On Fox News, Justice Stephen Breyer recently said historians would side with him in the case against bearing arms 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 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?
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.