26 June, 2008

Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Handgun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment

Posted by Socrates in guns & goy controllers, Socrates, Supreme Court at 2:10 pm | Permanent Link

Just as many people predicted, the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller was close: 5-4. This ruling isn’t perfect, but it’s probably the best that Whites could have hoped for in 2008. In fact, if this was 1974, such a pro-gun ruling would have been impossible since the court was full of liberal judges then. Note: media outlets are already trying to spin the court’s decision by suggesting that the matter of “an individual vs. a collective right” (re: the 2nd Amendment’s meaning) remains unsettled. Baloney. Read the decision. It’s settled:

[Article].

The entire decision (a .pdf file): [Here].


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 06/25/12 The U.S. Supreme Court’s SB1070 Ruling 62% similar
  3. 06/15/16 U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Constitutionality of the Domestic Violence Gun Ban 51% similar
  4. 07/01/14 Jews Angry About U.S. Supreme Court’s Obamacare Ruling 47% similar
  5. 04/29/15 U.S. Supreme Court Set to Rule on Homosexual Marriage in June 46% similar
  6. 07/01/18 Donald Trump’s Supreme Court Picks: the Key Issue Will Be Abortion 45% similar
  7. 22 Responses to “Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Handgun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment”

    1. lawrence dennis Says:

      Jewboy 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.”

      The other dissenters were Jewess Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

    2. lawrence dennis Says:

      What every kikenjudge knows but dare not say:

      crime-ridden = nigger- & spic-infested

    3. Ceallachain Says:

      >>>The National Rifle Association, Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and the transgender group Pink Pistols — along with 31 states — filed briefs supporting the District of Columbia’s gun owners.>>>

      Hahahahahah. This is real!! A gun club for trannys! I loooooooooove Amexikwa!!! =)

    4. Voir Dire Says:

      Make no mistake… This is a genuine victory for the American people and cause for celebration. Think of how many cities (interestingly enough, all in the north if not mistaken) have total gun bans.

      NRA’s next goal:
      Arming Chicago
      2nd Amendment lawsuits
      will target firearms limits
      –WND
      http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68093

      Lest we forget the communist Khazars behind the relentless efforts to disarm Americans, Patrick Grimm’s compilation says it ALL (such an important article to share with other skeptics about Jewish malevolence too)

      Jewish Supremacism and Gun Control http://zionistwatch.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/jewish-supremacism-and-gun-control/

    5. Voir Dire Says:

      Remember the position your ZOG took:

      Wednesday, January 16, 2008
      WEAPONS OF CHOICE
      Public ‘threatened’ by private-firearms ownership
      Government argues gun restrictions ‘permitted by the 2nd Amendment’

      http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2008/01/weapons-of-choice.html

      Brother Nathanael’s video of “Jews Behind Gun Control”

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjIdk8jJoF0

    6. Blightwingydoodah Says:

      The Founders and Latin grammar:

      “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.”

      Revised for 21st Century morons:

      “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state.”

    7. sgruber Says:

      “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state.”

      Still ambiguous. Omitting a comma before “because” implies that the necessity of a well-regulated militia is not grounds for infringing gun rights. Placing a comma there indicates that only the necessity of militias permits guns; i.e. it’s a collective right.

      What about this? “The government has no right to take your property, including your gun, unless you are physically harming someone with it and you won’t stop.”

    8. sgruber Says:

      Or this: “The good people are allowed to have guns and fire them at will; the bad people don’t.”

    9. sgruber Says:

      don’t=aren’t

    10. exalted grand-master oberführer double diamond jim! Says:

      the SCotUS decision in DC vrs Heller was, basically, CRAP!….. @ best: it merely “affirmed” the lower court’s ruling on the stoopidity of the Washington DC “home-weapons” ban!; @ worst: it cast doubt on “concealed carry” laws & the over-arching coverage of the Second Amendment (HTF are “felons” & “lunatics” defined?!?….an un-witting violator of any of the gazillion ZOG ‘tax laws’ & wtf-ever a joo “shrink” sez is “mad”…..like: for instance, “white nationalists”!) &, in general, left the door open for states & municpilaties to do every-thing in their power to frame legislation to “work around” it…..thereby forcing those adversely affected by such to mount costly & time-consuming SCotUS challenges on every piss-ant “law” that the ZOG-botz care to frame!

      THERE ARE NO! “asterisks” in the Second Amendment!

      (a more courageous decision would have been to start with the inviobality of the Second Amendment and, hence, in the light of that, declare the DC gun ban as totally “un-constitutional”!….not add “caveats” about “felons”, “lunatics”, & “reasonable restrictions”….when the Second was framed, citizens had the right to possess any AND all ordinances that the government of the day had….up to and including large-calibre cannons! )

    11. exalted grand-master oberführer double diamond jim! Says:

      the fact that this “decision” on one of the most fundamental & sacred rights of white Americans was carried by the slimmest of “margins”……with four dissenting SC justices…. (and with several un-necessary & irrelevant “caveats”)…must clearly indicate that this current filthy jew-order of society MUST be VIOLENTLY & FORCIBLY OVER-THROWN @ THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY!

    12. Dental Plan Says:

      Doesn’t matter all that much, at least not here in Connecticut, where actually using your firearms as a means of defending yourself, your family and your property has a high probability of getting you mired in serious lawsuits. Also worth bearing in mind is the creeping commie regulations that “civilian” firearms must meet according to various laws (all this seeks to do is to ensure that armed ZOG-THUGS will ALWAYS have more optimal weaponry than the people that they help to keep enslaved.) As “Jim!” above said, the day is fast approaching where we either destroy ZOG, or ZOG destroys us.

    13. Shrewsfan Says:

      Question:

      I happened across a post on this site, dated 20 July 2006, which features an email from Rev Stephen Sizer. I have read with interest a number of Rev Sizer’s books and am interested to know if there is any formal or informal relationship between him and Vanguard.

    14. A man of wealth and taste ... Says:

      Did the murder rate in DC increase or decrease following the 1977 ban?

      ” …The District’s law, passed during a crime wave in 1976, was widely viewed as the most restrictive in the country… ”

      The following is from my own compiled date; please recheck for accuracy.

      188 murders in ’76 : .00027 (27 per 100,000). The lowest murder rate? In 1960, before the ban (11/100,000).

      Important note: murder escalated dramatically during the “Civil rights” era of the late sixties. Know why? Note also the huge spike in violent crimes following the “Civil rights” movement.

      Now crunch the numbers, did the gun ban work? Be sure and include rates (murders/population) … to simplify, merely check the skyrocketing trend under “index.”

      Note also the population decline: white flight … to places of relative safety (according to the media, cause whites are hateful racists). And, according to our politicians, it’s a moral wrong for whites to seek safety. Now ask yourself why …

      The crude numbers (not adjusted for population decline) are as follows: 1977 deleted (not sure when the law took affect, but this has little bearing on the outcome).

      1960 – 1976: 3145 murders, 185 murders/year

      Following the gun ban: 1978 – 2006: 8067 murders, 278 murders/year

      Not adjusting for the population decline murders rose 50% after the gun ban. Adjusted for population decline? That increase is even greater … but not quite double.

      Now, check again, what are the politician’s reasons for gun grabbing? And, perhaps more importantly, why have I not heard these numbers quoted in the media? Do you think, even for a second, that the Supreme Court considered this data?

      Again, I ask … why is this data suppressed? Qui bono? And who controls the media?

      data here, worth a look: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

      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.

    15. Blightwingydingy Says:

      The Gun Clubs and Banners are behaving as if this is a GREAT DECISION in support of the 2nd Amendment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Scalia merely grounded the 2d Amendment right in individual self-defense and hand-guns. Parts of the decision actually favored handguns as the most protected and suitable device. Yet handguns are of limited military utility. They’re mainly a fetish item for collectors and controllers alike. “Assault Weapons” in fact are highly suitable ‘militia’ weapons. “Dangerous weapons” of military grade are precisely the weapons most protected by the 2nd Amendment as originally written and ratified. The Framers and the authors clearly envisioned a “militia” capable of doing serious business with organizations like standing federal armies that have fallen under the cabalistic control of a tiny group.

      The future holds more litigation and legal fees. Courts will soon be asked to pronounce on the Constitutionality of taxing and banning lightweight machineguns that individuals can ‘keep and bear,’ as well as semi-automatic “assault weapon” bans.

    16. Steve Says:

      Breyer is right that it makes no sense to allow gun ownership in nigger areas where the majority is criminally-inclined, but gun control makes NO SENSE in the rest of America where the majority is law-abiding and nonviolent. We need gun control for nigs, gun ownership for whites. Anti-discrimination laws really are a huge monkey-wrench in the gears of society.

    17. shabbos s. shabazz Says:

      Why wasn’t it 9-0?

    18. sgruber Says:

      shabazz asks

      Why wasn’t it 9-0?

      Jews.

    19. shabbos s. shabazz Says:

      Why are jews here?

    20. ED! Says:

      Jews voting against something White People want, like keeping a gun to answer a Nigger home invader? SHOCKING!!!

      ED!

    21. nick Says:

      This issue is not jewish or anti jewish. Many of the leaders of the NRA are jewish and from personal experience learned that to be disarmed in the face of criminals is the height of folly.

    22. shabbos s. shabazz Says:

      “Many of the leaders of the NRA are jewish”

      That’z enough to damn that organization. Hasn’t the NRA made many compromises? (With gun control)

      As Lenin put it: “Opposition? We are the opposition.” Meaning jews take all sides on all issues.