Breyer’s Twisted Anti-Gun Reasoning

A case currently being argued in the Supreme Court–McDonald vs. Chicago–seeks to further clarify the constitutional bounds of our Second Amendment rights. Specifically, this case deals with whether state and local authorities can impose more restrictions on gun ownership than are allowed by the federal government under the District of Columbia v. Heller decision of 2008.

The same five Justices who sided with the Constitution in the Heller case have again made arguments that the right to bear arms is a fundamental liberty–like freedom of speech–that state and local authorities cannot further abridge. Of course, the anti-gun Justices on the Supreme Court had their arguments as well.

Some members tried to moderate their call for restrictions even as their rhetoric gives away their true beliefs. Take Justice Stevens. As quoted in the WaPo,

“Stevens wondered if a limited Second Amendment right could be applied to the states, so that ownership in the home was protected, as opposed to “the right to parade around the streets with guns.”

But it’s Justice Breyer whose arguments are the most twisted, and in light of his record on the Court, hyprocritical.

“When it’s free speech versus life, we very often decide in favor of life,” Breyer said. “Here, every case will be on one side guns, on the other side human life.”

Really? That’s the issue here? Guns vs. life? Funny, but when we think about our right to own a gun in the home, guns are on the side of life. When we think about criminals breaking into our house, where our child is sleeping, guns are on the side of life–our lives. Our child’s life. We would rather have the ability to protect our family and home than leave our life in the hands of 911 dispatchers and police who might not always be able to get there, or get there in time. We read stories like this one of a man who waited for over 30 hours after calling 911 for help that never arrived, and can’t help but think we’re better off being able to fend for ourselves if we have to.

Yes, the decision to own a gun is not one to entered into lightly. Guns are like power tools–when used correctly, useful to have around. When used recklessly, dangerous as much to their owners as to others. Owning one is a big responsibility–teaching and living gun safety from the very first time you decide to own a gun is incredibly important. Guns are not toys, and you shouldn’t run out and buy one because they’re cool, or because they make you feel powerful.

But to paint this issue as guns vs. life is ridiculous. It’s an old argument, one we’ve heard time and time again, but we really have to ask if Breyer has heard it. He is aware that criminals don’t follow the law to get their hands on guns? That all restrictions on owning guns do is discourage law-abiding citizens from taking their protection into their own hands (and leaving them ever more dependent on the government?) We honestly this is a pretty uncontested fact, and wonder why it doesn’t occur to men like Breyer who spend most of their time thinking about just such things.

We, for one, will fight to be self-reliant as often and as loudly as we can. For now, we can only hope that McDonald will be decided in the same vein as Heller–with the Courts siding with the average American citizen’s right to protect their own life, and not be dependent on the government.

  • DRight

    I am a 2nd amendment advocate, however throughout our history these rights have been both abused and subsequently limited. The roaring 20's limited the right to own automatic firearms, even our old west seems to have had some impositions on gun slingers, desperados, outlaws and just plain mean varmints. So should our Justices look blindly into the 2nd amendment and just say yup? Or should they consider some other factors that might mean a more balance approach to the second amendment. After all isn't justice a balancing of rights? The 9th amendment in my interpretation anyway, seems to allow for our rights to the extent they don't take away someone else's rights. When justice comes down to the point of a gun, I have doubts on the person implementing it. Lord give wisdom.

  • Guest

    I am responsible to defend my family in the event someone is trying to harm them. I have every right to own and carry a weapon for that purpose. There are already laws on the books preventing me from abusing that right and people who do own guns legally are a very law abiding group (contrary to the impression pushed by the anti-gun crowd). It is illegal for me to threaten someone with a gun, use a gun except in self defense, etc. Why is it that those who don't want guns must always push their agenda on me? That is what the constitutional right of gun ownership protects me from. I don't want to be caught when a gunman (or woman) enters my home with the intent of harm and not have a means of protecting myself. It is as simple as that. I don't want to wait for the police to show up after my family and I are dead and try to prosecute the criminal. I want to be self reliant and it is me RIGHT.

  • billwhit

    As the saying goes, "They can have my weapons when they pry it from my dead hands!" Not one second before!

  • Brooks

    Think of it this way for a second. If your friend stopped over to your place and had a visible side arm on would you be afraid? If the answer is no then what is the problem? The average person has nothing to fear from the next average person and shouldn’t. I look at it simply like this it will make others think before they act because there actions might have dire consequences. Ohio passed a concealed carry law and we haven’t seen a return of the Wild West. No shoot outs in Mall parking lots over a parking space taken by another. There are parts of many cities that aren’t safe to drive though. Get off the interstate at the wrong exit and have your car break down. Now tell me you wouldn’t feel a little more comfortable waiting for a tow truck if you had a side arm with you. The people we fear have never given up their guns.

  • Ruth Lawler

    Our rights are fast disappearing. The hate crimes law is erasing the first amendment. It never was about crime, it was always about restricting free speech because speech is now being attacked when no real crime has even been or will be committed. Spurred on by the eliminate free speech victory, the politically correct tyrants are now going after guns. We can't even use waterboarding against terrorists! Why do we listen to these politically correct morons? It's national suicide, and we need to stand against it.

    • recce1

      Ruth, you hit the nail on the head. Gun control is about people control (the definition I like is gun control is hitting the target you aim at). If one reads the comments of the Founding Fathers the right to own guns wasn't about hunting or personal protection as important as those aspects are. The reason for owning guns was to protect us not from foreign tyrants, the job of the Federal government, but to protect us form local tyrants, including federal tyrants.

      Justice Breyer put his views very succinctly, "When it’s free speech versus life, we very often decide in favor of life." That could mean a court could restrict arguing against socialized medicine or restrictions on certain foods saying it jeopardized life or saying that arguing homosexuality is immoral is illegal as it jeopardizes the lives of those practicing it.

      Unfortunately, I would argue that we don't have an effective Constitution, particularly a Bill of Rights, save the Third – so far. The SCOTUS Kelo Decision ended property rights in the US and as John Locke argued, without property rights there can be no political rights. The SCOTUS' Gibbons v. U.S., Wickard v. Filburn, Dred Scot v. Sanford, U.S. v. Commodore Park, and the Plessy v. Ferguson rulings were equally bad as all reduced individual rights and immensely expanded federal power.

      It's time as you said we insist against such and work for a restoration of a democratic Republic under Constitutional Law thru the ballot, lest we face a revolution with bullets.