Filed under: 2nd Amendment, anti gun, Antonin Scalia, bill of rights, Gun Control, militia, Nancy Pelosi, New World Order, NRA, Police State, supreme court, US Constitution, Washington D.C.
Top Court: No Inalienable Right To Bear Arms
Lee Rogers
Rogue Government
June 27, 2008
Today the U.S. Supreme Court released their ruling on the District of Columbia gun ban case. The court ruled that the Second Amendment did guarantee an individual’s right to bear arms, but also went on to say that the government still has the right to control and regulate firearms. The mainstream press is hailing this as a victory for gun owners and a defeat for anti-American gun control advocates. Unfortunately, this is incredibly misleading spin by the mainstream press as the ruling essentially says that the government still has the authority to implement regulations to control who has access to firearms and who doesn’t. The Second Amendment specifically states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, yet these egghead Supreme Court Justices have gone out of their way to try to redefine what it actually means. Either these Supreme Court Justices can’t read or they have been paid off by the criminals that run the federal government. Not only that, but it is incredibly frightening that the court only ruled 5-4 in favor of the Second Amendment with limitations. The dissenting Justices essentially said that the people don’t have the right to bear arms. It doesn’t get much more insane than this. This is totally unacceptable as the main purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the people can stand up against a tyrannical government and defend their lives, liberty and property. This ruling is more proof that the establishment is continuing its agenda of disarming the American people so they can setup a global dictatorship of death.
The following is taken from a Reuters report which summarizes what Justice Antonin Scalia said on behalf of the majority opinion.
In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Second Amendment protected an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia, a hunter.
He said the ruling should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill or on laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in places like schools and government buildings or laws imposing conditions on gun sales.
This is proof that Scalia and the other Justices in the majority opinion simply do not have an understanding of the Second Amendment or refuse to interpret it properly. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written so that the vast majority of people could understand them. They were not written so that only lawyers and judges could understand its contents. Let’s take a look at the full text of the Second 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.
The words “shall not be infringed” is what is key. The Second Amendment doesn’t say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except in certain cases. It doesn’t get anymore clear than this yet Scalia and the majority opinion Justices some how get the impression that the right to bear arms is not unlimited? How can someone make such a statement and be a Supreme Court Justice? This is proof that Scalia and the other Supreme Court Justices in the majority opinion are not competent to hold office and should be removed immediately. The founding fathers were saying that the right to bear arms is an inalienable right. Any regulation of firearms is unconstitutional and the government does not have the authority under the Constitution to dictate who is allowed to bear arms and who doesn’t.
With that said, the Justices in the minority should also be removed from the bench because according to their interpretation they believe that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect the individual’s right to bear arms. This is of course total idiocy.
It becomes even more ridiculous when a so called pro-gun lobby like the National Rifle Association claims that this ruling is a victory for gun owners. How is this ruling good for gun owners? The U.S. Supreme Court incorrectly interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that the right to bear arms can be infringed when the language of the Second Amendment indicates that this is totally false. Clearly, this shows how the NRA is a phony gun rights group. They hail this ruling as a victory when it simply isn’t.
Either way it doesn’t matter. We know what the agenda is and it involves incrementally abolishing the Second Amendment so that the American people can eventually be enslaved to the New World Order. All of the propaganda and lies cannot change the fact that this ruling is contrary to what the Second Amendment says. These Supreme Court Justices should all be removed from the bench for this ruling. It proves that they either can’t read properly or they are corrupt establishment hacks that love being slaves to this coming global dictatorship of evil.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080626..QRKaAHvoDGgoXIr0F
Pelosi Says D.C. Could Continue Gun Regulation
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/20..-dc-should-continue-gun-regulation/
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, anti gun, Antonin Scalia, Bill Kristol, DOJ, George Bush, Gun Control, neocons, Neolibs, paul clement, paul wolfowitz, supreme court, US Constitution, Washington D.C.
Neocons: 2nd Amendment Has Restrictions
Kurt Nimmo
Truth News
January 15, 2008
In Bushzarro world, up is down, black is white, and the Second Amendment permits the government to make firearm possession illegal.
“Since ‘unrestricted’ private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration,” reports . “The argument was delivered by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing arguments over the legality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns in homes, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.”
Clement was an understudy of the neocon Laurence H. Silberman, a federal judge appointed co-chair of the Iraq Intelligence Commission — the official excuse making body designated to minimize the impact of neocon lies about Iraq — and the reactionary Supreme Antonin Scalia, a member of the Federalist Society, a fascist club aligned with the American Enterprise Institute, the CIA asset Richard Mellon Scaife, and a smattering of neocons, including Bill Kristol, the latest edition to the “liberal” New York Times. “Clement clerked for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and worked as chief counsel to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights. He joined the Department of Justice in 2001 and moved into his current position in 2005.”
“Clement is the Bush administration’s chief lawyer before the court, and submitted the arguments in the case that is to determine whether the D.C. limit is constitutional. He said the 2nd Amendment, ‘protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations,’ and noted the D.C. ban probably goes too far,” WorldNetDaily continues.
However, Clement argues that nothing “in the 2nd Amendment properly understood… calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms.” In other words, according to Clement and the neocons, you have a right to possess firearms under the Constitution while at the same time the government has the right to make possession of firearms illegal. In Bushzarro world, up is down, black is white, and Orwellian doublethink – the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously – rules the day.
It should come as no surprise the neocons are gun-grabbers while at the same time claiming to be conservatives. “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” the neocon sock puppet Bush told Republican Congressional leaders back in 2005 when some of them complained about the USA Patriot Act. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
Neocon guru Leo Strauss “abhorred liberal democracy,” not the modern version of lefty liberalism, but classic liberalism, i.e., natural rights of the sort at the bedrock of the Constitution. He engendered this hatred of individual rights in his followers, including Allan Bloom, Henry Jaffa, Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, and many others, a handful now at the very pinnacle of power and pulling Bush’s strings. Strauss’ vision was of “a hierarchical society based on natural inequalities and welded together with the fanatical devotion state religion engenders,” writes Michael Doliner.
Strauss’s political program is designed to counter the ills of liberalism. He believed in, and proposed, a state religion as a way of reviving absolutes, countering free thought, and enforcing a cohesive unity. Strauss argued against a society containing a multiplicity of coexisting religions and goals, which would break the society apart. He thought that ordinary people should not be exposed to reason. To rely on reason is to look into the abyss, for reason provided no comforting absolutes to shield one against the blank sky. Strauss opposed not reason itself, but reason stripped of its secrecy. Reason is for the few, not the many. The Enlightenment, the exposing of reason, was the beginning of the disaster. A reliance on reason, as opposed to religion, produced “modernity” which is nothing more than nihilism made political.
Jeffrey Steinberg expands on this:
The hallmark of Strauss’ approach to philosophy was his hatred of the modern world, his belief in a totalitarian system, run by “philosophers,” who rejected all universal principles of natural law, but saw their mission as absolute rulers, who lied and deceived a foolish “populist” mass, and used both religion and politics as a means of disseminating myths that kept the general population in clueless servitude. For Strauss and all of his protégés (Strauss personally had 100 Ph.D. students, and the “Straussians” now dominate most university political science and philosophy departments), the greatest object of hatred was the United States itself, which they viewed as nothing better than a weak, pathetic replay of “liberal democratic” Weimar Germany.
It stands to reason, then, that the hated, resented, and feared masses should be stripped of all rights, including the bedrock right promised by the Second Amendment, as they may eventually come to their senses, abandon Faux News and propaganda catapulted, storm the castle, and bring the warmongering and liberty hating protégés of Strauss to justice.
As Hitler, Mao, and Stalin realized — in fact as all dictators and tyrants understand — in order to run roughshod over the people and enslave them, you have to disarm them first and foremost.
It is the job of U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement to begin this process.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59674
Bush Administration Backs Gun Control
http://noworldsystem.com/..tration-backs-gun-control/