The right to self-defense in New York City?

The endgame of oppression is usually somewhere between the psychotic mass murders of the Nazi Germany or Pol Pot’s Cambodia and the more pragmatic feudalism we see now in Russia and New York City. The retiring Mayor Blomberg — famous for his anti-gun efforts country-wide — will have fifteen armed bodyguards, while the city residents generally have nothing at all for self-defense. That’s almost certainly by design, as New Yorkers have now as much to fear from the city police as from the less organized criminals.

The fees and the obstacles to the exercise of their Constitutional right faced by most residents of New York now are as prohibitive as those placed upon the freedmen of the former Confederacy in the late 1870s. Army and Navy revolvers were quite expensive, but at least they were legally available to all. Trying to obtain an Army M9 or a Navy M11 pistol in New York City would be impossible by law and doubly so by the misuse of the law by the bureaucrats. For one, both carry more than 7 rounds in their magazines — illegal under the ill-named SAFE Act. Even the percussion revolvers of the mid-19th century — not even considered firearms under Federal law — are about as heavily restricted. Where’s the Civil Rights act for those who live in NYC? Where are the Federal marshals keeping NYPD at bay to enable the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment?

This entry was posted in civil rights, pistol, self-defense, weapon and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The right to self-defense in New York City?

  1. Pingback: The right to self-defense in New York City? | The Gun Feed

  2. Bob G says:

    One of your best, ever! Love the image, from the gentleman’s clothing and pose, to the choice of revolver (‘though it looks more like a Dragoon, to my eyes). Great choice of a classic-looking font, and a meaningful message. It makes its point in fewer words than I could! I’m going to be showing this one to friends and family.

    ¬°Bien hecho! (Well done!)
    Bob

  3. LarryArnold says:

    You didn’t get the memo? It’s politically correct for The Powers That Be to disarm downtrodden minorities in order to protect them from themselves.

  4. Tom says:

    True, but only those models of revolver were legal. Many whites kept their service weapons from the Civil War, and new Army and Navy revolvers were very expensive. The weapons that blacks could afford were banned. If anything, the Tennessee laws of that period are a precursor to modern bans on so-called “Saturday night specials” and “junk guns.” They are nothing to be celebrated.

    http://www.redstate.com/candicelanier/2013/01/17/mlks-arsenal-the-racist-roots-of-gun-control-in-the-u-s/
    http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/tahmassebi1.html

    • Paul Koning says:

      It’s interesting to look up the original meaning of the term “Saturday Night Special”. There used to be another word starting with N after “night”. The story becomes very clear when you see that.

Comments are closed.