NYC Whittles Away at Second Amendment

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

NYC Whittles Away at Second Amendment

Written By : Dave Blount

Rather than try to repeal the crucial Second Amendment outright, statist tyrants have been using an incremental approach. Under totalitarian moonbat Mayor for Life Michael Bloomberg, New York City has been at the forefront of this effort:

New York City residents who want to own a gun may soon be denied permits if they are litterbugs, if they are bad drivers, or if they have fallen behind on a few bills.

Under proposed revisions to the police department’s handgun, rifle and shotgun permit procedures, the NYPD can reject gun license applicants for a number of reasons, including:

If they have been arrested or convicted of almost any “violation,” in any state; having a “poor driving history”; having been fired for “circumstances that demonstrate lack of good judgment”; having “failed to pay legally required debts”; being deemed to lack “good moral character”; or if any other information demonstrates “other good cause for the denial of the permit.”

These absurd procedures are explicitly designed to circumvent the constitutional rights of citizens.

According to a Report of the Governmental Affairs Division, the changes came about as the result of two recent Supreme Court decisions.

“In District of Columbia v. Heller the Court found that a District of Columbia law banning the possession of handguns in the home was invalid due to the rights conferred by the Second Amendment; in McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., the Court applied that right equally to the States,” the report says.

Under these revisions, bureaucrats can deny the right to bear arms to people cited for failing to sweep the sidewalk, who have received traffic tickets, or who have filed for bankruptcy.

When the Second Amendment has been whittled down to nothing, the others will quickly follow.

On a tip from Wiggins. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Lee

It’s correct to say not allowing gun ownership based on such trivial criteria counts as an “infringement” to the Second Amendment.

Plus, how does this in any way take guns out of the hands of those who commit violent crimes? You know, the ones you won’t be allowed to defend yourself against because, sometime in your past, you dropped a candy wrapper in Central Park.
Good Ol Boy

These “proposed revisions” to the NYC gun-permit procedures amount to Jim Crow against law-abiding citizens seeking to become gun owners.
(I fully expect to hear my analogy repeated on blogs everywhere, so remember you heard it here first)
Martha

It’s a beginning, until the Second is finally interpreted correctly.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Amendment II

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

What’s to misinterpret toad-boy? The rest of the amendment only tells us why they included the right in the Bill of Rights.

Martha

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
Martha

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Good Ol Boy

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” –Thomas Jefferson

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms.” –Richard Henry Lee

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” –George Mason

Martha

Hmmm- I guess you are making a point. How hard should I search? The latter two of these disagree with each other and the first is a non sequitor.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

You’re an idiot. They all apply to how one should interpret the right. And the second two are identical meaning not contradictory. English is NOT your first language, is it?
Good Ol Boy

LOL. Willful ignorance thy name is Fwanky.

Here are some more quotes from the Founding Fathers that support the RIGHT for We The People to own firearms:
-”The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun.” –Patrick Henry
-”Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” –James Madison
-”The whole of the Bill of Rights is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” –Albert Gallatin
Martha

non sequitor thy name is Goody ole Boy.
Good Ol Boy

Idiot child. How about finding ONE quote from the Founding Fathers supporting your (laughable) interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. We’ll wait…
Martha

I have no need as I will rest on the Second Amendment as written.
Good Ol Boy

Heh. Thank you for conceding the point.
Martha

Which point would that be? LOL
Good Ol Boy

That the Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear firearms is, in fact, a right of all law-abiding citizens of this great nation, and is not dependent on membership in a militia.
Martha

Oh, *that* point. Nope, I did not concede that. Why would I, it is not accurate.
Good Ol Boy

Because it IS accurate. As I have demonstrated the amendment’s intent by quoting, in their own words, the men who wrote and voted it into law.
Martha

Which point would that be? LOL
Good Ol Boy

First off, you misspelled non sequitur. Now then…

non se·qui·tur (nn skw-tr, -tr)
n.
1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.

How exactly does directly quoting the men who wrote, crafted and voted on the 2nd Amendment, explaining that it was intended for all free men NOT follow the logic of the argument?
Martha

You wallow in non sequiturs because the Second Amendment itself does not conclude as these quotes imply. It includes the comment about a ‘militia’. Pay attention.
Good Ol Boy

Are you really as stupid as you act on here?

It DOES conclude as the quotes imply, because the quotes explain that the men who actually wrote and voted on the amendment intended it as a right for all free men in America. Duh.
StanW

Yes, and tell us what ‘militia’ meant when the 2nd Amendment was writtem Martha!
Martha

As there is no one answer, decide for yourself. I already have.

http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Second_Amendment
StanW

To much of a coward to answer a simple question. you throw around ‘militia’ like it is the answer to everything, yet you refuse to define it.

So you have cenceded the argument and admitted what a two-bit hack you are.

Now run away!
Martha

LOL

U guyz sure are fun, attributing concession on my part when none has happened. But that is how you pretend to win arguments. Such jokes U B.
StanW

Pretend to win? I asked you what your definition of militai was and you refused to answer.

Are you taking coward lessons from Vega or giving them to him?
Martha

You understand correctly, stan – you pretend to win. You do it often. It is the only way you get to use the word “win”.
StanW

Answer the question, Martha. What is a militia to you.
Martha

A militia is a coordinated organization, stan. As everybody knows.
Martha

A militia is a coordinated organization, stan. As everybody knows.
StanW

That’s what I thought. Perhaps you should read the article you posted earlier. At the time the 2nd was written, militia was the citizens.

Thank you for the admission. We knew you were lying about militias, it’s good that you now know it too!
Martha

As usual, stan, you are in error. There was not an agreement on the definition of ‘militia’ at the time.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

And that militia is ALL FREE MEN, as stated by all those Founders!!!

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Yeah that’s the part explains WHY The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.What’s the matter is English not your first language? Do you have problems understanding subjunctive clauses? Don’t know why the commas were used where they were?

Martha

Yes, indeed, bth, I know all these things. The sad state is that you do not.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

You don’t know these things, you assume only militia can own guns, that’s not what the clause says or implies, toad-boy.

StanW

So now you are taking the words of the Constitution out of context to make your insipid point?

I wish that surprised me.

Martha

Odd you did not make the same comment to bthewolf.

I wish that surprised me.
StanW

Wolf completed your statement. He gave us the part you DELIBERATELY left out; the part the disproved everything you have lyingly asserted about the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

I didn’t take the phrase out of context and I explained why the part I left out was not necessary to the interpretation of the amendment and the Right.

StanW

So now you are taking the words of the Constitution out of context to make your insipid point?

I wish that surprised me.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”

A militia can only be formed from the civilian populace. Otherwise, it’s just part of the already-existing military, and not a militia.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”

A militia can only be formed from the civilian populace. Otherwise, it’s just part of the already-existing military, and not a militia.
Anonymous

So you believe the 2nd gives the federal government the right to form a standing army?

Why do you suppose they would grant themselves that right?

A) all other rights in the constitution state either what we the people can do or what the government must not do, if the 2nd is only about granting permission to the government to act in a certain way then it sticks out like a sore thumb from the rest and makes little sense given the entire context of the constitution and what the founders were trying to accomplish.

B) what nation is history has felt the need to grant itself permission to form a standing army?

C) who would deny them such a right, necessitating it being coded in to law?

Anonymous

So you believe the 2nd gives the federal government the right to form a standing army?

That would be quite an odd thing for the government to grant itself, considering the Constitution already gives the federal government the right to “provide for the common Defence”.
Martha

Uh-huh.
Anonymous

“Uh-huh” what?

“Uh-huh” you agree?

Are you saying you agree with the argument that the Second Amendment does not have anything to do with establishing a standing army and is in fact an affirmation of the rights of individual Americans to own and operate firearms? Good. Thank you for conceding the argument.
Anonymous

They do tend to have a very abridged version of the bill of rights.

You’d think they’d notice that it’s odd that their version skips from 1 to 4 then ends at 8 despite everyone referencing the original *ten* amendments to the constitution.

They might, after a few drinks and some prodding, acknowledge the 3rd. But that’s as far as they will go.

Martha

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Anonymous

There is no interpretation going on. Its in plain english. Just like all the other amendments.

Martha

The last Supreme court decision in favour of the Second was 5-4. There is a lot of interpretation.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Complete non sequitur.

Martha

Aping your better. This is cute.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Yeah I’m copying King!

You’re no ones better, toad-boy, even Charles Manson is better than you.

Anonymous

The last Supreme court decision in favour of the Second was 5-4. There is a lot of interpretation.

No, there are 5 justices reading the amendment and there are 4 trying to interpret it (such that their agenda is met.)
Anonymous

That’s hilarious. When the SCOTUS rules in the left’s favor, it’s “settled law” and must not be questioned. When the SCOTUS rules in favor of the right (and the Constitution, and common sense) there’s “room for interpretation”.

You’re pathetic.

Martha

5-4 ruling, tiny. There’s lots of room for interpretation.
Anonymous

Yes, there’s room for interpretation of the sanity and the literacy of four of the current Supreme Court Justices.

But when it comes to the Second Amendment there is no interpretation. The Amendment clearly and plainly affirms “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.
Martha

5-4 ruling, tiny. There’s lots of room for interpretation.

Anonymous

That’s hilarious. When the SCOTUS rules in the left’s favor, it’s “settled law” and must not be questioned. When the SCOTUS rules in favor of the right (and the Constitution, and common sense) there’s “room for interpretation”.

You’re pathetic.

StanW

And by correctly, you mean having guns out of the hands of the citizens of this nation and into the hands of the criminals, right Martha?
Good Ol Boy

Flagged for blatant trolling.

http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

So the lawyers from NYU have figured out how to use subterfuge and pretext as a means of depriving people of a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Good for them. Their mummies and daddies must be so proud of them. Of course look who’s leading them – a man who whined and wheedled his way to a third term in office who’s now saying that he thinks two terms is enough – not long after he’d already won his third. He’s clearly an honest broker of neutral ideas, right?

/sarc

I see where a bunch of government workers are planning a “Government Doesn’t Suck” rally in DC. Too bad governments at all levels are continually proving them wrong every minute of every single day.

Case in point.
Anonymous

This is the reason conservatives oppose may-issue permit laws. When you give the government the power to make up its own criteria for who does and doesn’t get to own a gun permit, they inevitably start to abuse that power.

Rickvid in Seattle

But all we want are COMMON SENSE gun laws, Mighty. And you know it maks NO sense for ANYONE to have guns. That is why we have police. So, the common sense gun law is, no guns for anyone but the police! /idiocy

D-Vega

I would have to agree with Van Douchebag and you all on this one.

NYC is way too strict on their gun laws. And I think a lot of the laws should be relaxed in order to focus on serious gun crime and illegal trafficking.

Good Ol Boy

**golf clap**

Well said, sir.

D-Vega

GOB, you have no idea how hard it is to get a permit in NYC as it is. It’s unbelievable.

Good Ol Boy

Considering that guns have been banned in NYC since `76? Um yeah, I believe it. I would invite you down here to NC, where the government isn’t quite so draconian… but we’ve already far exceded our limit on Northern transplants. ;)

D-Vega

You can’t get a CCL in NYC. The only way around the law is to buy a “target” permit, so at least then you can have a gun in your home, but you can’t take it out of the home unless it’s packed away.

I would move to NC, but I would then realign your political landscape.

D-Vega

GOB, you have no idea how hard it is to get a permit in NYC as it is. It’s unbelievable.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I think the proper way to deal with gun crime is from the other side: make crimes committed with a gun (even in possession) far worse punishment and far easier conviction.

Wiff O’Grapeshot

HOO-AH!

Anonymous

It seems bad, but it’s actually a good sign. Bear with me.

By saying ‘well, we’ll issue permits, but we have these restrictions’, they open up those restrictions to examination (and further legal action, if necessary). The tip of the crowbar is just working its way in; all it takes is some leverage to break it open.

Don’t believe me? Perhaps you should check out Sacramento County in California, where the Sheriff just eliminated several questionable ‘requirements’ and affirmed that self-defense was a legal reason to carry concealed.

So yeah. Bloomberg is a scumbag, but he and his ilk are losing their war.

And to dear, dear Martha, I offer this:

Why are you a bigot? Why do you hate women and blacks and gays?

Because firearms, particularly pistols carried concealed, are the perfect equalizer when some thug tries to assault that woman, beat up that black, or bash that gay. A ninety-pound woman would stand no chance in such an assault… unless she was armed.

So go ahead. Spout your victim ideology. I know your kind, and chances are you’ll end your days with the Mozambique treatment from someone you tried to harm.

Martha

LOL

Look out you black lesbians, they’re a’comin’ for ya. Git yur gun and shoot youself a whitey.

Anonymous

I wonder if concealed carry would have helped Matthew Shepard.

Or James Byrd.

Think about it, Martha.

Martha

Why should I think about it?

StanW

Why indeed. It might make you re-think your positions.

But continue to ignore the facts.
Martha

I can not continue to do what I have not done.
StanW

You continue to lie, that is a certainity. You continue to ignore the clear words of the 2nd Amendment. And you continue to cowardly refuse to answer simple questions put to you.

Nothing else you have done is important.
Martha

Poor stan- sputter sputter sputter. The words of the second amendment are not clear (right down to the commas). Learned members of the supreme court do not agree. Every question is answered by me – and answered correctly. Poor ole stan – defeated yet again
StanW

Now you is crowing about a defeat that hasn’t happened. Interesting how the 2nd amendment is still a question (to you and your ilk), yet it is perfectly clear to the vast majority of Americans, as it was for the Founding Fathers.

And you have answered one question only, and answered it WRONG!
Martha

Stan said “ilk” again. LOL
StanW

And Martha is reduced to ignoring the topic of the debate and is crticizing grammer.

We’re done here!
Martha

You’re done, stan – like toast.
Anonymous

Good point. You’ve never had a coherent thought in your life, so why start now?

Anonymous

It seems bad, but it’s actually a good sign. Bear with me.

By saying ‘well, we’ll issue permits, but we have these restrictions’, they open up those restrictions to examination (and further legal action, if necessary). The tip of the crowbar is just working its way in; all it takes is some leverage to break it open.

Don’t believe me? Perhaps you should check out Sacramento County in California, where the Sheriff just eliminated several questionable ‘requirements’ and affirmed that self-defense was a legal reason to carry concealed.

So yeah. Bloomberg is a scumbag, but he and his ilk are losing their war.

And to dear, dear Martha, I offer this:

Why are you a bigot? Why do you hate women and blacks and gays?

Because firearms, particularly pistols carried concealed, are the perfect equalizer when some thug tries to assault that woman, beat up that black, or bash that gay. A ninety-pound woman would stand no chance in such an assault… unless she was armed.

So go ahead. Spout your victim ideology. I know your kind, and chances are you’ll end your days with the Mozambique treatment from someone you tried to harm.
Anonymous

A militia can only be formed by armed individuals. That is why we have the right, as indvidual citizens, to KEEP and BEAR arms. Liberals like to omit the “free state” part……that implies that there might come a time when the (barak hussein obama/eric holder) govt try and deprive that state of its freedoms. The militia is our protection.

MOLON LABE!
Anonymous

How about a compromise here?

Any and all restrictions placed on who may own a gun shall likewise be placed on who may vote.

If an irresponsible person with a gun poses such a massive national threat that they must be permanently denied their rights why stop with one? Also, I’m far less worried about the effect of irresponsible gun owners than I am about irresponsible voters.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

United StatesThe history of militia in the United States dates from the colonial era, such as in the American Revolutionary War.[35] Based on the British system, colonial militias were drawn from the body of adult male citizens of a community, town, or local region. Because there were usually few British regulars garrisoned in North America, colonial militia served a vital role in local conflicts, particularly in the French and Indian Wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia Militia (United States)The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft)[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)So the Militia Act of 1903 recognizes ALL ABLE BODIED MEN as being members of the militia, and thus they must be allowed to be armed.
Proud Infidel

Tyrants (wannabe and otherwise) prefer unarmed peasants,(it’s exactly how they see us taxpayers) it makes them easier to micromanage.
Rickvid in Seattle

3 points.

1) Poor Martha – every comment flagged and not visible.
2) At some point, folks, STOP hitting Reply. If I wanted to read vertical text, I’d learn Japanese!
3) An educated and well read populace, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

The only way to justify arms ONLY for the militia/National Guard would require that, in the above construct, only educated and well read people be allowed to keep and read books. The logic is exactly the same.

Anonymous

That’s one of the things I /really/ hate about Disqus. If the conversation gets heated with replies, it all jams up against the right side.

Rickvid in Seattle

Also, as ill-considered speaking and writing can be harmful, perhaps NYC should restrict speech and press by those who violate various laws. Maybe break up Tea Party gatherings because some of the attendees also broke these laws. Not Code Pink or SEIU gahterings, of course. I say let’s quarter state officials in the homes of scoff laws! Why not rifle thier papers and files just because! If they wanted to be secure, they would not have rolled thru that stoplight! Wow, this is great! Lots more Amendments to trash! It’s gonna be a long night!

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

User Info

Users Online

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN