Citizens of D.C. Get Their Right To Bear Arms Back!

This is fucking HUGE! Yessssss! The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that the ban on handguns in the nation's capital of Washington, D.C. violated the 2nd Amendment rights of people in the city and the hand gun ban is over. It's done. It's history! This is awesome and makes the current score: Constitution of the United States 1 Socialist Oppressors of America 0. Here's how the court voted on this:

Voting AGAINST the ban on handguns:

Chief Justice Roberts
Justice Scalia
Justice Thomas
Justice Alito
Justice Kennedy

Those voting to keep the unconstitutional ban and defy U.S. citizens of their rights:

Justice Ginsburg
Justice Souter
Justice Stevens
Justice Breyer

Here's some of the recap from the article here at CNN:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a sweeping ban on handguns in the nation's capital violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The justices struck down the ban in a 5-4 decision, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.
Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said he was disappointed in the ruling but will give the district's police department 21 days to implement a process for registering handguns. It still will be illegal to carry handguns outside the home, and all pistols must be registered with police.

Let's look at what the two opposing views were, first this is from the majority opinion written by Justice Scalia:

"The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns," Scalia wrote. "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

And now, let's look at how Justice Breyer viewed this from his chair (adorned with a hammer and sickle):

"The self-defense interest in maintaining loaded handguns in the home to shoot intruders is not the primary interest, but at most a subsidiary interest," he wrote. "The Second Amendment's language, while speaking of a 'militia,' says nothing of 'self-defense.' "

So, in other words, Breyer is arguing that a "subsidiary" interest doesn't qualify for protection? Okay, so in other words...what part of Free Speech is considered a "subsidiary"??? If I am a blogger and want to put out to the world that Barack Obama is lying to the American people, could that be viewed by Stephen Breyer as not necessarily covered by the Constitution? Perhaps he thinks that free speech only applies to what I say about ordinary citizens. How far does Breyer and these left wingers want to take their liberal interpretations?

The 2nd amendment is clear as spring water. The citizens have a right to bear arms. The ban in D.C. violated that right. The Truth won here but believe me, if you listen real closely, you can hear the heads of moonbats and Dems and Leftists from coast to coast exploding over this one and I, personally, would like to say this to each and every one of them: Go fuck yourself and don't EVER try to take our guns away, again.

High court strikes down gun ban

Officials said a hot line would be set up to handle questions about the new regulations.
"It is important to respect the court's authority and to act quickly," Fenty said.
The case's lead plaintiff, Dick Heller, applauded the decision, saying, "I'm very happy that I am now able to defend myself and my household in my own home."
Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said his group had a mixed reaction to the decision.
Helmke said the group disagrees with the court's interpretation of the Second Amendment but that the ruling "still allows common-sense gun control laws, restrictions to make us all safer."

The National Rifle Association said the high court had given it the ammunition to challenge other cities' gun-control measures.
At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether Washington's ban violated the right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.
"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem," Scalia wrote. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, all of whom are considered conservative voices on the court. Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as a swing vote, also joined the majority.
Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer delivered dissenting opinions and were joined by their liberal counterparts Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.