Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns

Had they known how things would develop, the founding fathers would probably have been more likely to place restrictions on the courts well before restrictions on guns.

It wasn't just the South; much of New England still had it too.

The South's was problem was one of population. The South had scads of prime farm land and the perfect climate for agriculture which made it a great place to grow not only food crops, but yes, cotton as well, and hogs, beef, and chickens. At that time, the South was much of the country's bread basket. Evenflow's and Aenea's neck of the woods hadn't been developed yet.

European immigrants tended to see the South as a hot, humid, malaria infested place and it was to a degree. Those immigrants tended to move to the North, which had a similar climate to back home, thus the North's population grew at a much faster rate than the South's.

So here was the problem: the country was hungry for food and cotton, but the area of the country best suited to provide those products didn't have enough population to provide a Free labor pool. They had to get that labor somehow and the result was slavery.

It's an interesting point of conjecture to consider what would have happened had the FFs dealt with slavery and eliminated that possibility from the beginning. With the rate of immigration, population growth, and expansion taking place at that time, how would you have fed and clothed the young nation?

I think that's a point that is often missing from these debates. They didn't just have slaves to mow the yard and clean the swimming pool, and make life easy and lazy for Southerners. They needed them to provide the basic necessities of food and clothing for all of the country. Like it or not, even Northerners at that time had food on their tables and clothes on their backs because of slave labor, and might well have faced starvation and deprivation without it. Without slaves, how would you have provided those staples and necessities?

The young nation might well have faced a disaster without it.

Breyer is funny. He claims that he knows what the founding fathers thought, yet clearly given his opinion on this particular question, he doesn't. If the founding fathers, and for that matter Madison, opposed the right of the individual to keep and bear arms then it would not have been included in the 2nd Amendment.

"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 think it's very clear.

Yep. Our country was built on the idea of the farmer, the innkeeper, and the local silversmith owning basic infantry equipment, knowing how to use and maintain that equipment, and being able to learn basic drill.

As was established by the 1980s training film, "Red Dawn", this is a capability that needs to be maintained even in an era of modern professional standing armies.

It is very clear. Well except to the arrogant bastards that are appointed to the US Supreme Court and the politicians who oppose the Constitution.

This ain't no musket, Bubba.

This ain't no founding father either bubba

Isn't funny how them that are protected by men with guns, think that they rest of us don't need them. Arrogance at its best.

He doesn't look like an old white guy at all.

I liked "Red Dawn" and think it is a pretty good movie. It certainly doesn't deserve the way liberal Hollywood vilify it.

But that said IIRC, even in "Red Dawn", a movie that focused on "teenagers becoming guerrillas" a big chunk of the damage inflicted on the occupation forces was either by regular U.S. troops (the helicopter gunship in the beginning, the Abrams tank later, the F-111 conducting airstrikes) or with the direct instruction of a regular U.S. Air Force fighter pilot (Powers Booth's character).

I must say, I'm getting Gods damned sick and tired of motherfuckers trying to tell me the Constitution doesn't actually mean what it says.

Nuclear weapons are arms.

Therefore, the founding fathers intended for private citizens to be allowed possession of nuclear bombs.

Why do people ignore the phrase "well regulated militia"?

People don't, we have that Right too.

Outside of the States' Defense Forces, there aren't many private militias.

The Other Wiki shows four: Michigan Militia, Texas Emergency Reserve, Ranch Rescue and the Kitat Konenut of New York.

I daresay that makes the third phrase of the Second Amendment all the more crucial: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Also, note what the US Code says of the militia:

US CODE
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 § 311. Militia: composition and classes
(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. [Non-Federal National Guard]
(b) The official 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.
The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia[2]. The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft)[2]
A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population, often politicized.[4]
A private militia, which are made up of non-officially organized individuals who have formed paramilitary organizations based on their own interpretation of the concept of the militia.

Note the bolded part. "A well regulated militia," (any able-bodied man -- and realistically, woman -- of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard -- and I doubt that any able-bodied person 45 or over would be denied admission into a militia if the need rose) "being necessary to the security of a free state," (to protect the freedoms defined by the constitution and bill of rights) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (despite what cities like Chicago and Washington DC and Justices like Breyer may think).

Doesn't matter how many times you point that out. The reality-impaired will continue to insist that "the militia" means the National Guard.

Yup. Because the average joe would want to deal with all that entails. You think a nuclear warhead is something you can just keep in your garage with no training and such? Go ahead and try. First you'll glow in the dark, and then you'll be dead. Actually, it won't necessarily be in that order.

I couldn't answer that question unless you clarified which people you think are ignoring that phrase.

While we're on the topic, what do you think the phrase "well regulated militia" means in the context of the Second Amendment?

Second question, why do "people" think that the word "regulated" modifies the word "arms" when it clearly modifies the word "militia"?

Why do people ignore the phrase "the rights of the people..."?

I don't. In fact, that phrase is integral to the intent of the amendment.

In the language of the day, "well regulated" means well functioning, as in a well regulated clock keeps accurate time. "eing necessary to the security of a free state" doesn't just refer to repelling a foreign invader, but also maintaining the freedom of the people from the state from within.

"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," is pretty self explanatory.

Poor Mr. Breyer, it's a shame they're not still around for us to ask. All we have is what they wrote. And those two little baby paragraphs that comprise the 2nd Amendment speak for themselves unless you have some kind of reading impediment.

And "militia" meant all able-bodied males of a certain age. Technically it still does, but with the all-volunteer military that point is lost a bit.

Why do YOU ignore the phrase, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

Where have I indicated that I do so?

Stop being so defensive.
This entire thread is a testament to the inability of some people to have a discussion without resorting to dogma and invective.

In case you didn't see it the first time.

It isn't ignored, but it isn't emphasized because:

1. The people ARE the militia. Consult the Militia Act of 1792 from the George W(ashington) Administration if in doubt about what the prevailing thoughts of the time were.

2. The "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is an introductory clause that cannot stand alone. It merely gives purpose to the main clause which follows.

If the First Amendment had been written thus: "Public discourse being necessary to the political health of a free state, the right of the people to hold and express opinions shall not be infringed." Would you interpret that to mean that ONLY public discourse was free from regulation? Or that only discourse of a political nature was?

It's arguable (barely so, IMHO, but still) that although the Second prohibits the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from outlawing armed citizens, that the STATES might be able to do so. As a matter of consistency, then, you'd have to concede that states could also have their own religions and regulate speech as well. In any event, the matter is moot because, lo and behold, the 14th Amendment guarantees that the rights ("the privileges and immunities") of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged by the states.

Not to mention that regulate in 18th century English meant "make effective". "An effective militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."