Defensive Carry banner

Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns

8K views 87 replies 48 participants last post by  CavemanBob 
#1 ·
If you look at the values and the historical record, you will see that the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer contended Sunday.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Breyer said history stands with the dissenters in the court's decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., handgun ban in the 2008 case "D.C. v. Heller."

Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.

Madison "was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. 'That can't happen,' said Madison," said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison's priority as, "I've got to get this document ratified."

Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.

:nono:

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...hers-allowed-restrictions-guns/#ixzz17vlLxY00
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I think Justice Breyer would do well to read some of Les Adams works such as The Second Amendment Primer to better understand what the founding fathers really ment and not what he would like to think they ment colored by his liberal bias.

http://www.palladiumpress.com/primers.asp#1
 
#52 ·
I think Justice Breyer would do well to read some of Les Adams works such as The Second Amendment Primer to better understand what the founding fathers really ment and not what he would like to think they ment colored by his liberal bias.
Breyer states what he means: the citizens of this country are beneath his recognition, when it comes to protection of their very lives. He would deny that to citizens, even if it kills them.

The Founders states what they meant in the 2A: shall not be infringed. They put it in there simply as could be, specifically due to the threats being combated ... then and in future, so that it wouldn't kill them.

Breyer should find the first sinkhole and jump in, head first. He should then be pummeled by copies of the Constitution, until he gets it.
 
#3 ·
What would expect Breyer to say?

Read his dissenting opinion. :aargh4:

My question is why did Fox give him the pulpit? :aargh4: :aargh4:
 
#4 ·
If the 2nd amendment might have been included as an afterthought or a deal-breaker..........I don't think it would rank #2 on the list. Common sense.
 
#6 ·
Look, no one "knows" what 2A was meant to be because: 1) the English is so horrid the sentence makes no sense; 2) merely looking at history and events of the time are insufficient because towns, cities, putative states, all varied all over the place in real practice.

Given #1, it is the job of the Supremes to interpret; To determine what that badly written sentence means. They have barely scratched the surface on that task. Even the most pro-gun member, Scalia, is very very cautious about how far to go. The Heller ruling was so weak it had almost no impact on real every day practices in D.C.

What is utterly amazing is that 220+ years after the fact, and 150 years after the Civil War we can't even get to the details of what it means because we have been so busy arguing over incorporation-- till just a few months ago.

I have read 2A a bazillion times and honestly, though I know what I want it to mean, I have no idea what the sentence itself--as badly constructed as it is and with no context-- does mean.

Does anyone know of the existence of contemporaneous records of debates in the various state legislatures when they were considering ratifying the BOR, and if these shed light on the matter? I'm not asking about newspaper commentary of the day or commentary by leafleteers. Do we have any equivalent of stenographic recordings of the actual debates?
 
#7 ·
After years of reading, I have come to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment was established for only one purpose and that is to protect the people from the government. Thats probably the reason so many of the liberals are against the 2nd. Without individuals owning firearms you would be at the mercy of a tyrannical government.
 
#10 ·
I'm sorry, but I think that interpretation is way off the mark. George Washington himself, as a sitting president, personally led Federalized troops in suppressing The Whiskey Rebellion. No government, even a brand new one, is going to allow for rebellion by the governed, and our founders put rebellion down right at the start. It was put down a second time 4 score + years later.

I submit to you that both George Washington and later Lincoln, were much closer to the founding (George being a founder) and George knew a thing or two about what the intent of 2A was--- and he didn't tolerate rebellion.
 
#11 ·
The right to bear arms.

Its not about poor english, or some coded sentance that can be argued about for centuries. It's not even about guns.

Its about the common man, being armed so that he never has to endure intimidation from another man that thinks because his parents were born rich, he is superior. Its about a small statured man, not being intimidated by a man twice his size or strength.

Its not about property, as many would have you beleive.

Its about living with dignity and not having to cower to evil in any way,shape or form. Its about every man being on an equal footing and not having to beg or succumb to stupidness.

Evil knows this, and would do anything to eliminate the right. Evil has been successful in just about every nation but this one, and even here, this right comes under constant attack.

Its about natural law, that makes it an instinct,to defend oneself. A law that many would have you believe that is a right given by man, when in fact,it is a right given by the Creator.

Its about not having to care about how some old liberal guy in a black robe in a land far away interprets history, because his opinion is no better than yours.
 
#12 ·
Madison "was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. 'That can't happen,' said Madison," said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison's priority as, "I've got to get this document ratified."

Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.
Lets say just for giggles that he is correct. Would this in any way invalidate that amendment? If so would that logic not also invalidate any other restrictions that the states demanded be in the Constitution?

Michael
 
#42 ·
Lets we forget....those wonderful words didn't really spell out OUR rights but the Governments limitations.....
That is absurd. How can they make an assumption that "the forefathers would have allowed restrictions on guns"? If it's not in the 2nd Amendment then it's just their interpretation and it won't stand in a court of law. I am shocked as to how ridiculous the anti-gun movement can be. Sure, but whenever they will be faced with an intruder in their homes they are going to be WISHING to have a gun to protect themselves. DUMB!
Exactly. What 2A clearly does not say is that government can take away citizens' guns. Home defense is but one reason. In DC, it is a damn good one.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"
A well regulated militia is necessary to security, sure.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What part of that is confusing? It looks pretty clear to me...

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I don't see where says anything about a militia having a right to anything... it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Are "the people" in the 2nd amend different than "the people" in the first? Or any other amendment for that matter. That answers the question for me.
+1 to each.
 
#14 ·
I watched it. My first thought was he was basing everything on Madison, because Madison was the closet to his own view. .... but Madison "lost the argument" and had to add the 2nd Amendment into it.... because "the states demanded it" and so did other involved in writing the Constitution.

So, Madison was clearly in the minority. So , why would and Judge rule on something and try to use the Minority opinion of 1 founder ? That's is illogical and not a good legal argument at all. But, I guess it makes him feel warm and fuzzy.

On top of this, Madison was NOT against the 2nd amendment, he just thought that states should be allowed to regulate them.... and the other state representatives wanted "NO REGULATION ".

I can show you write-ups by a member of my family.... who was involved, and he clearly believed that the 2nd Amendment was needed for people to be able to protect themselves from the Govt, tyranny, and home protection. One reason may be, because his grandfather was killed when he tried to stop some English soldiers & officers from stealing and rampaging his house, as well as raping his wife and daughter. The official report was that he ran at them and tried to shoot them, the real story is.... by everyone else... he was unarmed and shot in the back , after being severely beaten to the point of near death.

The English officers, Govenors, and King... had shown them quite well, what tyranny and a uncontrolled Govt with absolute power can do.
 
#15 ·
Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.
That's "revisionist" history for you.

Actually, the opposite is the case; the Anti-Federalists were far more strident in their opposition to government controls on civilian arms and argued thair position stongly. The Second Amendment we ended up with was a compromise that watered down its original words and intent.

(Ref. The Antifederalist Papers, Michigan State University Press, 1965)
 
#16 ·
Hopyard, this one's for you. The MicMinn County War, or Battle of Athens. Brought to you by the 2A and some fed up veterans. It's one of the successful rebellions.

The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of political corruption and voter intimidation. The event is sometimes cited by firearms ownership advocates as an example of the value of the Second Amendment in combating tyranny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinn_County_War

Maybe we should send him the Penn and Teller version of what the 2A is. :smile:

I personally find it fascinating that this clown can state the Constitutional ideals are "unwavering" but he is OK with restricting an individual right up to a complete ban. Talk about double speak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Old Anglo
#20 ·
Interesting. The wiki article doesn't address longer term consequences. Trials, prison sentences, indictments. I would need to research this a bunch before I'm willing to accept that "higher authorities" at the State level didn't punish the rebels. I can see where this incident might not have implicated Federal powers at that particular time in our history.

Anyway, as I said, that one is interesting but it is also nearly 200 years after the founding and after GW himself put down the Whiskey Rebellion.
 
#19 ·
After living through the events at Lexington and Concord, I'll bet the Founding Fathers would disagree with gun control, whereby the gov't would control the guns. It didn't work too well for the previous form of gov't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Old Anglo
#23 ·
That is absurd. How can they make an assumption that "the forefathers would have allowed restrictions on guns"? If it's not in the 2nd Amendment then it's just their interpretation and it won't stand in a court of law. I am shocked as to how ridiculous the anti-gun movement can be. Sure, but whenever they will be faced with an intruder in their homes they are going to be WISHING to have a gun to protect themselves. DUMB!
 
#24 ·
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"
A well regulated militia is necessary to security, sure.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What part of that is confusing? It looks pretty clear to me...

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I don't see where says anything about a militia having a right to anything... it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
#27 ·
That is a great question because first 1A speaks of Congress, then it speaks of "the people" in a very very specific context,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The part in bold can be taken to mean that the people have not only a right to assemble peaceably, but no right to assemble in an disorderly non-peaceful manner. Nowhere in our constitution is a right to rebel spelled out or even implied. To the contrary, 1A makes it plain that the people's right is to peaceably assemble and petition for redress.

Logically, if there were to have been a right of rebellion, it would have been inserted as a continuation of the sentence, thusly ..... to petition for redress .... or to rebel.

Right now in our community there is a hot issue. People do peaceably assemble, are collecting signatures to seek redress for what some think is a wrong through the recall process, and perhaps the majority of our city council will be tossed out. No one thinks the aggrieved parties have a right to use arms or rebellion in a non-peaceful manner to get their way.
 
#30 ·
The opinion that the founders would have allowed restrictions is doodoo. They said "shall not be infringed". If you want to see if this phrase meant the same thing then as it means to us now (in English), then you can read some history of the time. Hint....it does. Since then, laws have been created and courts have handed down decisions that are un-constitutional by definition. We tolerate this because we (generally speaking) think that the founders were wrong, or not specific enough, and that some restrictions should be in place (mentally ill, etc.)

There is a misconception out there that the founders were in strict unison on things generally. They weren't. They were all over the place. The idea that one person may have had a different opinion than the rest and therefore we should use that person's opinion is more doodoo.

It's interesting that while the founders disagreed on many things, one of the things that they were most unified on (and therefore the lack of debate) is gun rights.

Hopyard, the 2A is not an open ticket for rebellion. The founders, because of hundreds of years of experience, were afraid of government, standing armies, and police. (These fears were shared by the people in England) The founders simply believed that it was essential that "the people" be strong and able to resist a government takeover by any other entity, because that's the only thing they had seen work. For them, armed militias were the way to do this.

It's not so much that the people will have to rise up and put the government back some day (although conceivable), it's the fact that because the people are strong, none of these other entities will be tempted to do the wrong thing.

If, during our history, the people were not armed, would our country have survived? Interesting to think about.

The fact that a justice of the Supreme Court would take this line of reasoning is very disturbing to me specifically because it has to do with the constitution.
 
#38 ·
It's not so much that the people will have to rise up and put the government back some day (although conceivable), it's the fact that because the people are strong, none of these other entities will be tempted to do the wrong thing.

If, during our history, the people were not armed, would our country have survived? Interesting to think about.
It depends on the point in history.

If by the people not being armed you mean they would not have survived without food, or against thieves, or against Indians, perhaps you are right. But, I know of no instance in which the people being armed --other than through the formal process of enlistment in organized military-- weakened us.

Two opposite views may be obtained-- one, the well known saying about a rifle behind every blade of grass; the opposite one what was depicted in the comedic movie, The Russians are coming, The Russians are coming.
 
#31 ·
The way I read the constitution as a whole, is that we must use our goverment to settle issues, and that individuals have right to arms for defensive purposes, for their own and collective defensive of nation.

Rebellion against our goverment as proposed by some is not what the 2nd is about, and is a fool hardy notion. Things would have to go way beyond what we can imagine now for this to be a consideration, and we ain't close.
The continual feeding of this is a very dangerous thing to do.
To me the civil war made us a stronger nation by bringing all of our states together under one goverment authority.
If and when we reach a place where the goverment of the union, abide strictly by the constitution on all matters, we would have a simple problem solved. But , as we have seen here and in life, we cannot get everyone to agree on everything.
Wouldn't it be nice if the laws of CCW were the same across the US?
Unity under one nation with different liberties and rules in 50 different places is hard to manage.
 
#34 ·
hudsonvalley said:
Lets we forget....those wonderful words didn't really spell out OUR rights but the Governments limitations.....
glockman10mm said:
Rebellion against our goverment as proposed by some is not what the 2nd is about, and is a fool hardy notion
...
Unity under one nation with different liberties and rules in 50 different places is hard to manage
I think the union of the states to become a strong political power confused many to beleive the intent was a centralized governments power over it's people. I think the bill of rights was simply a tool to ensure the people that the intentions of the union were for external political power, rather than internal power.

I don't think gun control is an attempt of the union to have power over the people and I see why people interpret the 2A different than most of us on this forum. I think it is simply a false notion of the public's need to protect itself from itself and an example of how a democracy can easily poke itself in the eyeball.
 
#35 ·
This idiot Judge would do well to read the Federalist Papers. He just might learn something.

The Federalist Papers were drafted and dispersed among the population. They were plain language to help people understand just what the Constitution was meant to mean, so that it could ultimately become the law of the land.

Federalist No. 28 by Hamilton

Federalist No. 29 by Hamilton

Federalist No 46 by Madison.

Chris
 
#37 ·
Well, at least be happy that it is in your Constitution and protected by it. In Costa Rica we don't have such right protected by the Constitution and slowly the Government is taking away our right to own firearms. The worst case I have know is Sweden. They are screwed there!
 
#39 ·
Thank God we have what we have. And take note, even though we may not agree on everything, when it comes to preservation of our freedoms and way of life, we quickly circle the wagons, together. This alone tells me that democracy is alive and well.

As a side note, I would like to say that if the founders were alive today among us they would have advocated using big bore revolvers with heavy bullets as the proper defensive arm! Lol. Carry on friends.
 
#43 ·
As a side note, I would like to say that if the founders were alive today among us they would have advocated using big bore revolvers with heavy bullets as the proper defensive arm! Lol. Carry on friends.
Don't you think old Ben Franklin would have preferred high tech? He'd definitely be a Taser dude.


(key, string, lightening....)
 
#40 ·
Speaking of the defense of locality or nation. Having citizens arm themselves is helpful for the overall military. One of the issue was making sure that folks knew how to handle a firearm in case they were called up for defense. It's one less thing to train them for. Having a large militia force was considered, but dismissed because of the cost and difficulty of forcing free people to come together to train. The best compromise was to ensure they were free to own firearms and train themselves. In that light, the anti's should shut up about "assault weapons". I have heard various complaints from military sources that recruits don't know as much about guns, hunting, and fighting as they used to. And they are having to spend MORE time training them. I think it's safe to say that was not a problem a generation or so ago. So the 2A has a significant place in the safety of this nation, even if you never plan to bear arms against an enemy yourself.

Also, I love throwing out the US Militia Code to squash the "only the military should have firearms." It's not the perfect answer, but if your a male between 17 and 45 your part of the unorganized militia. :wink:

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
 
#41 ·
That is absurd. How can they make an assumption that "the forefathers would have allowed restrictions on guns"?
The Justice seems to read the Constitution the same way most in power do. That the government can do anything that is not explicitly denied them in the Constitution. If they do find that they are denied the power abolish a right then they believe that they may restrict it as long as they do not outright ban it.

Michael
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top