New Yorkers rally for 'illegal' guns

Status
Not open for further replies.

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
New Yorkers rally for 'illegal' guns
Event mocks idea that gun restrictions would stop crime
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52146

Protesters carried giant-size cutouts of guns as they rallied yesterday in New York City in support of the constitutional right to bear arms, which, they say, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is trying to destroy.

"He's attacking our gun rights under the guise of attacking illegal guns and crime," Nic Leobold, an organizer for the event held outside the gates of City Hall in downtown Manhattan, told WND.

"Tens of thousands of New Yorkers actually own guns which are not registered and are therefore so-called illegal. But these people are not criminals, nor are they violent, they are respectable, responsible citizens and residents who want a dependable way to protect themselves and their loved ones," Leobold said.

It was called the "New York City Rally for Illegal Guns," because Leobold says Bloomberg's campaign to target "illegal" guns actually has been going a little bit beyond what it should. Requirements to register or license a gun, such as New York seeks, implies that those that are unregistered are "illegal."

But Leobold said Bloomberg is working with "elistists" to erode the city's rights to self-defense and privacy by pursuing crackdowns on dealers and gun sales. Those who have guns frequently don't want the government to know about it, any more than they want their neighbors or local criminals to know.

"They know Michael Bloomberg or various other government thugs will seize their guns if they register them," Leobold said.

One of those addressing the rally, described by Leobold as small, was Jeffrey Russell, the Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. Senate.

On his website, he says the right to self-defense is the most fundamental of all civil rights.

"Without it, we have no rights," he said. "Government should not make self-defense a crime. Merely possessing a firearm should not be a crime, and using a firearm in self-defense should not be a crime. The bad guys will always have access to weapons. The police cannot protect everyone, everywhere, all the time. We must allow and encourage the people to be responsible for themselves."

Jim Lesczynski, who earlier had organized the famous "Guns for Tots' toy gun drive, said any law "that purports to prohibit or regulate gun ownership" is just unconstitutional.

"'Illegal gun' is an oxymoron," he said. "The only people who should feel threatened by armed citizens are tyrants and criminals."

Leobold said those he considers "elitists" have as their agenda to make everyone dependant upon the government for everything.

"Basically, they have all the power," he said. "You would have to ask to defend your own life."

"Illegal guns are the ones that won our revolution," Leobold told WND.

Bloomberg's campaign, meanwhile, has hit a few roadblocks. He was sued just a few weeks ago by a South Carolina gun dealer to seek damages from the city over its undercover sting operations. It was the second lawsuit over those operations.

The action alleges the city smeared the storeowner's reputation, according to a Sun report.

Fifteen gun dealers were targeted by the stings, and two have accepted settlements that mandate a special monitor audit of their stores.

Several comments on a weblog show a fair amount of support for the freedom to own guns.

"Do you think that a link to video of a couple psychopathic nutjobs shooting up schoolkids is an argument AGAINST guns? That is just fear-mongering … This video of the Columbine massacre is one of the strongest arguments FOR firearms rights that I have every seen," said IronDioPriest.

"Imagine if you will, that a law enabled a certain percentage of the teachers and administrators in Columbine to holster legal firearms that day, and that these people were highly trained in the use of their weapons.

"How many lives could have been saved that day by the heroic use of a firearm in the hands of a few skilled, law-abiding citizens?"

"It's funny," said Leobold, "but I never knew or heard of any gun that got up, walked out of a house or a gun store, and proceeded to shoot someone. Usually when I read about a murder or a robbery or a rape involving a gun, there is always someone called a 'criminal' who committed those crimes."
 
That is great, but it makes me think about how few pro-gun rallies there are. Generally we are asked to vote & contact our representatives to voice our opinions. Gun owners are very organized through the NRA & other groups, but I have never been asked to attend a public show of support, anyone know why this is?
 
Gun owners are very organized through the NRA & other groups, but I have never been asked to attend a public show of support, anyone know why this is?

Because typically you can't carry at the rally. That's why we never go to DC.
 
Some years ago then-mayor David Dinkins had the Brady's in to push the Brady Bill, and the local NRA chapter scheduled a protest. I was one of four people who showed up.

Four.

Good to see some folks are actually showing up now.
 
Let's

Show these New yorkers are support! Back several months ago I e-mailed Mayor Bloomberg and expressed my opinions on his so-called sting operations. I finally heard back last month about the mayor "respects" the second ammendment. :barf:
 
Last edited:
i know this is not an original idea, but after reading this article, a revised strategy in the struggle to protect our 2nd ammendment right, and for that matter all of our constitutional rights, comes to mind.

i think a majority of people are distrustful of government. if there is one thing that your average citizen, regardless of political leanings, can agree on, it's that politicians/'leaders' are typically not to be trusted, and are in the business of power. in the article, one man states that if all guns were registered, the government might seek to, and would have an easier time trying to sieze them. as difficult as this may ever prove to be to accomplish, the idea that many politicians would like to exert their authority in such a way is a given. why? it's exponentially easier to control an unarmed population.

apparently, this struggle for balance is nothing new, and has been a matter for concern...well, forever; those in charge seek as much control as they can achieve, and citizens must always struggle to protect themselves from being lorded over. these, by definition, are 'revolutionary' ideas, and they are what inspired our fashion of government; these ideas are baked into our constitution.

here is the problem that i see however. gun owners spend too much time fighting small fights here and there, and too much time exclusively addressing the erosion of our right to keep and bear arms. these local and state efforts should continue, of course, but i think this struggle, at any level, should take on a new tone. someone exercising his right to legally keep and bear arms is, in a very real sense, protecting the constitution. if government seeks to take or erode this right, it can only have one aim.....to exert more control over citizens.

again, these are old ideas, but the new spin on things, in lieu of constantly highlighting the effort to erode 'my' 2nd ammendment right, is to constantly and loudly highlight how government is in the business of eroding ALL of 'our' rights, and is actively and constantly seeking to control as many aspects of our life as it can. the government is being aggressive in its pursuit of control....THIS should be what we talk about most. the current picture is, 'gun owners vs. anti-gun types'. why not move toward patriots vs. government? in a nutshell:

current response:

not a gun owner- why do you own guns?

gun owner- because it's my constitutional right.

new response:

non-gun owner: why do you own guns?

gun owner: i own guns because our government is forever trying to get more control of us. the more of us that own guns, the harder it is for that control to be achieved.

apparently, not everyone in our country can agree that the intention of the second ammendment is to ensure the right of every citizen to own firearms, so simply stating that it's 'my right', not only rings hollow for many, but the language is exclusive...'my right'. most CAN agree that the government is not trustworthy, as a whole, and seeks power and control; and can also understand the logic that more guns in the hands of citizens keeps government well in check. the language is also inclusive. others may choose not to own guns, but many of us do, and our primary reason is to protect ALL of 'OUR' rights.

our government is very comfortable, i'm sure, with the fact that gun owners are very much an exclusive group, despite our numbers. we are painted as exclusive on a national level. patriot gun owners are very much separated from other sorts of patriots. divide and conquer.

my new attitude is, continue to be vocal in working against anti-gun legislation, but be overwhelmingly vocal in exposing our government's active effort to diminsh all of our rights, and how gun ownership works against this. if i'm pigeon-holed or type-cast by anyone, i want it to be as a rabid patriot instead of a rabid gun-owner. i want my gun-ownership to be clearly linked to my desire to see government kept in check. plinking is fun, hunting is fun, cleaning them is fun, buying selling them is fun....but i keep them so the government knows it can only go so far.

and of course, the most effective way to fight this fight is, recruit. many are on the fence because they have just never been exposed to guns. my sister's boyfriend really wants a handgun and loves to shoot. she played 'anti-gun' until i told her she needed to come and help pick out 'their' gun. now she keeps talking about it, and wanting to go the range to shoot. my mom also has 'never liked guns'. her language has changed dramatically since i have been repeating my desire to include her in my range time. get people shooting, and then get them to buy.
 
I wish I'd have known about the rally, It would have been worth a plane ticket to join in something like that.

For six months I was a new yorker with "illigal guns", If I currently lived there I would be one still.

This kind of rally makes me feel that people may have a chance in new york.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top