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.

The Emergency Election Sale is now live! Get 30% to 60% off our most popular products today!