, Impeached and Removed from the Bench for being Illiterate and unable to comprehend the basic english language.
“Still thinking that a law degree required smarts?”
A law degree is a liberal arts degree, as is finger painting and pottery.
Because in Europe the crown would refuse to draft people into their military.
Is he stupid or just a liar?
I am a militia of one.
That he may be willfully ignoring things doesn’t mean he isn’t ignoring them.
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
What is the unorganized militia, Mr Breyer? And what was the Founders’ intent with respect to the whole of the People?
Everyone interested in the 2nd Amendment should watch this interview with Cody Wilson, founder of Defense Distributed - which made the 3-D printed “Liberator” pistol and is currently making the Ghost Gunner - an automated milling machine that allows 80% AR receivers (i.e. paperweights) to be transformed into a ready-to-be-assembled AR lower in about 3 hours: http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/11/23/3d-gun-printer-cody-wilson-on-the-right
The interview is about 33 minutes long, but well worth your time. Among the gems in there, he talks about his goal of making people in black robes “irrelevant” with his technology.
So, people like Breyer (whom I hope retires SOON, so that Trump can replace him with someone who actually can comprehend the Constitution and understand the reasons why “We the People” are masters and not servants of the government created BY US in that Constitution) will someday possibly be able to allow Congress to outlaw guns, but because of Cody Wilson and people like him - and millions of us armed with his technology - it simply won’t MATTER what they say.
I look forward to such a world.
“if you read the Federalist Papers, you will just get a feeling for it”
“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”
Further, if you look at the powers of Congress, one of them is to “Grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.” Well, WTF is THAT? Simple: Congressional authorization to act like a pirate/privateer against enemies of the United States. These Letters were actually granted during the War of 1812, and PRIVATE PEOPLE attacked British warships (as they had during the Revolutionary War, which pre-dated our form of government) - meaning both that they owned large ships and - much more importantly - they owned crew-served cannon. How could that be, if the 2nd Amendment didn’t RECOGNIZE - not grant, but recognize - a pre-existing RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?
Here is the relevant portion of Federalist #46 (sorry abut no paragraphs, but this is how I found it on the Federalist Society website):
“The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.”
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.