Sunday, December 12, 2010

Justice Breyer Is Really, Really, Wrong On The Second Amendment

Most of you know that I'm not a "Second Amendment Conservative".  I have no problem with gun control, but I would like to see most of it passed AFTER the Constitution is amended to ALLOW it.  Why would this be?  Because I'm an even stronger "READ AND UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTION" Conservative.  So when I happened across this headline this today ("Breyer:  Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns") my attention was grabbed.

Essentially, Breyer is arguing that James Madison would have liked guns to be restricted, but in the Bill of Rights debate, inserted the Second Amendment in order to guarantee passage of the Constitution.  Putting aside for a moment the stupidity of using the plural of "father" to describe the view of ONE founding father, the fact that he had to trade AWAY that view in order to get the document passed is in and of itself, sufficient evidence of how unpopular such a view would have been at the time.  And since the "votes" on the Constitution came from the political elites in the various colonial legislatures, it seems just as clear that it wasn't a view shared by the bulk of the "founding fathers".

Breyer is grasping at straws.


NavyAustin said...

The right to bear arms isn't about the right to shoot at paper targets. It's not about the right to hunt ducks or deer. It's not about self-defense against home invaders. And it's not a right for state militias/guard units.

In it's most essential and blunt form, the right to bear arms is the right of citizens to be armed against a tyrannic government. It is, at the end of the day, a final check against the abuse of power by the state. It's the right that helps ensure all the other rights are not trampled upon by an out of control government.

The right to bear arms prevents Presidents from suspending the Constitution. The right to bear arms prevents police from seizing your property without due process. The right to bear arms serves as a check against foreign or domestic despotism.

It's unsettling to think that a person in our country would feel a need to take up arms to defend themselves from our government. It's more unsettling to think of our government with no checks on power.

"The Hammer" said...

Breyer has his head up his ass. The "well regulated militia" part confuses a lot of people. Here's the deal. Back in the day when the Constitution was being written Congress was given the mandate to raise and maintain an Army. A standing Army was viewed as a potential tool of tyranny (a big issue with the founders). Again, back in the day, militias were sort of like the National Guard, military units under STATE control. They were private individuals with privately owned arms voluntarily on call to defend the rights of their State. They were a defense against a federal military monopoly. Therefore "...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Mudge said...

Well said, NavyAustin.

And CW, please don't try to float an amendment to eliminate the second amendment until I've purchased a couple hundred more guns. Prices always go up whenever Dems try to make new "gun control" legislation. Taking on the entire amendment at the right time could make me a very wealthy man indeed. I might even start the rumor myself!

Newer Post Older Post Home