Bloomberg police after legel gunowner

[oneshooter]

Like America's first soldiers at the Battle of Brooklyn, Michael Littlejohn is fighting for his right to bear arms.

The Revolutionary War buff charges the Bloomberg administration with tyranny for trying to seize his handmade flintlock rifle - a dead ringer for the weapon once used against the redcoats.

"This is the last legal gun that you can have without registration in New York," Littlejohn said. "And yet Mayor Bloomberg is driven crazy by my flintlock gun - the one that won the American Revolution."

Littlejohn fired the first shot when he hired a Tennessee blacksmith to recreate the vintage rifle. It arrived at his Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, apartment in June - followed quickly by city cops.



More at http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2009/07/29/2009-07-29_replica_rifle_has_brooklyn_man_at_odds_with_cops.html


It seems that Mayor Bloombergs police don't know the law that they are charged to enforce.

[sharesunited]

1. In my opinion, this is actually the limit of the technology protected by the 2nd Amendment.

[virginia mountainman]

2. Yea, lets apply that logic to the rest ..Of the Amendments

Like the first..

Say goodbye to that internet connected computer... YOU DON"T NEED IT..It did not exist when the Bill of Rights where written, so it does not apply

Hand cranked printing presses and the town crier for YOU

[sharesunited]

5. The 2A is different. The only so-called right which can take away all your other rights.

By killing your stubborn hide.

[virginia mountainman]

6. So this is how it is done?? One right, is DIFFERENT than the rest??

Is it more or less of a civil right?

[sharesunited]

8. I didn't make the world, VM. I just explain it.

Why is tobacco advertising banned from radio and television?

[eqfan592]

10. The power of speech has robbed far more people of their rights than firearms ever could.

It's used to convince large groups of people to make war with each other. To convince people that certain groups are "bad" or "weak" or "not as important" in order to justify trampling on those people. It's been used to perpetrate ignorance and hate the world over, for many more thousands of years than firearms have existed. Yet much good has been done with this power as well, which is why heavy restrictions on it would be counterproductive in the long run. But you can't see that any good ever comes from the ability of people to arm and defend themselves with firearms. You only see the bad, and you keep blinders on to everything else. Such a mindset is dangerous, more dangerous than any firearm ever could be, as it's such mindsets that have lead to all those negative things that are done with the use of speech.

[sharesunited]

11. Words may motivate, but guns annihilate.

[proteus_lives]

12. Ahh, the word sof a zealot.

True-Believers don't let facts get in the way of their dogma.

[PavePusher]

23. Oooooo, poetry!

Bad poetry....

[Euromutt]

26. So without the words, the guns wouldn't be a problem, right?

Conversely, it doesn't take guns to inflict annihilation if the motivation is provided by words. The Romans didn't have guns, but they managed to wipe out Carthage just the same; in the two days following the capture of Jerusalem in the First Crusade, more people were killed than during the Six-Day War; the Rwandan genocide racked up a death toll of 800,000 mostly with machetes. Firearms are just one possible means of mass murder, but when speech provides the motivation ("Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse," "Deus vult!" Radio Mille Collines), whatever tools are to hand will be used. And ultimately, guns can't pull their own triggers, just as swords and machetes don't swing themselves; there has to be a human operating them. A motivated human.

[votingupstart]

18. care to explain why there was a ban on medical advertising then?

only recently the laws were changes...... your "explanation" need some explaining.

[tucsonlib]

29. Yes, One Right IS Different Than The Rest

All of our other rights, as spelled out in the Constitution, have certain commonalities - They are timeless, universal and inherent. They would have been just as relevant and understandable 5000 years ago as they will be 5000 years in the future. They transcend all societal, national and economic boundaries.

Only in the 2A do you find a right which is tied to some external, manufactured (man-made), inanimate object.

This obvious yet rarely acknowledged fact may explain why, rightly or wrongly, the 2A isn't seen as quite as "sacred" or "absolute" as other Constitutional rights in the eyes of some.

[eqfan592]

9. So are you honestly going to claim that the power of speech...

...has never lead to the death of someone? Bush and Co manipulated this nation into a useless war that cost possibly over 1 million lives. Maybe we should apply your logic to the first somehow and find a way to silence those who would do such things? But of course, the trouble is figuring out who would do that, so maybe we should just be rid of the 1st Amendment all together....

[sharesunited]

19. The power of speech didn't kill. Bombs and bullets did. Sticks and stones.

[eqfan592]

28. Speech is was lead to the bombs and bullets being there.

They didn't just magically appear of their own free will. Speech DID kill. No, not the words themselves physically, but the actions that those words spawned. Freedom of speech isn't good or evil. It depends on how people use it. The same goes with the freedom to keep arms. You can try and argue that more evil than good comes out of it, but we both know for a fact that's not true. The numbers do NOT support you. You can't escape that fact, no matter how hard you try.

[Recursion]

14. Ballots can launch cruise missiles

Our party's insistence on gun control got GW Bush close enough to steal the 2000 election. That killed millions of people.

[votingupstart]

17. truer words have not been spoken

we are our own worst enemy, and that was before the Heller decision. Now it will be worse if the senate tries to pass another AWB or something to that effect we will lose the majority

[Irreverend IX]

15. That makes no difference.

Can you name one court decision that holds a Constitutional right to apply only to technology of a specific era because of the possible implications of that right? You could write lots of potentially lifesaving laws if you threw out the entire Bill of Rights.

And stubborn is right. RKBA advocates will never relent until your viewpoint is banished to the dustbin of history.

[DrCory]

16. Did You Forget About This?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21844203/ns/technology_and_science-internet/

With what was she driven to suicide?

[gorfle]

20. The 2A IS different. The only right which can preserve all your other rights.

By killing tyrants.

[tucsonlib]

30. That's Not Why It's Different

See Comment #29.

"The only right which can preserve all your other rights"?


I think the Bush administration put that fantasy to rest once and for all.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. Bush is gone thanks to Democratic gun owners and their votes last November.

[tucsonlib]

33. Sure, Dave

We also have them to thank for the '92 and '96 election results.

And it's a little-known fact that is was gun-owners who organized and led the 1963 March on Washington.

Because the overwhelming majority of gun-owners are, like you and I, political progressives.

Which also explains all those pro-Obama t-shirts and bumper stickers on display at every NRA get-together.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

34. NRA members represents a very small portion of gun owners.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. Amen to that.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. I think the word you were looking for was 'protect'.

[krispos42]

25. Incorrect, I believe.

Me owning a gun does not take away any right of yours.


Me carrying (bearing) a gun does not take away any of your rights.



However, you'll note that the right of free speech was used to take away other people's rights. Common examples: the campaign against universal single-payer healthcare, the campaign to pass Prop 8.

[rrneck]

4. Why so? nt

[Euromutt]

27. Given that opinion, would you then agree...

...that the New York city government is overstepping constitutional bounds by requiring a permit to own a muzzle-loading flintlock? Can we agree that this, at least, is a violation of the RKBA as set out in the Second Amendment?

[virginia mountainman]

3. Typical Republican behavior..

No suprise here.

We in Virginia, have raffled off pistols, to help bring his sue happy tail down.

[Tim01]

7. Bloomberg doesn't give a fuck about the constitution. nt

[TheWraith]

21. Bloomberg doesn't give a fuck about ANY law.

Especially not ones intended to check the power of powerful people in general and him in particular.

[krispos42]

24. He got the term-limit for NYC mayor repealed so he can run for a 3rd term.

You'd think that even if it was repealed, it would still affect him. The terms of his election were that he gets two terms, then he's out. But not anymore!

I'm waiting for Rudy to challange him in the primary.




This is not surprising at all. It's an unregistered gun... drives the anti-gun people nuts.

[Katya Mullethov]

13. It must have been finished in a prohibited color

From Lauer Custom Weaponry . That cat really cheeses old Mike off .