 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|||
 |
|||
|
Supreme Court: Double-speakers for double-thinkers
- Text size
Chad Polenz
Infowars
June 27, 2008
You ask me why I listen to Alex Jones and infowars.com – well HERE’S why! He said the Supreme Court would rule "in favor" of gun owners but in actuality rule against them.
Notice that these justices say exactly what the Second Amendment states ("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.") but then through CLASSIC double-speak they say "even though it says it shall not be infringed, it shall be." In other words, "yes, you have a right to own guns but we have a right to infringe them."
Technically, if the justices followed the Amendment to the letter of the law it would get rid of ALL gun control across the board. But that’s never going to happen. I’m not dumb enough to think that any politician or judge in their right mind is going to strike down gun control entirely, although they should because that’s what the Constituition says.
So yeah, this might peel back SOME gun control but not all. They still say "the government may infringe your right to own a gun" even though the Second Amendment clearly states "shall NOT be infringed"
It doesn’t say UNREASONABLY infringed, it says flat-out it shall not be infringed!
But as is the case with the Constitution, everyone has a different interpretation. People think "the militia" mean the military, or the national guard. No, sorry liberals. The militia is EVERYONE! Who fought in the Revolutionary War? Regular people like you and I. Only 4% of the total American population were able to fight off the entire British Empire. We can do it again, that’s why I post these bulletins and blogs. It’s a grassroots effort – just a few people CAN make a difference.
Here’s a good example: remember in the Ben Affleck movie "Pearl Harbor" there’s a scene where FDR is briefed by the Joint Chiefs and one of the generals says "Mr. President, if the Japanese invaded California they could get all the way to Chicago before we could stop them." Now, I have no idea if that was true at the time, but this is EXACTLY the kind of scenario the Second Amendment was supposed to prevent. Imagine, even as recently at the 1940s if a foreign country invaded our soil they could get halfway across it. Well, if we had a regulated-militia we would never have to worry about this.
If you believe that ALL American citizens make up the militia you should be against all gun control across the board. If you think the second amendment only applies to police and military, well, you’re deluding yourself. And I know what you’re thinking, "you’re saying ex-cons, lunatics, and children should carry guns?" In an ideal world, yes, because this wouldn’t be a problem since everyone else would be armed to defend themselves against these people. Obviously, that’s never going to happen. I can’t honestly imagine a scenario in which every American citizen is allowed to walk around with a gun on their side at all times, much like the Old West or the setting of a Star Wars movie.
Don’t worry limp-wristed liberals and fake neo-cons, the gun control laws still on the books will work wonders to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and keep them IN the hands of street thugs, Mafia members and backwoods survivalist groups. Maybe instead of passing gun control laws we go after the people supplying the guns to these criminals? It’s like illegal immigrants, instead of just deporting them why not prosecute employers who hire them? That would solve that problem pretty darn quick.
So you you wonder why I listen to Alex Jones? He predicted this outcome TO THE LETTER of the ruling! It’s not a victory for gun owners, it’s a victory for double-speak government and double-think people everywhere.
-Chad
Supreme Court rules in favor of gun ownership rights
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun control in U.S. history.
The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms restrictions intact. (DOUBLE-THINK!!)
 |
|
|
|
|
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," (YES IT DOES!! WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND!?!?!) Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington’s requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns. (DOUBLE-THINK!!)
Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans’ preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found." (WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND, STEVENS? OBVIOUSLY YOU DON’T KNOW WHO FOUGHT THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR)
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." (THAT’S RIGHT, BREYER, PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN CRIME-RIDDEN AREAS DON’T HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. YET SOMEHOW THE CRIMINALS IN THOSE AREAS GOT THEIR HANDS ON GUNS AND YOU WANT TO TAKE THEM OUT OF THE HANDS OF LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS – RIGHT ON!!)
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. (MAYBE, BUT THEY STILL SAID THE GOVERNMENT MAY RESTRICT OUR RIGHTS TO BEAR ARMS. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK IT’S REALLY GOING TO CHANGE IN THE BIG PICTURE?)
The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday’s outcome.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said. (OH MY GOD, THESE CHICKEN-NECK LIBERALS MAKE ME NUTS. "PEOPLE DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES – THAT’S WHAT WE HAVE POLICE FOR!")
The capital’s gun law was among the nation’s strictest.
Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his Capitol Hill home a short distance from the Supreme Court.
"I’m thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller said shortly after the opinion was announced.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller’s favor and struck down Washington’s handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right. (NEITHER IS EVEN A PARTIAL PROHIBITION – "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!")
The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check. (NOTICE HOW A NEO-CON IS ACTUALLY FOR GUN CONTROL! THAT GOES TO SHOW HOW BIG OF FRAUDS THESE GUYS ARE! OF COURSE HE DOESN’T WANT AMERICANS ARMED – WE MIGHT ACTUALLY FIGHT BACK AGAINST HIS ENGINEERED POLICE STATE!)
White House reaction was restrained. "We’re pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.
Scalia said nothing in Thursday’s ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." (DOUBLE-THINK! DOUBLE-THINK! DOUBLE-THINK!!!)
In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."
The law adopted by Washington’s city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense. (WORD!)
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.
Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court’s consideration of Washington’s restrictions.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
| Alex Jones LIVE, A Fourth Hour Now Added To The Infowars Radio Show For Members Click here to get your subscription today! |
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
- Share on Twitter
June 27th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
http://video.google.com/google.....3637733227
June 27th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Yeah guns are fun (before cleaning) and the US Constitution is suppose to give us the right to have them but, scalar waves make them semi-obsolete. Do a google search on scalar waves and see what the NWO can do to people as they powerlessly fire their guns.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Hmm, way back when our founders composed our Constitution they worded the 2nd Amendment that “the right OF THE PEOPLE, (not the cops, military or Blackwater) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The British were trying like hell to infringe ‘em and… anybody remember what happened next? The Spirit of ‘76 is alive and well in this nation to this day, much to the consternation of the swarm of cockroaches running things in DC, NYC and London.
LONG LIVE THE BLOOD-BOUGHT AMERICAN REPUBLIC!
June 27th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Shocked, just because they have made the weapons that can beat us, doesn’t mean they can beat us.
They need people they can trust to pull the triggers. And while they are massing the numbers up, our numbers range from 80 million to 120 million just here in the US. Our best hope is that when the order comes to, “kill us all,” the guys they choose to pull the trigger on us, turn the weapon around on them. It is alot more difficult to kill 100 million innocent people, than it is to kill a couple of thousand criminal scum giving blatantly evil orders.
As long as our numbers stay high, no matter what weapons they have, they cannot win. Ghandi showed us that.
FreeinTX
June 27th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG3PnQ3tgzY
June 27th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
I was convicted i.e. my “STRAWMAN was”,in a so-called “Court Of Law” actually a court of commerce ,of a NON_VIOLENT offense of DUI, which took place on said Harley, and R&C stolen property, which in reality was my Harley that I refused to give up in a divorce after I had given up my home, 2 cars, 2 trucks, and ALL the furnishings inside the home, not counting the Vacation home. Now, after I find out how the courts work and that what they did in fact was UNLAWFUL because it is a misapplication of the Statutes and the Codes, being they only apply to their property i.e. “STRAWMEN”, aka ens-legis, a creation of law soley created in the contemplation of COMMERCE.! Well, here is what it boils down to people, I DONT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE BATF&E, or THE SO-CALLED SUPREME FUCKING COURT! When we have a fucking DICTATOR and his HENCHMEN running roughshod over the people, ITS TIME TO WAKE THE FUCK UP!!! I KNOW how those 800 FEMA camps are going to be employed, I was in one!!READ THE CONSTITUTION,, their Jurisdiction only encompasses a TEN (10) square mile area.! It also includes those corporate subsidaries known as STATE OF TEXAS, STATE OF MICHIGAN, etcetera. And to summurize all of the above, I STILL OWN AND ALWAYS WILL OWN FIREARMS AND DONT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE FEDS!! Come get em if you can,, see ya in HELL, because quite a few of you will be there just a few minutes before me. And a BIG P.S., I have never harmed or injured no-man or woman driving or otherwise, but I will NOT hesitate to defend my family, friends or country against ALL enemies, foreign, or DOMESTIC, even those in BLACK NAZI UNIFORMS, THOSE THAT HIDE THEIR FACES FROM SHAME.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:09 am
every comment I post never goes through these days?
censored?
June 28th, 2008 at 12:14 am
You know, I understand Chad’s point and am vehemently sympathetic to it. But the Framers were not as innocent as we would like to believe, and I think the wording to the 2nd Amendment was left purposely ambiguous.
Don’t forget, many Framers were Freemasons.
A well-regulated militia probably DOES mean a military, of sorts. The key phrase here is “well-regulated”. They aren’t talking about a rag tag band of revolutionaries, nor separate individuals.
The Revolutionary War was fought against England, not our own government. The revolutionaries were bound more strongly by state militias since the federal government was weaker compared to it, at that time.
I believe the wording is meant to express- taking the literal phrases as well as history into account- that state militias had the right to defend themselves from a tyrannical federal government, if the feds became tyrannical.
The intent of this was to keep power with the states. But it does not include groups of dissenters within a neighborhood, or a gaggle of protestors, or even an individual homeowner being burglarized, nor a pedestrian on a city street.
There must be, however, some way to protect our rights that are being taken away. Clearly we are experiencing the rise of a tyrannical government. Too bad the states didn’t hold more sovereignty right now, or this would be easier.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:56 am
get a gun, weather its ‘legal’ or not
June 28th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Look. The whole decision handed down by the supreme court has effectively paved the way for state and local governments to lock our constitutional gun ownership rights behind our front door. It says we have the right to own and bear arms in our homes PERIOD!!!!!!! The States will now regulate firearms to the point of implantation of biometric chips in our persons to even be able to take the firearm to a gun range to practic. We now can not be disarmed but we will be imprisoned with our weapons in our oun homes.
THE NEW WORLD ORDER WINS!!!!!!!
June 28th, 2008 at 1:16 am
The best gun is the one nobody knows about- Malone Labe
June 28th, 2008 at 1:31 am
I have Firearms. I am a free man. IF you dont like firearms dont have one. It is your choice. IF you want one it is your right. This is the main reason we are more free then the rest of the world. and we must keep this right or all rights will no longer mean anything. THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARM … shall not…WHAT???? ASK YOURSELF…WE THE PEOPLE… SAY SOMTHING YOU PEOPLE THAT THINK A.J. IS A JOKE…..HE IS NOT.. AND I WOULD FIGHT WITH HIM ANY DAY… LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC OF THE U.S.A.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Don’t worry limp-wristed liberals and fake neo-cons, the gun control laws still on the books will work wonders to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and keep them IN the hands of street thugs, Mafia members and
>>>>>>>backwoods survivalist groups.<<<<<?
WTF is wrong with these Folks? Many of them are just HUNTERS! Like ME!
Many people will soon DEPEND on these people!
BELIEVE IT!
Unless you take the NWO debit Card/ Cashless promise of the all new Money GODS.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Molon Labe’- means, “Come and take them”
And it is GREEK, and is pronounce , (mo-lone lah-veh)
The Origin of these words-
Two little words. With these two words, two concepts were verbalized that have lived for nearly two and a half Millennia. They signify and characterize both the heart of the Warrior, and the indomitable spirit of mankind. From the ancient Greek, they are the reply of the Spartan General-King Leonidas to Xerxes, the Persian Emperor who came with 600,000 of the fiercest fighting troops in the world to conquer and invade little Greece, then the center and birthplace of civilization as we know it. When Xerxes offered to spare the lives of Leonidas, his 300 personal bodyguards and a handful of Thebans and others who volunteered to defend their country, if they would lay down their arms, Leonidas shouted these two words back.
Molon Labe! (mo-lone lah-veh)
June 28th, 2008 at 2:02 am
This artical has got some balls… all the laws and regulations the Bush regime have passed are directed for this type of MOVEMENT… Be prepared, as the Boy Scouts always say… Get the word out. Understand this is a direct attack against the 2ND admendment and the Patriot Movement
June 28th, 2008 at 3:25 am
This what I submmited on some othe blog sight. I know I am preching to the chior here. Apparently most of you don’t know the first thing about government and what has happend in the last 150 years. If you did, you would understand that the first ten amendments of the Constitution are beyond the reach of government. They are rights. Rights cannot be given or taken away. No man or men have the right to rule over another free man or men. Once you understand that you will understand how criminal goverment has become. Read the Federalist Paper 29 and 46. Use Blackstone Law dictionary volume 6 and look up the definition of a right.
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if by any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
A quote from William Rawles.
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic;(111) since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.The next amendment is, “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.” One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men. (112) A quote from Justice Joseph Story.
1. Henry St. George Tucker
Henry St. George Tucker was the son of St. George Tucker, author of Tucker’s Blackstone.(136) The younger Tucker served as U.S. Representative from Virginia (1815-19), as President of the Virginia Supreme Court,(137) and as law professor at the University of Virginia (1841-45).(138) He declined President Jackson’s offer to serve as United States Attorney General.(139) In 1831, he wrote a three volume treatise Commentaries on the Law of Virginia.(140) Although he followed Blackstone’s organization, the treatise was entirely Tucker’s own, and it represented an important step forward in the development of distinctly American law. This treatise “was standard fare for aspiring lawyers”(141) and was “the primary reference source for the bar of Virginia” until the Virginia Code was adopted in 1850.(142) Tucker had created the “vade mecum(143) of the bar of Virginia. . . . It was recognized by the bar of Virginia, and in many of the Southern State s, as the most valuable text-book for students and lawyers then in existence.”(144) Tucker’s work “established the standard for American treatise writing, helped organize American law, and provided access to it for attorneys distant from law libraries.”(145)
Explaining “the principal absolute rights of individuals,” Tucker wrote:
[C]ertain protections or barriers have been erected which serve to maintain inviolate the three primary rights of personal security, personal liberty, and private property. These may in America may be said to be:
1. The Bill of Rights and written Constitutions . . . .
2. The right of bearing arms–which with us is not limited and restrained by an arbitrary system of game laws, as in England; but is practically enjoyed by every citizen, and is among his most valuable privileges, since it furnishes the means of resisting, as a freeman ought, the inroads of usurpation.
3. The right of applying to the courts of justice for redress of injuries.(146)
Tucker continued, quoting Blackstone’s formulation of the English right to arms. Tucker added that this right “is secured with us by Am. C. U. S. art. 4.”(147) (Like some other writers of the period, Tucker numbered the amendments as they were when sent to the states for ratification by the first Congress.)
When human rights were violated, Tucker concluded, the citizen was entitled first to justice in the courts, “next to the right of petitioning for redress of grievances; and, lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.”(148)
Definitions by Noah webster. Right” was a “[j]ust claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to secure enjoyment of life, liberty, personal safety, liberty, and property. . . . Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.”(177)
“People” meant “[t]he body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We say, the people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English people.”(178)
“Keep” was “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.”(179)
“Bear” meant firstly, “[t]o support; to sustain; as, to bear a weight or burden”(180)–a meaning that does not fit with the context of the Second Amendment. The second and third meanings of “bear” are much more congruent, however: “To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place” and “[t]o wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as, to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat.”(181)
It is sometimes argued that “bear” has an exclusively military connotation, so that the right to “bear” arms refers only to bearing them in militia service.(182) But none of Webster’s definitions for bear contain such a narrow construction. And rather significantly, we know that “bear” was used with a broad meaning in one of the key documents that gave birth to the Second Amendment: the minority report from the Pennsylvania ratifying convention. The minority demanded constitutional protection for the right of the people “to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game.”(183) Hunting–”killing game”–is obviously a personal, non-militia purpose for which one could “bear arms.”
One last comment. Criminals will have weapons whether you have gun control or not.
June 28th, 2008 at 3:38 am
Google news printed an article about the decision, and this quote was somewhat near the end of it:
“Until the early 20th century, the Bill of Rights was assumed to limit only the federal government, not the states; now the presumption is that the Constitution protects Americans against the government at all levels — federal, state and local. But the Supreme Court has not said the 2nd Amendment applies to the states.”
“That’s the next case to come up, but I think it’s a foregone conclusion” that the 2nd Amendment will extend to state and local laws, said Washington lawyer Alan Morrison, who wrote the District of Columbia’s opening brief defending its law when he was a city attorney.
At first glance this would seem to be a good thing, but when you think about it each State has it’s own constitution; which is supposed to have the final say in that State. Now, if what Mr. Morrison said is correct, very soon the Congress will be able to dictate to the States what gun regulation it can have. Think about that: Nationwide Federal regulation of local gun laws. I wonder if this decision was meant to fit into a plan that will relegate individual State Constitutions secondary to Federal Laws?
June 28th, 2008 at 5:31 am
One point seems to be missed–the 2nd amendment by design does not allude to any specific type of weapon. How can a specific weapon (firearm) not even defined be singled out? Clearly the firearm is the weapon of choice, but what about bladed weapons? Many states (perhaps most) have stupid laws restricting the carrying of knives and limitations on blade length etc. Why was this important detail omitted?
Knives are a real issue in UK and have become the weapon of choice there because they are available, easy to make, silent, deadly and untraceable.
June 28th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Could we just stop with the drearily repetitive ‘Censored!’ allegations? If you’re being censored, then how do your remarks claiming censorship keep getting through? Just how stupid do you believe the average American to be? Give it a rest already; it’s annoying in the same way your sister kicking the legs of your chair for 2 hours is annoying. And just about as mature. Shills! First they insult your intelligence, then they make fools of themselves, then they spend their 30 pieces of dirty silver at Wal Mart.
June 28th, 2008 at 7:41 am
I listen to AJ for the same reason. He had Jordan Maxwell on yesterday and I felt like I wasn’t alone in the way that I see what is happening. I have never met either one of those guys and have done my own research but came to almost the exact same conclusion’s.
June 28th, 2008 at 7:53 am
” Apparently, most of you don’t know the first thing about government and what has happened in the last 150 years” (16)………..Like were all a bunch of idiots and this guy knows everything about everything.
Why are so many people on this sight so condescending ? I though we were all on the same team.
F*** the Supreme court. Bunch of silver haired sell outs. And f** all the mumbo jumbo jargon………The system is a pathetic mess anyway. Those old F**KS can waste time deciding whatever they want, it does not change the fact that I will NEVER give up my guns. I mean, they could rule tomorrow that all of the 1 billion guns in this country will be confiscated, and it still doesn’t mean that we WILL give them up. We can sit here playing by their pathetic rules and act like a bunch of slimy lawyers talking in circles about what this says or what that meant over 100 years ago………….F**K that ! Waste of time !
I’m tired of playing by their rules. WE ARE MANY, THEY ARE FEW. You try to take my guns, you will be shot.
June 28th, 2008 at 8:07 am
See? The New ruling on the 2nd amendment didn’t do sqwat for DC residence.
Why?
Uh? Because there are no FFL holders to retain a gun to SELL in DC. And to ship a firearm(Pistol) you MUST have 1 ZFFl to transfer it to another.
None in DC! So No Pistols for DC residence or transfered Long Guns to DC.
June 28th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Check out http://www.documentarywire.com to watch 100’s of documentaries for free!
June 28th, 2008 at 8:55 am
WE NEED TO START CARRYING ARMS ANY ARMS. SWORDS, KNIVES, AXES, SPEARS and TOOLS. Wooden ones, metal ones, composite ones. Find a weapon and learn to use it. You live in fear ever day of your life, this is by design. Notice the design, infer its creator, define the structure, implement resolution, asses the design.
The evolution of ARMS and TOOLS is under assault. Do you really think when they start making laser guns people wont want to carry them, or the nifty lighsaber even (which I would carry, fwooom).
I suggest a new GLOBAL HOLIDAY. GLOBAL ARMS DAY. July 3rd.
On this day everyone arm themselves, the criminals already have.
What will be the effect? Ill leave that to the people.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:12 am
The movie “Pearl Harbor” was wrong. the japanese wouldn’t have gotten very far at all. One Japanese General stated, “We cannot invade the united States, there would be a rifle hiding behind every single blade of grass!” Does it sound like the Japanese thought they would easily make it to Chicago without a problem? More Hollywood propaganda working hard to deceive the minds of the American people.
The Supreme Court “Justices” are the high priests of Jupiter, just as Jordan Maxwell has explained in the past. They no nothing of justice, another subliminal message to deceive the people. Just like Congress means a sexual act. We live under and evil empire and the tentacles spread out from the center…Rome, or more precisely, The Vatican.
As for DC residents buying guns, that isn’t a problem. All they need to do is travel 10 minutes outside of DC and buy a gun in Maryland, problem solved. If all of us join together we can change things…we can rebuild the Constitution and wipe away all “infringement” in regards to the Second Amendment and any other Constitutional criminal act the traitors…politicians have done in order to weaken the Union.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:43 am
yeah,
I don’t see too many people refer to members of the Michigan militia as ‘military’. at least not any many live ones.
The only difference nowadays is the establishment is exercising the same rules they generally reserve for prisoners, the jailed & forgotten
but nonetheless, just like on the inside.
We number them by more than a 1000 prisoners to a guard.
WE LET THEM RUN IT~!!!
All I can say is, it’s only a matter of time.
tick-tock.
btw CHEIF THUNDER:
I feel you regarding the solidarity on this site, but there are quite a few on here alone.
They’ve got a budget in the billions, just for grief and despair.
Medication for the millions in a state unaware.
Psi ops trolling on the internet looking for war.
with each & every citizen, spread out, stripped on the floor.
Everyday spent in a slumber, waiting for ibm numbers,
Every summer, getting dumber, from concentration camps to gunner
Try to escape like a runner, but pretty soon you learn you gonna
have to fight back or fall, guerilla tactics are your friend.
A little blood’s got to be spilt before the madness ends.
Annihilate the public with a false-flag attack.
Liberating the foolish masses like the ghetto did for crack.
Everyday they take my rights away, then next they want my gun.
A urine test, and dna of all our first-born sons.
When will these sheeple wake up, what is education for?
None of these people even cracked open prophetic 1984.
No worries for those who came late, Uncle Bush has got a plan.
just get into the van, my man. you’re going to the sand.
Onstar will help your car pull over, while your hoods pulled over tighter.
Al-qaeda, oil & lighter, come & watch the world turn whiter.
They’re gonna cut my mic faster than a remote-controlled jet.
Just don’t get into the water unless you plan on getting wet.
Pzzz
June 28th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
McCain and Obama said they agreed with the court, then said they would only take guns in case of an emergency. They didn’t say what that would entale. Maybe an in grown toe-nail or a jay-walker.
June 28th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
simple, just make a law that only the criminals can’t have guns
June 28th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I agree with Chief Thunder. The corrupted fascist government and their scum play-pals in Congress and their power hungry commie-chums in corporations can demand new bullshit restraints on We the people all they want. Blah, Blah, Blah they can go f*** themselves because the bunch of them are total liars and bullsh** artists that love to hear themselves talk and jacko**. All Bets Are Off! They are going down and I don’t mean on each other, though I don’t doubt that is what they do in their off hours. We know our rights and the direction the country should be going in even if they don’t. Get the tar and feathers. Get prepared. Let’s get even. Rid our great country of this slime infested grubby agenda toting pack of wolves and carrion eaters. Not one of them is worth a spent bullet. I will see you all under the Liberty Tree.
June 29th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Rim fire automatics should be legal without the tax stamp and other rigmarole.
http://video.google.com/videos.....tesearch=#
What does ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ mean?
We are now on red alert. The next ruling could be the ‘big one’.
June 29th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
HOLY CRAP! I didn’t even know y’all picked up on my blog until NOW (Sunday evening!)
THANKS!! Although I wish you had shot me an email about it sooner!
-Chad
June 29th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
TickTock that was Bad Ass
June 29th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
laws are being passed right under all our noses. how much more proof do the american people need before they figure it out. i feel more unease when posting comments and ive been seriously thinking about quitting. i wish you well.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Prior to the 1968 Gun Control Act we could buy guns through the mail NO background checks and NO paper work (4473 forms). No National Instant check system (NICS)
People suffering from mental illness and non-violent felons could all buy guns, yet crime was low, why?
It’s because we had a checks balances in our society that kept the Bad guys in check. An armed society is a civil society criminals prefer unarmed victims. Gun control only creates victims.
Prior to the 1930 Uniform Federal firearms act All person could buy and own guns. The law only banned violent felons like murders from buying and owning firearms.
Even this bill wouldn’t have been needed if they simply would have kept the violent offenders in prison. If you can’t trust these people in on the streets then keep their ass locked-up.
We live in a nation where a restraining order during a divorce can cause the loss of gun ownership even when there is NO threat of violence.
Being charged with a felony is so easy just question a cop and you risk being charged with assault.
Our rights are from God how can a Government limit a right that preexists law.
The words “shall not be infringed” at the time of the writing of the constitution was written has a commanding prohibition.
“Shall” is a command
“Not” is a Prohibition
“Infringed” in the law means “treaspass” which is entry and “transgress” which means “encroachment”
Thus a commanding prohibition on the entry and encroachment on the right to keep and bear arms.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
“It’s Mike—
The Federal Const. is the law. State const. are second to the fed. not the other way around.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Here’s the reason they’re 2 clauses in the 2A
William Rawle defines the right of the people to keep and bear arms has a natural consequence or corollary of the need of an armed citizenry/militia.
The express need of an armed citizenry guarantee’s the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a duty and therefore absolute.
The Corollary or natural Consequence between the 2 clauses goes both ways, meaning the arms of the militia become the arms of the people and the arms of the people become the arms of the militia.
If you’re able-bodied not in prison or in a mental hospital it becomes your duty to be armed.
The 2A was written to reflect the earlier laws of the colonies and maintain the duty of the citizenry to be armed.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
To: Sick of it all!
According to the tenth, the U.S. Constitution places the authority of the Federal government subordinate to the will of the States and the will of the people. It’s true that the U.S. Constitution is the “Supreme law of the land” but the spirit of the tenth is to place a pecking order of People -> State -> Fed and that all tempered with a healthy republican form of government.
As to the issue of gun control… it goes WAY beyond simple guns. The second talks about arms. Arms like in armament. Arms like in guns and bombs and tanks and such. Now, I have no personal interest in owning a tank. I couldn’t afford the fuel. Forget for a moment about the crooks vs the law-abiding-citizen argument, think about how that the most evil and plotting and disingenuous and deceiving people on earth control the tanks and bombs and bazooka’s. Think about how that with a signature or a phone call those can be used against the people.
Those are big thoughts for me. I’m not sure how to wrap my head around them, but while I’m trying, suddenly it makes a lot more sense when I think about how that Jefferson and Washington warned against peace-time large standing armies.
More big thoughts.