Friday, August 14, 2009

Up in arms over Guns

Did you know that there is a loophole in the NY gun laws that allow for the possession (without a license) of an 'antique' firearm? There is. Antique is defined as any gun that has to be loaded in a multi-step process- powder, then ball, and the whole thing rammed home with a rod.

Michael Littlejohn has one such gun that he requested from a blacksmith. But now, the Bloomberg administration is trying to seize the gun...as well as Mr. Littlejohn's gun rights.

I think they missed that passage in the Constitution- y'know, the second amendment. "The people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed...' all that?

The NYPD are trying to force him to get a license- despite the fact that, under the law, he can keep a gun. Besides, who cares? He claims he doesn't have ammunition. And even if he did, his rights under the Constitution are clearly spelled out.

Unfortunately, the NYPD hasn't gotten the memo. Somebody needs to send them (and the maker of the gun laws in this country) a copy of the second amendment.

20 comments:

Christopher said...

Hm...I suppose the NYPD hasn't gotten the memo. They need to catch up on their second amendments, I suppose.

I don't see why people would want guns, though. My Texas blood is too old and unused to trust myself to keep a gun in my house. It just seems to easy to pull the trigger--even with the safety.

Have you started school yet?

Son3 said...

The problem is that the politicians know the law.

I think that's what a lot of people don't get, the politicians went to law school and were forced to study the Constitution, so they ain't exactly illiterate, just despotic and tyrannical.

It is also a Federal law, Second Amendment notwithstanding, apparently, that one may keep an antique firearm without registration; seems they don't care about taking guns that are inferior to theirs, though antiques still "spit lead" like any other gun.

(Could it be that their gun-grabbing agenda isn't for the public safety, after all?)

Excellent blog, BTW!

Alex Floyd said...

The second amdnement was written in a time when guns were needed. Indians, wildlife, revolutionaries were on the prowl. And there was also the conquest of the west. And the war of 1812 which by the way was the last international war fought on US soil in almost 200 years. Can you think of one practical purpose of guns besides the overused 'self defense'. Let me rephrase, can you think of one practical use for hand guns besides self defense.

Son3 said...

For handguns, a practical application is as backup for your larger rifle, especially at close quarters.

The founders expressly stated that the purpose of the Second Amendment was for the people, as a last resort, to always be protected against tyranny in government.

Self-defense took a backseat to this, in their opinion.

Alex Floyd said...

That was because at the time, we were an unstable country. There were several plots to overthrow the government, as well as successful rebellions. Right now, there ae conservative militia groups forming all over the country and are gaining automatic weapons easily. Some of these groups have posted videos about uprising and overthrowing the government. That's a scary thought. As for the rifle, do you mean for hunting?

Son3 said...

"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press." ~Thomas Jefferson

If you wish that America be disarmed, take it up with the men that founded the government.

The Second Amendment was not for hunting, self-defense, sport shooting, pest control, or anything other than as a defense against tyranny.

"A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression." ~James Madison

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." ~James Madison

No where does the Second Amendment have an expiration date, and the men who wrote it did not allude to one, so why are you against rule of law?

And what makes you think "militias" are "gaining automatic weapons easily?"

What is your source on that?

There have been no "militias" in the United States since 1903 with the passage of the Militia Act, which disbanded the militia; people calling themselves "militia" today are actually just a bunch of guys playing "army".

(I have no affiliations with any such group, in case you were wondering.)

About the rifle thing, I meant a rifle: not a hunting rifle, not a military rifle, not a "plinking" rifle, just plain, ol', ordinary rifle.

You can do whatever you want with a rifle, as long as you do not harm or threaten anyone else with it.

Liberty said...

Son3, you said exactly what I would say...just more eloquently. ^.^

Alex Floyd said...

The problem is, the men who wrote the constituitonal purposly didn't think about it's future implications because that may lead to monarchy or tyranny. In the time the constitution was written, there was a great possiblity of a tyrant ruling the government, or a revolution or civil war. People had a greater reason to care guns then. But we live in a different time. It's been hundreds of years since then.

I assume you don't read the NY Times, or any other news source that isn't Rush Limbaw, FOX, or some other conservative outlet. There have been groups forming all over the country, and they post videos online telling people to stock up on a ceretain type of weapon (I'm no gun expert, so I would know anything beyond the act that it can be place in the category of automatic weapon). These people talk about over throwing the government. I don't care how much you don't like Obama, he is not a tyrant, nor is he running a tyranny!

Liberty said...

Sources, Alex?

Alex- the point Son is trying to make is that carrying guns is a Constitutional right. It doesn't matter how horrible you think that is. I can carry a gun anytime I please- without a license. Licensing and other gun laws do not prevent crime. They do nothing other than deprive lawabiding citizens of the means of defending themselves from those who would deprive them of rights- which includes the government.

If you want a gun-free society, move to Britain.

Son3 said...

There has not been a single threat of tyranny in America since the days of the Revolution?

So, George Bush's PATRIOT Act wasn't tyrannical?

I don't read the NY Times, listen to Rush, or watch FOX News (without throwing remote controls through my television screen, anyway), so don't set me in a group with a bunch of Neo-Cons just because I happen to believe in the supreme law of the land, as many of those "conservatives" believe we need to discard the Constitution!

I am against anyone who would say the Constitution does not apply, is outdated, or is inapplicable.

The Constitution is the law; it was designed to last a thousand years, "A Republic if can can keep it," as Benjamin Franklin said.

There are processes for amending the Constitution, and if you wish to pursue that, go ahead, but until the Second Amendment is officially repealed, any law to the contrary has no legal standing.

(Read Article Six, section two of the Constitution for proof of this.)

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." ~

I would like to see a quote from a founder that says, "And the Second Amendment was created to save us from Indians and rebels and coyotes attacking our sheep, and after that's taken care of, the government can get rid of it."

Can you provide such a quote, or something remotely similar?

And, who's talking about Obama?

This whole thing has been about defending Obama? You think my great object in life is attacking Obama?

I would encourage you to pull yourself out of the paradigm, and educate yourself about the Constitution.

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" ~Patrick Henry

Son3 said...

(The quote about the construction of the Constitution was by Thomas Jefferson.)

Alex Floyd said...

I was talking about Obama because these militia groups are targeting him as a threat to America. the PATRIOT Act was horrible and should be repealed, but I don't see how it means we need firearms. Personally, I think that government system has had a good run, but is breaking down. Soon it may not even work anymore. It's like a car, it's great at first, but as the years go on it gets worse and worse to the point where it does work anymore. The Constitution was written hundreds of years ago, and like it or not, the founding fathers could not see into the future. The problem is, they grouped things together wrong. If you got a big law, slap it on the constitution and that'll make it stick! It's incredibly hard to repeal anything, let alone a constiutional amendment. The only one that's ever been repealed is prohibition, and it was only in effect for about a decade. Wow, I've kind of ranted.

Son3 said...

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." ~Samuel Adams

This government derives its powers from the Constitution, and for you to say the Constitution is wholly irrelevant, you're saying the government must inevitably be deconstructed.

From what you've just said, you believe "militia groups" overthrowing the men who've perverted the government is wrong, but overthrowing the Constitution that gave those men their positions of power is good.

So, the founders had it wrong from the beginning, no government is sustainable for more than a few generations, the Constitution is inapplicable, and we must institute a new Constitution?

That is traitorous.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

~Samuel Adams

Liberty said...

Alex- at the height of the Elizabethian era, the idea that the British government would become repressive was laughable. The idea that a group of colonies would dare fight for their rights was laughable.

But you know what? Both those things happened.

We cannot reject the wisdom of years gone by just because we think the men who wrote it were dumb and couldn't possibly know what they were talking about. The rights outlined in the Bill Of Rights are no less important today. It's like Son said- the government has to be kept in check. If it cannot be kept in check by simple voting, then it must be kept in check by force.

That sounds terrible, but it's the truth. THere is no other solution to a truly repressive government- something I believe we have been working towards for the past 100 years.

Alex Floyd said...

I didn't say they were dumb or laughable, I just said that it's outdated. These men were not any smarter than any other man. Evenutally, governments don't work anymore. Just look at history, look how much the monarchy in England has changed. And Son3, all of your quotes are from the founding fathers who died quite a long time ago. They are not living today and therefore I consider their quotes to be a little irrelevant. Bakc then, we needed the safty check for our government, but today we don't. Our government is different today. Becoming the dictador of the US is far less possible than it was in the 1700s. Now these militia groups are gathering around the country, and many experts say that the likelyhood of a terrorist attack by these men is very high. All thanks to the right to get automatic weapons when ever they want to, and people like you who think we need to safe guard our current government.

Son3 said...

"All thanks to the right to get automatic weapons when ever they want to..." (Emphasis mine.)

So, you're saying it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

First of all, can you even define an "automatic weapon"?

They are currently deemed "illegal" to own or sell, so I don't know how you can say someone can get them "whenever they want to"?

How is it less possible to have a dictator today than in the 1700's? Didn't the PATRIOT Act make it that much easier?

What about REX 84?

What about Operation Urban Warrior?

What about Operation Northwoods?

What about Operation Garden Plot?

What about Executive Order 9066?

It is so easy for a tyrant to take power that it isn't even funny! I can hardly even believe you are being serious when you say:

"[The founding fathers] are not living today and therefore I consider their quotes to be a little irrelevant."

"[Back] then, we needed the [safety] check for our government, but today we don't."

"Now these militia groups are gathering around the country, and many experts say that the [likelihood] of a terrorist attack by these men is very high. All thanks to the right to get automatic weapons when ever they want to, and people like you who think we need to safe guard our current government."

So, you believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that an all-powerful government could never become tyrannical, but a bunch of men playing army with "automatic weapons" could overthrow the most powerful military in existence?

You should be ashamed of yourself for saying the founders instituted a fundamentally errant system, and for saying we don't need to safeguard our government!

That goes against every principle of a free society, and I don't know how you could have been raised in this country and not know that.

Alex Floyd said...

We we were first founded, we were a weak third world country. Someone could have easily rosen up and taken over the country at that time. We has a small military, a weak and small system, a smaller country, and we weren't very advanced. We don't really need to have that safe guard, and deep down most people know that. It is possible to gain some automatci weapons in the US and in some states. I don't believe this is right.

Liberty said...

Alex, you have yet to cite any sources for any of this information. I would like to see some, if you please. :)

The fact that we were a 'third world country'- which the colonies weren't- and small, and weak is of no account. The government was also small and weak, if you'll remember. But the Founders still saw the need for a convincing check. They looked ahead, and saw that mere voting power (which the people didn't have then, anyway) would not be enough. The people needed some check against tyranny.

Now, more than ever, we need that check. With legislation like the PATRIOT act and such, we need that safety. If you don't want a gun, don't get one. It's that simple. But don't hammer my rights to keep one- the rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution.

Alex Floyd said...

You know, I wonder about this. I know you and Son3 are pretty conservative, so why do you not like the PATRIOT Act? It was passed under President Bush, and many conservatives really believe in it. Curious. And we were a third world country for a while. History books and such make us seem so grand, but we really weren't that advanced. Which sources would you like? I'd be happy to giev them to you.

Liberty said...

I am opposed to the PATRIOT act because it completely strips us of our Fourth Amendment rights! That is wrong. I don't support much of what Bush did- including the Iraq war.

Everyone in the world during the 18th century wasn't very advanced. :P

I'd like sources on your claims about being able to get automatic weapons- links to some law, court ruling, etc. I'd also like some sources on these 'militias' that you keep talking about.