Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns - FoxNews.com

[ghostinthewood]

I want automatic weapons so I can defend myself from someone with automatic weapons. Criminals have them, the government has them, foreign governments have them. Why cant I? I want them because all of those people that have them seem to think I shouldnt, but I am a clever man, and I think they are just trying to keep it so only THEY can have them. Why do THEY need them if I dont need them? Should I be worried about THEM? What do I do if THEY become my enemy?

I didn't say you couldn't have them......

 

[Richard47]

The founding fathers only were able to prevent the federal government from grabbing the guns. The federal government only was an organization of STATES, individual's civil rights were still regulated by their respective states. The founding fathers believed in individual civil rights, we can tell from their words and writings, but they didn't get that far. They only got a federation of States. It was after the civil war with the 14th Amendment that the federal government declared the individual citizens of the various states had civil rights which were guaranteed by the federal government. Breyer is right on his history pre-civil war. He just doesn't update it because he's another anti.

 

[kludge]

I disagree.

When a State ratified the Constitution it was de facto accepting it as the "supreme law of the land".

When a state joined the Union it did the same thing.

The 14th reiterated what the states already should have known. But then racist judges in the SCOTUS gutted it and we got "separate but equal" and now have "selective incorporation".

 

[MTC]

Re: The Bill of Rights

There is a tendency among some to jump back and forth between Natural Rights and Constitutional Rights as if the two are mutually exclusive, instead of complementary. Yes, a distinction can be drawn when one takes something apart for an analysis, yet one is expected to put it back together in proper working order. The Bill of Rights was written not only to restrict or prohibit certain powers of government, but also as a codification - an enumeration - of Rights held to be inalienable, of Truths held to be self-evident.

To borrow from an analogy in the form of a parable using the current vernacular:

A group of architects, framers, builders, were working on a structure that would stand the test of time and the elements. Although they all had the same general goal in mind, one group from among them came to the first group and said, "If you want this thing to last, you'd better include a Bill of Rights."
"But that's redundant" the first group replied. "We've been over this before. Besides, everyone already knows that."

The second group continued,"Not good enough. Someone, seeking to infringe on or take away the rights of the people, will come along in a generation or two, or ten, and attempt to deny or restrict them on some pretext, and using the justification that the people have only those rights specified in the Constitution. As if rights are only conferred by the document itself. In fact, we feel so strongly about it that we're not going to help you unless this vital component is included. We refuse to sign our names to a defective product that we know will fail."

The first group responded,"We still say you're being stubborn and unreasonable with your unnecessary demands. Very well, then. If it will ensure the successful completion of the project, we'll put our best man on it and see what he comes up with."

 

[MTC]

Re: the term 'absolute'

In past conversations and sometimes unfortunately heated arguments, it became obvious that some folks had a problem with the term 'absolute'. A few declared, "No provision of the Constitution is written in absolutes."
That, to me, is a blatantly false statement, since nearly all codified laws from the Constitutions to the lesser, inferior statutes all the way down to building codes are written in absolutes. What makes them so is the operative word shall (or shall not, as the case may be). Were they not absolute, they would use words such as may, can, could, should, probably, etc. How one defines the words that follow is another matter, but they are, in fact, written in absolutes.

They may have meant to say that your (our) rights are not absolute, and I might have been inclined to agree, insofar as the exercise of a right reaches its limits where it comes in contact with the rights of others. Once all the rights in the Bill of Rights are clearly and properly understood and acknowledged it becomes clear, though not always and in every case, precisely where that limit is with respect to the others.

Regarding the constitutionally guaranteed Right to Keep and Bear Arms, if we cannot agree on what a right is, and what it means to have a right, and the critical distinction between a right and a privilege - conditionally granted, there is no point in moving on to issues of crime, punishment, statutory restrictions, etc.