Justice Breyer's strange arguments on gun regulations
On Fox News today, Justice Breyer made the following argument:
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. . . .
OK, so let's accept Breyer's argument that Madison really didn't want an individual right to own guns, but that he included it to appease the states. So? If if true, how exactly does that support Breyer's argument that there isn't an individual right to own guns? "Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states" is all you need. Who cares why the Second Amendment was included to protect an individual right? The point is that it was included. If Breyer says that Madison opposed it but wanted the constitution passed more than including it, he apparently put in an individual right to own guns into the constitution. Isn't that what really counts?
Labels: GunControl, SecondAmendment, SupremeCourt
posted by John Lott at 4:49 PM
8 Comments:
Markie Marxist sez: "Breyer's a good commie, and we commies never allow rationality to get in the way of expanding our power. So, the 2nd Amendment isn't about the right to keep and bear arms, it's about appeasing the states, so we can ban private gun ownership if we want to, because banning guns doesn't interfere with appeasing the states. It's all just common communist sense when you look at it from the politically correct perspective!"
“We commies learned a long time ago that it’s not the validity of the argument that matters, it’s the political correctness of the conclusion that counts. Tortured logic, non-sequitors, circular reasoning, and flat out lies are all perfectly acceptable if one reaches the right conclusion. Some of us learned to stay out of the gulag that way. Hey, it works for us! We have an army of true believers who would never think to argue with us. Ever listen to NPR? And look at all the John Lennon fans out there! We own this world! Ha! Ha!”
Only a liberal could come up with "logic" like this. Breyer's "logic" is especially absurd given that virtually every constitutional scholar agrees that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
The fact that there were 4 dissenting justices in Heller simply shows that we have 4 activist judges on the highest court in our land.
Lifetime appointment of Supreme Court judges needs to end. Make these out of touch elitists run for office.
So we shouldn't pay attention to the 2nd Amendment just because it was a compromise by Madison? If thats the case, what other thousands of laws and bills do we not have to adhere to because they were compromises?
If constitutional scholars support Breyer, is that conclusive or is it indicative of a problem in our teaching of the constitution? Look to the quality of the teaching and the institution to judge the quality of its products. I would call the logic behind his artuments bizarre, not strange. After all, our current leader is a "constitutional scholar." Is everyone comfortable with his pronouncements?
Step away from the Kool Aid Justice Breyer!
Perhaps Mr. Breyer isn't aware that the 2nd was amended 6 times before the final draft was ratified.
I concur with Ryan's statement simply because it is correct. Does Mr. Breyer have at least a minimal concept of how our goverment works when it comes to drafting laws, or is it as it seems that he simply picks and chooses those laws or Constitutional Amendments to enforce or discard based soley upon what satisfies his personal concept of what he wants them to be?
I can prove that the 16th amendment was a comprimise. The president at the time of authorship was Teddy Roosevelt. He wanted it so he could stop the the democrats from pushing for an income tax law. He figured the states would never ratify it. So, he comprimised and it went to the states.
Wouldn't this then mean, using Breyer's socialist logic, that all laws eminating from the 16th amendment are invalid? They are, but not because of BreyerLogic.
Actually, all laws are forms of comprimise. It's called consensus. So does this mean all laws in this nation are invalid? Wow! I really like this new BreyerLogic! Anarchy, here we come!
Mr. Justice Breyer observes "Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don't think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun."
I'd be delighted to live in his alternative universe where inviting prosecution for violating numerous anti-gun laws "is no problem."
Would he be willing to take my case pro-bono if I were to follow his advice? I think not.
To quote Justice Scalia, "So what's a 'moderate' interpretation of the constitution? Is that like, halfway between what it says and what you'd like it to say?" Clearly, Justice Breyer isn't even 'moderate' in his view that he should apply his interpretation of the constitution's 'intent' rather than what it actually says.
Also, he ignores the part of the constitution that describes the process for changing it if we don't like it the way that it is. What was the 'intent' of this process, if all we really had to do was have 9 wise men 're-imagine' it?
Post a Comment
<< Home