mathprofbrony 
"[@Background Pony #E6F4":](/947136#comment_5201084
)
Dear oh dear. Someone doesn't seem to know that Supreme Court opinions can have multiple dissents. Breyer and Stevens both filed dissents that all four dissenting justices joined. Stevens' dissent does_*not_* begin from an individual right to bear arms for self-defense but indeed questions seriously whether such a right exists in the amendment. Breyer's argument is intended as a secondary case: giving initial ground and arguing that the decision _*still_* should not hold. _*All four_* dissenting justices joined _*both_* opinions.
With all four dissenters having joined both opinions, one must look to the justices' other public statements to determine their view on the individual right. And what do these statements say?
Souter: "The Second Amendment does not create any right in U.S. citizens to possess any and all weapons regardless of state regulation, but rather concerns only authority of the states to keep and raise militias"
The Notorious RBG? "It gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only — and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation."
And how about your man Breyer? Did he ever make any other statements about his view of the Second Amendment? Maybe he wrote an **entire chapter** on Heller in a book titled_*Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge’s View_*, in which he enters upon the smackdown with this:
"This historical examination led the majority to conclude that in the eighteenth century an individual’s right to possess guns was important both for purposes of defending that individual and for purposes of a community’s collective self-defense. It then determined that the framers intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms not only to effectuate the more general right to maintain a “well regulated Militia” but also independently as an end...
The dissenters (of which I was one) focused on the words a “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” In our view, that language identifies the amendment’s major underlying value. Its purpose is to ensure the maintenance of the “well regulated Militia” that it mentions..."
No, it's pretty clear that the liberal justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are not really enamored of the idea of an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment.
Dear oh dear. Someone doesn't seem to know that Supreme Court opinions can have multiple dissents. Breyer and Stevens both filed dissents that all four dissenting justices joined. Stevens' dissent does
With all four dissenters having joined both opinions, one must look to the justices' other public statements to determine their view on the individual right. And what do these statements say?
Souter: "The Second Amendment does not create any right in U.S. citizens to possess any and all weapons regardless of state regulation, but rather concerns only authority of the states to keep and raise militias"
The Notorious RBG? "It gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only — and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation."
And how about your man Breyer? Did he ever make any other statements about his view of the Second Amendment? Maybe he wrote an **entire chapter** on Heller in a book titled
"This historical examination led the majority to conclude that in the eighteenth century an individual’s right to possess guns was important both for purposes of defending that individual and for purposes of a community’s collective self-defense. It then determined that the framers intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms not only to effectuate the more general right to maintain a “well regulated Militia” but also independently as an end...
The dissenters (of which I was one) focused on the words a “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” In our view, that language identifies the amendment’s major underlying value. Its purpose is to ensure the maintenance of the “well regulated Militia” that it mentions..."
No, it's pretty clear that the liberal justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are not really enamored of the idea of an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment.