And So It Begins: the Begining of the End for the Second Amendment. [Archive]

Crazed Rabbit

09-09-2005, 21:41

Well, it turns out police and national guard, in flagrant violation of 1) The Constitution of the USA, 2) The Constitution of Loiusiana, 3)LA state laws, 4) common sense, have begun consficating firearms-completely legally owned-of citizens who have broken no law, and are using guns for self defense.

http://www.isra.org/

The military and police are joining together to shred the constitution and strip citizens not only of their rights, but their only defense. Of course, rich people who can afford to hire private security firms (who tote around M-16s) can keep the guards and the guards their guns.

The NG has been entering homes (of no suspected criminal activity) with M4s pointing down the hallways. A 7mb video (http://media.putfile.com/NewOrleansGunConfiscationSmall)

Reporters are having their cameras smashed or consficated.

http://www.canada.com/fortstjohn/story.html?id=93d36401-0e49-4030-9bb8-77e557a2b7f8

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2005/09/hurricane2.html

This is outrageous. Even in Iraq people are allowed an AK-47 for self defense, while here in America the NG and NOPD are consficating legally owned guns when the guns are most needed!

Whoever allowed this needs to be fired and thrown in a prison arena without a gun, but with lots of big prisoners. The soldiers and police carrying this abomination out need to be fired and stripped of their right to ever again work for the gov't, own a gun, and need to be prosecuted for stealing.

Otherwise, welcome to the begining of the end; the last time the gov't will have any respect for our rights and will use any excuse to deprive us of them.

Crazed Rabbit

Strike For The South

09-09-2005, 22:02

This wont happen not in my state :charge:

Don Corleone

09-09-2005, 22:04

Anybody who believes that the Constitution acutally guarantees anything anymore is a fool, no offense.

We haven't had free speech, freedom to practice our religion, freedom to defend ourselves, freedom seizures, even freedom from self-recrimination in decades, I'd say not since the Harding administration.

The only reason we have gun ownership is because politicians currently make hay by allowing us to. Once the tip point goes the other way, your guns will be seized, 2nd ammendment or no.

Remember, a majority of the Supreme Court believes the Constitution says whatever they want it to at that moment(living breathing document) not the way it's been interpreted in the past (constructionist). In light of that, what is a 'Right'? You have the right to do whatever Ginsburg tells you to, that's about it.

Zharakov

09-09-2005, 22:04

It seems the book Revolution of 2021 is comeing true... ~D

Crazed Rabbit

09-09-2005, 22:17

Anybody who believes that the Constitution acutally guarantees anything anymore is a fool, no offense.

None taken. You're absolutely right. But there are actually state laws allowing the possesion of firearms, and these NGs and NOPDs are violating that without any sort of cause whatsoever.

Crazed Rabbit

Goofball

09-09-2005, 22:21

"I think it would be fitting if we could lift Suffredin and his posh Evanston home and drop it smack in the middle of New Orleans' flood-ravaged lower Ninth Ward," commented ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. "I can just see Larry now, sitting on his veranda, trying to fend off looters and 'gators with green tea and granola bars. Yes, it's a silly visualization, but it illustrates just how out of touch Larry Suffredin is with the world lying beyond his cobblestone street."
and

"Horrible events like Katrina's aftermath can bring out the worst in even the best of people," continued Pearson. "What we are seeing now in New Orleans is the worst being brought out in people who were pretty bad to start with. The only things preserving the shred of civility remaining in New Orleans are firearms owned by law-abiding citizens. The only obstacle to a total breakdown in social order is the armed citizen, standing on his veranda with firearm in hand, serving as a reminder to the lawless of just who is in charge."

and:

"Despite all that has happened in the past week, Larry Suffredin is marching 180 degrees out of step with the rest of America," commented ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. "We're hearing horrible stories of men, women, children and the elderly being robbed, raped and sodomized by New Orleans gang members. We're seeing these same gang members being evacuated and transplanted to other areas of the country where they continue to threaten peaceable citizens. As with 9/11, the good people of this country are learning the hard way that they cannot rely on the government to protect them - that's why they're flooding gun shops in search of the added security provided by a defensive firearm."

and my favorite:

"I suspect that this all comes down to situational ethics," continued Pearson. "I wonder how tightly Suffredin would clasp to his self-righteously indignant hatred of firearms if he found himself in a Superdome washroom, cornered in a toilet stall by a trio of thugs. I suspect that his attitude would change drastically."

~:rolleyes:

Aenlic

09-09-2005, 22:23

Your first mistake was in believing that the Republicans had any more concern for your rights and the Constitution than the Democrats. Welcome to reality. You have now learned that the guy who says he's there for you is also the one closest and most likely to be reaching into your pocket to rob you. All the while, his other hand is around your shoulder, offering compnaionship and shared values. Uh huh.

And even in this thread, you have people still spouting the same tired old sheep-like attitude of blaming one side for the problem.

Before you start buying into the propaganda this is going to raise like the stink from stepping on a cow turd, consider that the entire operation, including the Guard troops in New Orleans, are now under the direct control of the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Coast Guard, Vice Admiral Thad Allen, before you start following the party line and tossing this blame at the local authorities. Are commissioners like that toad in Cook County Illinois trying to use the situation for their own ends? Yes. But remember what I said about the situation in New Orleans. It's the Republicans in control down there now. Be sure you're blaming the right thief before you chop off his hand. ~D

Zharakov

09-09-2005, 22:30

State run is good I think...

Crazed Rabbit

09-09-2005, 22:40

You appear to think that I'm blaming this just on the democrats. While I do not know who authorized this, I know it wasn't just the NOPD chief. Somebody in the Nat'l guard had to okay this, and whoever is responsible for letting this happen (and it may indeed go up to Bush) should get axed. I know the higher ups most likely won't get what they should, but I can still hope.

I will put forth, though, that republican, legislators at least, are much more against banning guns and this sort of thing that's going on down in NO.

~:rolleyes: Is this the smily that means "I can't refute your article, so I'll just try and be sarcastic about it and dismiss it"?

Crazed Rabbit

English assassin

09-09-2005, 22:55

Even in Iraq people are allowed an AK-47 for self defense, while here in America the NG and NOPD are consficating legally owned guns when the guns are most needed!

I love this. Obviously the right to own a military spec assault rifle is the hallmark of advanced human civilisation. By this standard the UK is somewhere in the precambrian. Who'da thunk it?

Come on, put your prejudices aside for one moment. Do you seriously think the situation in NO has been helped by the fact that there are more firearms than there are adult humans in the USA?

I wonder how tightly Suffredin would clasp to his self-righteously indignant hatred of firearms if he found himself in a Superdome washroom, cornered in a toilet stall by a trio of thugs.

You know what? If I had to choose I'd rather be in this situation in no-gun Britain than gun-mad USA. Any no-mark can pull a trigger. Its a bit harder to find the balls beat a guy up. Even with two mates.

And So It Begins: the Begining of the End for the Second Amendment.

Its your country. But if it was mine I'd be saying, thank god.

Aenlic

09-09-2005, 23:00

English assassin

09-09-2005, 23:10

Fine, so you don't like guns. Whatever. Here in the USA, gun ownership is protected by the constitution. What's going on in New Orleans is ILLEGAL.

Who cares if it makes it safer?

"He who would sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither."
~Benjamin Fanklin

Actually, I do quite like guns. I think I should be allowed to own a decent bolt action hunting rifle at least. (I've enjoyed machine guns, but I couldn't really justify owning one. Niot really a gentlemans's weapon ;-) ) I just don't like other people, and I don't think THEY should be allowed to own guns.

Point taken about illegality. As a lawyer I am all in favour of the rule of law. I happen to think its better if it mostly bans private ownership of guns. Legally.

But, I say again, its your country. But could you answer the qu about NO?

Crazed Rabbit

09-09-2005, 23:13

I love this. Obviously the right to own a military spec assault rifle is the hallmark of advanced human civilisation. By this standard the UK is somewhere in the precambrian. Who'da thunk it?

The right to defend yourself, and have availible the most advanced tools for doing so, is what makes a man free. But the point I was trying to make you did not address; that they allow everyone to have an AK-47 in Iraq (in a country torn by violence) whereas in NO they are going around to peaceable people and taking their guns.

Come on, put your prejudices aside for one moment. Do you seriously think the situation in NO has been helped by the fact that there are more firearms than there are adult humans in the USA?

It most certainly has. Have you read any of the reports I've seen of people using their guns to deter machete-armed looters? It would have been helped more had all people had guns, then the crooks would have no easy targets. Your problem is that you cannot see firearms being used for good. The anti-gunners have effectively brainwashed lots of people to think that guns can only be used for bad.

You know what? If I had to choose I'd rather be in this situation in no-gun Britain than gun-mad USA. Any no-mark can pull a trigger. Its a bit harder to find the balls beat a guy up. Even with two mates.

And any yob with a kitchen knife can stab you. Except in Britain, you have no means to defend yourself. And its really, really hard to find the guts to beat someone up if there's a good chance he has a gun.

Its your country. But if it was mine I'd be saying, thank god.

I'll bet that's what the people who had their guns stolen said, as they are now at the mercy of crooks and the NG certainly isn't going to guard every house.
'The police haven't restored order, but they have stolen my only protection!'

Not you, Crazed Rabbit.

~:)
Crazed Rabbit

Xiahou

09-09-2005, 23:17

Not you, Crazed Rabbit. ~:)
Who then?

So, are there any state or federal emergency powers being exploited to allow for this, or are they just taking it upon themselves? Either way, barging into people's homes and siezing weapons without cause is way out of line.

English assassin

09-09-2005, 23:19

And any yob with a kitchen knife can stab you. Except in Britain, you have no means to defend yourself.

No means other than the machete, ice axe, and Prussian infantry officer sword I have in the house. And the few years karate, Ju jitsu, and fencing training I have under my belt. backed with a reasonable weights regime. Not to mention the motivation I have to protect my wife and children. In this scenario, my money is on me.

No disrespect, because I am not arguing with your motives, but right now in the UK the balance of advantage is in my favour. I don't really want some loser teenager to be able to cancel that out just because he bought a saturday night special.

No insult to teenagers intended

Xiahou

09-09-2005, 23:24

Haven't gun crimes been on the rise in the UK? Weird since they're banned.

Goofball

09-09-2005, 23:26

~:rolleyes: Is this the smily that means "I can't refute your article, so I'll just try and be sarcastic about it and dismiss it"?

I wasn't dismissing it. I was laughing at it. I found that crackpot's comments amusing. Sorry, I used the wrong smiley.

Crazed Rabbit

09-09-2005, 23:32

Here's a good way to go looking to help people.

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/dea-hunting-survivors.jpg

'Why no, this isn't a police state of unconstitutional search and siezure. We're just trying to help.'

No means other than the machete, ice axe, and Prussian infantry officer sword I have in the house. And the few years karate, Ju jitsu, and fencing training I have under my belt. backed with a reasonable weights regime. Not to mention the motivation I have to protect my wife and children. In this scenario, my money is on me.

No disrespect, because I am not arguing with your motives, but right now in the UK the balance of advantage is in my favour. I don't really want some loser teenager to be able to cancel that out just because he bought a saturday night special.

I doubt most people have the same physical means as you have to defend themselves. And what if a yob attacks you on the street with a knife?

For most people, having a gun, at the very least, levels the playing field. When there are a lot of guns owned by people, that means a crook, even with a gun, faces a very serious risk of being shot - and is at a severe disadvantage, in that the homeowner needs only sit in their bedroom with a shotgun pointed at the door. When you have a good chance of dying, that deters a lot of crime (as opposed to now in britain, where the crook can sue you for trying to protect your house with barbed wire, and the vast majority are easy targets.)

Why do you think Switzerland, land of a assualt rifle (in the real sense of the word) in every home, has the lowest crime in the world?

Crazed Rabbit

Marcellus

09-09-2005, 23:32

Haven't gun crimes been on the rise in the UK? Weird since they're banned.

Here's something on the Home Office website:

The current situation
In some areas, gun crime is a major cause of fear and distress.

Most worrying is the rise in the number of young people carrying real or imitation firearms, either to boost their image, or from a misguided idea about self-protection. Some of this is linked to gang activity, which itself is linked to the illegal drug trade.

Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in this country is relatively low – less than half of 1 percent of all crime recorded by the police – and in the year ending 31 March 2004, there was:

a 15 per cent reduction in homicides involving firearms
a 13 per cent reduction in robberies involving firearms

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/guncrime/

Whatever the actual statistics, they are an awful lot lower than they are in America.

Xiahou

09-09-2005, 23:35

Whatever the actual statistics, they are an awful lot lower than they are in America.And they always have been, havent they? Before guns were generally banned, they were lower and now still are. Can you really attribute that to gun control?

English assassin

09-09-2005, 23:36

Haven't gun crimes been on the rise in the UK? Weird since they're banned.

I fell into this mistake myself. Not weird at all

Possession of a firearm becomes an offence.

People are then arrested for possessing illegal firearms.

Therefore the ban was a failure because "gun crime" is rising.

I think we can all see the logical flaw in that argument. I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for having propagated it myself

I doubt most people have the same physical means as you have to defend themselves. And what if a yob attacks you on the street with a knife?

As any reputable martial arts instructor will tell you, if you can, leg it. If you can't run, give them what they want. If you can't do that, then use what you know and fight.

I still wouldn't want a gun. But that is in the UK context where I am 99% confident they would not have one either. Things are so messed up in the states, I guess I would want one.

Crazed Rabbit

09-09-2005, 23:36

Actually, I believe the 8 biggest US cities account for half of the crime. And guess what? Most have banned guns. Huh.

EDIT: Once again, can any of you anti-gunner's explain Switzerland, then?

Crazed Rabbit

Aenlic

09-09-2005, 23:42

The problem isn't guns. It never has been guns. It is the underlying society which promotes the use of the guns in an irrational manner. A rational society should have no problem with the ownership of guns. Blaming guns for the problems of a society which then uses the guns is like blaming gravity when you drop something heavy on your toe. The mechanism by which something happens is not the reason why something happens.

Goofball

09-09-2005, 23:43

When there are a lot of guns owned by people, that means a crook, even with a gun, faces a very serious risk of being shot

Actually, when there are a lot of guns owned by people, and people are actually allowed to carry them around (even into bars, for the love of God), that means everybody faces a greater risk of being shot.

Proletariat

09-09-2005, 23:43

No means other than the machete, ice axe, and Prussian infantry officer sword I have in the house. And the few years karate, Ju jitsu, and fencing training I have under my belt. backed with a reasonable weights regime.

That's great for you.

What about the rest of us non-Ninjas out here? Should a women just get raped if a sexual predator breaks into her house because they couldn't karate chop him?

I guess in England the muscle bound ogres are free to self-defense while the meek get targeted.

Welcome to the Cambrian Period!

English assassin

09-09-2005, 23:51

Samurai Waki

09-09-2005, 23:52

Why don't the civilians resieze their guns?... I sure as hell would.... or bludgeon an NG guy and take his

Proletariat

09-10-2005, 00:03

I really can't believe that fisticuffs are being offered as a serious alternative to bearing arms for self-defense.

Of all the anti-gun arguments... Sheesh.

Crazed Rabbit

09-10-2005, 00:08

Did you watch the video? The NG came in like a raid on Baghdad. They handcuffed the citizens for daring to live and seek protection.

http://media.putfile.com/NewOrleansGunConfiscationSmall

I would, for what its worth, die free.

As any reputable martial arts instructor will tell you, if you can, leg it. If you can't run, give them what they want. If you can't do that, then use what you know and fight.

I don't know about the UK, but in the US you're least likely to get injured in a mugging if you resist with a gun (17%). Doing anything else (giving money, running) results in a higher percentage of injury (25%+).

Crazed Rabbit

drone

09-10-2005, 00:10

The main reason people in the US are allowed to have firearms is not to protect themselves from crooks, but to protect themselves from the government. The 2nd Amendment is supposed to keep the federal government from becoming a tyranny. As anti-gun laws remove firearms from the law-abiding citizens incrementally, it makes it easier for the government to assert itself over the rest of our freedoms.

The reason the NRA opposes all gun legislation (even the ones that make sense) is because the NRA knows how much of a slippery slope the issue is. Give the gov an inch, and they WILL eventually take the mile.

The problem in the US is not the guns, but the culture. Hollywood actors/idols making violent films, then pushing for gun control. What are we supposed to do? The talking box in fun mode tells us to kill, and then in boring mode it tells us not too. We are a simple people :dizzy2:, we get confused easily, and this angers us. ~;)

One, two, three, flaaaaame.......ON! ~D

If the firearms are being confiscated from legal owners, without compensation or intent to return, somebody is going to get into a lot of trouble here.

Strike For The South

09-10-2005, 00:13

There is no good logical reason for banning guns nearly all the people i know have muiltiple firearms and guees what none have been convicterd of murder ~:cheers: Guns are useful in nearly everykind of situiation and EA no offense but what if multiple guys break in or you cant beat up the first guy. Im sorry but if men in black siuts come and try to take our guns they be hardpressed to get anyone here to hand them over peacefully

Kaiser of Arabia

09-10-2005, 00:15

They want my weapons? They can pry them from my cold, dead hands. That's all I have to say on the matter.

Strike For The South

09-10-2005, 00:17

They want my weapons? They can pry them from my cold, dead hands. That's all I have to say on the matter.

HereHere ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers:

AntiochusIII

09-10-2005, 00:43

They want my weapons? They can pry them from my cold, dead hands. That's all I have to say on the matter.And cold, dead hands they shall be. ~;)

I agree that it's the culture that makes the guns so dangerous. The "cowboy" culture, if you must. People are more carefree and less concerned to pull the trigger. Switzerland, it seems, has a completely different form of culture, which I've heard from various people who visited there. Everybody abided by the law, it seems, and not surprisingly: Swiss tradition such as the infamous Swiss bank is long considered to be rigid and effective in their "business."

That's why people who asks for guns to be removed from USA's citizens' hands have more legitimate reasons to do so than those who demand simillar things in Switzerland.

ichi

09-10-2005, 00:45

No disrespect, because I am not arguing with your motives, but right now in the UK the balance of advantage is in my favour. I don't really want some loser teenager to be able to cancel that out just because he bought a saturday night special.

Nor would I. But the balance of advantage is not in your favor in the UK or in the US. All the karate and pointy Prussian sticks wont help you against an attacker armed with gun. Since prohibiting responsible citizens from owning guns does little to nothing to prevent a criminal from obtaining one, you are at risk.

From the Times

A gun crime every five hours since shooting of Danielle
By Sophie Kirkham and Richard Ford
As a man faces court charged with murdering Danielle Beccan, a Times survey finds that shootings are becoming commonplace
THE scale of gun crime in Britain since the shooting of 14-year-old Danielle Beccan in Nottingham last weekend is revealed today in a survey by The Times.

It found that a firearms offence was committed once every five hours in the six days after Danielle’s death, with at least 31 gun crimes in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland between Saturday and Thursday.

The survey results prompted a call for more armed police on the streets. Jan Berry, chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales said that the number of armed response officers had declined in recent years despite gun crime being on the increase.

“We have expressed concern about this as the pressure on those officers trained to deal with these incidents is getting greater,” she said. “In some areas — predominantly the urban areas — there should be far more police officers carrying guns than there are at the moment, for the safety of both the public and the police.”

Her call came after Paul Evans, David Blunkett’s American police adviser, said that Britain’s gun crime problem had to be nipped in the bud. “The one thing you want to make sure of is that it does not get out of control. You want to make sure that there are consequences for individuals who carry guns,” he said.

He said that a co-ordinated approach to police intelligence on who was using and selling guns was needed, together with tougher penalties for those who supplied weapons to juveniles.

Mr Evans told a Commons select committee on Tuesday that special laws had been adopted in Boston, making it a specific crime to traffic or supply firearms to young people.

Rather than stopping every young person in high-crime areas in the search for weapons, police should use a targeted approach. “It becomes critical to have a national intelligence model to identify those individuals that you believe are carrying firearms,” he said.

But police had to have a “very, very good handle and intelligence on the drug situation. Drugs and handguns go hand in hand. Many people in the drugs business will use firearms to help them continue their business.”

Sir Keith Povey, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, said that gun crime had a huge impact and that the police did not underestimate its effect. But he admitted: “It is very, very difficult to overcome the random shooting that took place in Nottingham.”

The Government toughened gun laws last year, introducing a minimum jail term of five years for possessing an illegal firearm.

The Times survey found that only 24 of the 52 police forces in the UK had reported no firearms incidents in the past week, while nine were unable to provide any statistics. The rest had recorded between one and six incidents, the most being in London, where there were six shootings resulting in injury. They included a shooting in Hackney in which an 18-month-old girl was injured. The girl was in the car with her father when she was caught in a crossfire of up to 15 bullets. Two men were also seriously injured.

There were 13 reported armed robberies and attempted armed robberies, although a gun was fired in only one case: when a security guard at a north London bank was shot in the stomach on Thursday. The only shooting incident outside London was in Manchester.

The total figure is likely to be much higher, given the missing statistics. Many incidents are not classified as involving firearms unless a weapon is recovered or positively identified by a witness.

# A 20-year-old Nottingham man will appear before magistrate this morning charged with the murder of Danielle as she walked home from a fairground.

He was detained by police during routine stopchecks in Westminster on Monday and charged last night. Two other men remain in custody.

So, back to your argument. I dont want some goon with a pistol to have any advantage over me (or you, for that matter). We (you and I) as responsible citizens have the basic human right to protect ourselves, and for me and Mrs ichi that means firepower.

Our advantage comes from the fact that we are trained and practiced. Personally, I mind my P & Qs around the old girl cause she is a pretty good shot.

I'm not claiming that gun ownership is a sign of good breeding or an advanced civilization. You can make whatever subjective judgements you want, as well as any decisions about whether or not to support gun control. Every man has a right to protect what is his, and until he crosses over the line into criminality, that includes the right to keep and bear arms. The right is guaranteed under teh US Constitution, and the articles linked in this thread indicate that our government is not honoring that guarantee.

The guarantees in our Constitution are very important tous, and we tend to get upset when the guv tramples them. Imagine if Blair closed all the pubs after 6 pm each day, or if 10 Downing Street ordered a major change to the rules of soccer. Now soccer and beer aren't the most important things to Brits, nor are they indicators of intelligence and taste, but my guess is that most of you would go on a bit.

Same thing here, right or wrong its our way and we are concerned.

ichi :bow:

Xiahou

09-10-2005, 00:47

On the other hand her attacker won't be carrying a gun.Right, it couldn't happen. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4207908.stm)

Possession of a firearm becomes an offence.

People are then arrested for possessing illegal firearms.

Therefore the ban was a failure because "gun crime" is rising.
Sure it's that simple?

Violent crime in the U.K. rose 6 percent in the three months through September, led by an increase in alcohol-fueled offenses and gun crime, police figures show.
link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=agceOIMf5nfc&refer=uk)

The murder rate in London has doubled in 12 months to reach one of its highest levels ever, according to the most recent Home Office statistics, which have been leaked to the Telegraph.
....
Senior officers fear that a dramatic increase in the use of guns, particularly in battles between gangs competing over the trade in drugs, is the prime cause of the sharp rise in the number of deaths. link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F03%2F21%2Fnmurd21.xml)

Redleg

09-10-2005, 01:23

I find it hard to get over concerned on this particlur issue - especially where it concerns New Orleans and weapons. Now the Illinois portion gives me a little concerned - but its in the legislative session it seems still.

http://gov.louisiana.gov/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=973

GOVERNOR BLANCO DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY

BATON ROUGE, LA--Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco today issued Proclamation No. 48 KBB 2005, declaring a state of emergency for the state Louisiana as Hurricane Katrina poses an imminent threat, carrying severe storms, high winds, and torrential rain that may cause flooding and damage to private property and public facilities, and threaten the safety and security of the citizens of the state of Louisiana The state of emergency extends from Friday, August 26, 2005, through Sunday, September 25, 2005, unless terminated sooner.

The full text of Proclamation No. 48 KBB 2005 is as follows:

WHEREAS, the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act, R.S. 29:721, et seq., confers upon the governor of the state of Louisiana emergency powers to deal with emergencies and disasters, including those caused by fire, flood, earthquake or other natural or man-made causes, in order to ensure that preparations of this state will be adequate to deal with such emergencies or disasters and to preserve the lives and property of the citizens of the state of Louisiana;

WHEREAS, when the governor finds a disaster or emergency has occurred, or the threat thereof is imminent, R.S. 29:724(B)(1) empowers her to declare the state of disaster or emergency by executive order or proclamation, or both; and

WHEREAS, On August 26, 2005, Hurricane Katrina poses an imminent threat to the state of Louisiana, carrying severe storms, high winds, and torrential rain that may cause flooding and damage to private property and public facilities, and threaten the safety and security of the citizens of Louisiana;

NOW THEREFORE I, KATHLEEN BABINEAUX BLANCO,
Governor of the state of Louisiana, by virtue of the authority vested by the Constitution and laws of the state of Louisiana, do hereby order and direct as follows:

SECTION 1: Pursuant to the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act, R.S. 29:721, et seq., a state of emergency is declared to exist in the state of Louisiana as Hurricane Katrina poses an imminent threat, carrying severe storms, high winds, and torrential rain that may cause flooding and damage to private property and public facilities, and threaten the safety and security of the citizens of the state of Louisiana;

SECTION 2: The state of Louisiana's emergency response and recovery program is activated under the command of the director of the state office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness to prepare for and provide emergency support services and/or to minimize the effects of the storm's damage.

SECTION 3: The state of emergency extends from Friday, August 26, 2005, through Sunday, September 25, 2005, unless terminated sooner.
[/quote]

And from this site an update - based upon their understanding of the Louisana State Constitution.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/08/update-louisiana-martial-law.php

[JURIST] The Louisiana Attorney General's office late Tuesday issued a number of clarifications concerning the "martial law" assertions made earlier in the day by local officials and law enforcement agents [JURIST report] in the wake of devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. According to the AG's office, no such term exists in Louisiana state law. The declaration of a state of emergency [text] issued by Gov. Kathleen Blanco on Friday and set to continue for at least a month does, however, give officials power to suspend civil liberties in the process of restoring order, and the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act of 1993 gives the governor and heads of parishes power to commandeer property. The New Orleans Times-Picayune has more.

What did people expect would happen when you tell the military (even if its the National Guard - they are still the military once called) to restore order?

Its a rough business being a soldier.

lars573

09-10-2005, 04:18

All I really have to say on this is what Cicero said "In time of war the law falls silent". With 1 addemdum, that it also does during famine, flood, plague, and pestilence too.

Don Corleone

09-10-2005, 04:36

Actually, I do quite like guns. I think I should be allowed to own a decent bolt action hunting rifle at least. (I've enjoyed machine guns, but I couldn't really justify owning one. Niot really a gentlemans's weapon ;-) ) I just don't like other people, and I don't think THEY should be allowed to own guns.

No offense EA, but I'm going to have to call you out on this one. This is the gun control argument in a nutshell. Speaking as a Brady Bill guy for a second, I am sane and rational. I know what I am doing. I will keep a firearm. But the rest of the populus, well, screw them. If they get a firearm, then my ownership doesn't mean as much. What's the sense of being elite if you're not? We must pass laws so the subhuman majority cannot hurt themselves, but we must allow exemptions for the smart people, such as myself. After all, I have a law degree.

If YOU have a right to self-defense and security, why don't I? What makes you better than me?

Samurai Waki

09-10-2005, 05:51

And cold, dead hands they shall be. ~;)

Hopefully he'll take a couple people who try to pry it out his cold, dead hands down with him...hehehe... DEATH TO THE PACIFISTS!

Don Corleone

09-10-2005, 05:56

Not you, Crazed Rabbit. ~:)

Hmm, must have been me. Geez, where did I ever imply I trust a Republican administration to look to my rights more than a Democratic one? Either will happily yank them. The reasons they give will be wildly different, but the end result will be the same.

Was that what you were looking for from me? Funny, I would have thought when I traced the decay of individual freedoms back to the mid-20's, I would have assumed you would have understood I was including the Reagen and both Bush administrations in there....

Samurai Waki

09-10-2005, 06:00

we need a nuclear war.... seriously.

Strike For The South

09-10-2005, 06:02

we need a nuclear war.... seriously.

And that would solve what ~:confused:

Don Corleone

09-10-2005, 06:03

It just dawned on me. I now know why Europeans are so obsessed with talking America into doing away with the 2nd ammendment....

They can't go reclaim their former colonies with all of us running about armed, now can they? If you want a weak enemy, what's the first step? Tell them you're their friend and talk him into weakening himself. Hmmm.... I meant this as satire, but sadly, it's ringing true... :balloon2:

Samurai Waki

09-10-2005, 06:06

And that would solve what ~:confused:

Everything... sorry I'm slightly anebriated... but at this point I could care less if everything was destroyed in a fiery nuclear holocaust... it's just stupid at this point.

Aenlic

09-10-2005, 06:12

And cold, dead hands they shall be. ~;)

I agree that it's the culture that makes the guns so dangerous. The "cowboy" culture, if you must. People are more carefree and less concerned to pull the trigger. Switzerland, it seems, has a completely different form of culture, which I've heard from various people who visited there. Everybody abided by the law, it seems, and not surprisingly: Swiss tradition such as the infamous Swiss bank is long considered to be rigid and effective in their "business."

That's why people who asks for guns to be removed from USA's citizens' hands have more legitimate reasons to do so than those who demand simillar things in Switzerland.

Well said. But, in my view, taking the guns away because of the tendency to use them for the wrong reasons is only addressing the symptom not the cause. It's a bandaid, a feel better slogan, in essence a red herring. After decades, even one might say a couple of centuries, of debate on the issue; the argument has become nothing more than a political tool - for both sides.

There is no reason that sane law-abiding citizens shouldn't have guns. The reasons against gun ownership all assume the opposite of sane and law abiding. You can't have the guns because you might do something insane or illegal. That doesn't seem sufficient reason to me to take away someone's right. How can society assume that someone is guilty before the fact? That is itself insane and a symptom of the problem as well.

If someone uses a gun illegally, then take the gun away and that person's right to ever own a gun again. Then they've proven they shouldn't have the right. Along with rights come responsibilities. Rights without responsibilities is just as insane as the other side assuming illegal acts that haven't yet occured.

Calling for banning guns without addressing the problems which form the cause of the illegal use of guns is just as much of an error as calling for an end to welfare without addressing the underlying causes of poverty. Won't work. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is just as bad as telling someone on welfare in a depressed community with no transportation to where the jobs are located to just "go get a job!" Doesn't solve the problem at all and just puts a bandaid on the symptoms.

GodsPetMonkey

09-10-2005, 06:27

That's great for you.

What about the rest of us non-Ninjas out here? Should a women just get raped if a sexual predator breaks into her house because they couldn't karate chop him?

I guess in England the muscle bound ogres are free to self-defense while the meek get targeted.

Welcome to the Cambrian Period!

I think you will find full quadriplegics would have difficulty using a gun anyway...

Or, if you can use a gun, you can cause harm to someone even without one, it doesn't take to much effort to knee someone in the groin (and that does hurt, a lot), or poke them in the eyes, or bite them (if they are really close, don't charge in to do this), or the best one yet, just run away if you can... fists and knives are not ranged weapons, and as they are incredibly unlikely to have a firearm, they are pretty much thwarted. Of course, this won't work in the US, where they ARE likely to have a gun, so don't try this at home.

Nor would I. But the balance of advantage is not in your favor in the UK or in the US. All the karate and pointy Prussian sticks wont help you against an attacker armed with gun. Since prohibiting responsible citizens from owning guns does little to nothing to prevent a criminal from obtaining one, you are at risk.

You are right, against someone with a gun, that shiny knife is pretty much useless... of course, the number of times I have had a crime committed against me with the bad guy being aimed with a gun is zero. The number of people I know who have been the victim of a gun crime is zero. I know quite a few people who own firearms (having grown up in the country), but they are all rifles, typically bolt-action, none of them assault weapons. That's right, no pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, sub-machine guns, machine pistols, flame throwers, rocket launchers, AA batteries, coastal defence guns... you get the idea. They just aren’t needed... an M16 isn't THAT good if you need to kill a sheep dying of starvation.
In fact, the only time I have seen a pistol is when it's safely holstered on a policeman.

Then again, I do live in a country where when an armed robbery is committed on the other side of the continent, it's major national news. I guess guns, and gun crime, is something that happens elsewhere.
Is it cultural? Or will removing all those pretty pea-shooters really make a difference? Probably both, most illegal guns started out as legal weapons, those legal weapons had to come from somewhere, and not even the biggest organised crime groups would raid the Springfield armoury, so I guess they were stolen from civilians. In theory, take away the guns from the civilians and you take away the source for the guns for the criminals, but this will only really work if there were not that many illegal guns to begin with, they will slowly be picked up over time and become prized, horded possessions (as they have here, the majority of pistols are in the control of the proper crime syndicates... you will find they like to shoot each other much more then rape little old ladies and do house breaks).

I guess ultimately the US patrons don't know what it is like to live in a gunless society, and I don't know what it's like to live in a gunfull society.

What makes you better than me?

I have a law degree.
Sorry, couldn't resist, you are a good person Don, I'd give you a honouree law degree to make you better then everyone else too.

*Please note: The above statement includes trace amounts of sarcasm, if congested in a serious manner, induce vomiting and consult a head doctor*

Samurai Waki

09-10-2005, 06:38

I don't think taking away guns is the answer... taking away a persons firearm... pistol, rifle, etc. that wants to use it for personal protection and then it gets stolen from them, all they have to do is cross the border into mexico (or have someone cross the border for them) and bring back a load of AKs fresh from Russia, I would bet any one of you 500$ USD that such a transaction is happening as we speak. Whats the use of taking away someone's registed .38 Special, so that they can illegally obtain an unregistered illegal AK-74? I think this is the dumbest thing a politician has done since going into Iraq blind. Personally I would be the first person to get an AK.

Duke of Gloucester

09-10-2005, 08:54

What saddens me about this debate is the number of US citizens who seem to think they need a gun to protect themselves. Here in the UK far fewer people live in fear, it seems.

Having said that I understand the historical significance of the 2nd ammendment in protecting citizens from the state. If I was american, I would want to see it maintained. I do think the ISRA are overstating the case. The 2nd ammendment is not the freedom that protects all others. If that were true, then I am not free. Confiscating firearms in a state of emergency is a violation of the 2nd ammendment, but not the beginning of its end. If that were true, anyone could end a freedom by violating it once.

Duke of Gloucester

09-10-2005, 09:08

Quite frankly, the UK can't be compared to the USA as far as crime is concerned. That said, it's more about the very fact that we have the right to own them.

I agree, and when you know the history of the 2nd ammendment, peoples determination to protect the right to bear arms makes more sense.

I feel much more outrage at the attack on freedom of speech in confiscating cameras. Free speech may be the freedom that all the others depend on.

Del Arroyo

09-10-2005, 10:23

English assassin

09-10-2005, 10:32

No offense EA, but I'm going to have to call you out on this one. This is the gun control argument in a nutshell. Speaking as a Brady Bill guy for a second, I am sane and rational. I know what I am doing. I will keep a firearm. But the rest of the populus, well, screw them. If they get a firearm, then my ownership doesn't mean as much. What's the sense of being elite if you're not? We must pass laws so the subhuman majority cannot hurt themselves, but we must allow exemptions for the smart people, such as myself. After all, I have a law degree.

If YOU have a right to self-defense and security, why don't I? What makes you better than me?

None taken. I didn't make my point as clear as I should. What I was saying is that, personally I have enjoyed shooting, (and hence don't have an irrational prejudice against guns) and I know I am a safe person to trust with a gun. But because I can't say the same of the population at large I am happy not to have the right to own a gun myself as the price for ensuring "they" don't get them either.

I wasn't saying I should have a gun and "you" shouldn't.

Samurai Waki

09-10-2005, 11:06

You guys are a bunch of pansies and morons.

Thing were out of control in NO. Now the reaction has come. Stop wringing your hands and squirming around in your white cotton lacey panties! The situation sucked before. It sucks now. It will get better with time. Such is war.

And quite frankly, there are tens of thousands of military personnel with automatic weapons in the city, there is no current need for anyone else to keep a gun for self defense.

Drastic times call from drastic measures. Anyone, left or right, who can't understand that, is a pussycat.

DA

Yeah their safely securing a city where hardly anyone lives now. The reason NG guys are their right now isn't to secure the city from crime or militants but to secure the city from letting people in. makes sense of course. I just noticed from my past couple of comments I jump the fence to much.

Spetulhu

09-10-2005, 11:29

If I get called up for military duty I won't hesitate to collect guns from civilians in a disaster area. All armies I ever heard of reserve the right to confiscate whatever they need or want as long as there's a situation of emergency or martial law going. So does the one I'm part of.

Your house, your car, your guns, it doesn't matter. You can cry about your rights later. Maybe you'll even get compensation.

Geoffrey S

09-10-2005, 12:45

I doubt most people have the same physical means as you have to defend themselves. And what if a yob attacks you on the street with a knife?
Just out of curiosity, what is the position on carrying firearms in public in the US? I thought it was illegal, or is that only concealed firearms?

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 16:27

Why do you think Switzerland, land of a assualt rifle (in the real sense of the word) in every home, has the lowest crime in the world?There are just as many private firearms in the U.S. as there are in Switzerland. However, practically no one uses a firearm in anger in Switzerland (only 66 gun-related deaths a year, last time I checked). In the U.S. firearms are used to kill on a daily basis by just about every category of citizen.

The reason is in the nature of your society, not in the ownership of guns. The difference between American and Swiss society is not in the judicial regime; the U.S. punishes offenders more severely and has the death penalty on top of that. The difference is also not in some sort of welfare-induced criminal mentality of the American 'underclass' since the Swiss have ten times more and better welfare than Americans have and yet they do not have the same sort of underclass.

I believe the difference has to do with the fear and distrust that appear to reign supreme in your society. This whole thread for instance oozes fear and anger; fear of the U.S. government, fear of strangers, fear of terrorists, fear of your own police, fear of the world at large. That is not a healthy, let alone a constructive attitude. To put it succinctly, as the risk of sounding mildly offensive: ladies and gentlemen of the American persuasion, the world is not a jungle; your country is a jungle precisely because you have that outlook on the world.

Redleg

09-10-2005, 16:30

I believe the difference has to do with the fear and distrust that appear to reign supreme in your society. This whole thread for instance oozes fear and anger; fear of the U.S. government, fear of strangers, fear of terrorists, fear of your own police, fear of the world at large. That is not a healthy, let alone a constructive attitude. To put it succinctly, as the risk of sounding mildly offensive: ladies and gentlemen of the American persuasion, the world is not a jungle; your country is a jungle precisely because you have that outlook on the world.

A generalization AdrianII.

By the way I don't think the world is a Jungle - is something completely different.

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 16:36

A generalization AdrianII.What else do you expect if we discuss entire societies, Redleg? For instance, from you I would expect a balanced view on the different numbers of gun-related deaths in the U.S. and in countries such as Canada or Switzerland where gun ownership is just as widespread.

Don Corleone

09-10-2005, 16:51

None taken. I didn't make my point as clear as I should. What I was saying is that, personally I have enjoyed shooting, (and hence don't have an irrational prejudice against guns) and I know I am a safe person to trust with a gun. But because I can't say the same of the population at large I am happy not to have the right to own a gun myself as the price for ensuring "they" don't get them either.

I wasn't saying I should have a gun and "you" shouldn't.

I didn't mean 'me' necessarily. But can't the same arguments be applied to being a parent? I know I'm good at it, but I'm not too sure about everyone else? Or managing my own finances? Or any of a bunch of choices we wake for ourselves?

Rights aren't doled out. They're not something that you earn after you prove competence or join the right group. They're either universal, or they're not a right. This applies to any right, including the right to self-defense.

Don Corleone

09-10-2005, 16:54

I have a law degree.
Sorry, couldn't resist, you are a good person Don, I'd give you a honouree law degree to make you better then everyone else too.

*Please note: The above statement includes trace amounts of sarcasm, if congested in a serious manner, induce vomiting and consult a head doctor*

Aaha! The truth comes out!! ~D

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-10-2005, 17:15

So us Americans are just too violent, stupid, and afraid to own guns.

I can just see the next UN resolution: confiscate all American firearms from the country.

I wonder where they'll get the weapons inspectors from to do that?

scooter_the_shooter

09-10-2005, 17:24

Well I have been taught ever sense i was 10, that if this ever happens to me.....give them the bullets first!

I want the people doing this to be lined up on a wall and shot. I am not joking this is treason.

I know every one is tired of my gun ranting so this all i will say on the subject.

btw did any one read about the man who shot 3 looters ~:cheers: the scum deserved it.

.........................................................

I did not read the whole thread so this may have been posted but here is another movie.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/4936363/detail.html

go to the one that says

CHP Takes Part In Door-To-Door Searches

I think the lady has a smith and wesson model 10 with the pencil barrel (they dont make them like that any more sadly :embarassed: )

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 17:25

So us Americans are just too violent, stupid, and afraid to own guns.I don't think they are, nor are the Swiss or the Canadians.

But what is the fundamental difference that causes Americans to bring a gun to a conflict where Canadians or Swiss don't? Can you tell me that?

Kanamori

09-10-2005, 17:32

scooter_the_shooter

09-10-2005, 17:32

Carrying guns does not mean you are afraid.

I suggest you anti gunners go lurk at this forum

http://thefiringline.com/

While some of these guys are very extreme and freak even me out. They are very good at debating gun control.

Kaiser of Arabia

09-10-2005, 17:33

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 17:40

If I lived in a crappy city, I sure as hell would carry a gun in my car.I know I would probably own a gun if I lived in the U.S. and I wouldn't hesitate to bring it along in certain circumstances.
Unfortuneatly its not just some myth, our crime is awful.So how come?

Kaiser of Arabia

09-10-2005, 17:41

Because there aren't gansters w/ illegal automatics running around Canada or Switzerland? If I lived in a crappy city, I sure as hell would carry a gun in my car. I've been in situations were having a gun would've saved people from almost getting killed. Unfortuneatly its not just some myth, our crime is awful.
Because Canada and Switzerland don't have millions of mexicans, a good number of them criminals, pouring across their boarders every year with the intent to drain off of society and threaten good citizens with harm and death?

scooter_the_shooter

09-10-2005, 17:43

We are not tough enough on crime imo.

I would love to see 50 years with no parole for "minor crimes" like burglary.
I would like the death penalty to be used more often.

Strike For The South

09-10-2005, 17:44

We are not tough enough on crime imo.

I would love to see 50 years with no parole for "minor crimes" like burglary.
I would like the death penalty to be used more often.

Now that might be going over the top :dizzy2:

Kanamori

09-10-2005, 17:48

So how come?

Because we have a violent culture w/ easy acess to illegal guns. I maintain that very few cold-blooded crimes ever happen w/ a legally bought weapon, they'd have to be beyond stupid to do that.

scooter_the_shooter

09-10-2005, 17:48

Btw while we are talking about katrina.....did any one take steps to make your house more "looter proof" I am going to by an sks....and so is my uncle.

South....how I am going over the top. The people who do crime know it is wrong and they have hurt good people; why should society show them ANY mercy?

Strike For The South

09-10-2005, 17:54

South....how I am going over the top. The people who do crime know it is wrong and they have hurt good people; why should society show them ANY mercy?

But how far are you willing to go death penaly for what 50 years for wht our prison system is already under staffed and overcrowded we need to crack down on the arms dealers themselves fix the cuase not the symptons

scooter_the_shooter

09-10-2005, 17:59

Our prisons won't be over crowded if we use the death penalty more ~;)

I say use it for any violent crime with ( few) exceptions. after a few years people will be to afraid to commit crimes ~:cheers:

While I admit my ideas are pretty cruel... after a while crime rates will drastically drop!

Kaiser of Arabia

09-10-2005, 18:32

Redleg

09-10-2005, 18:41

What else do you expect if we discuss entire societies, Redleg? For instance, from you I would expect a balanced view on the different numbers of gun-related deaths in the U.S. and in countries such as Canada or Switzerland where gun ownership is just as widespread.

Naw -- however I should of but a smilie to show I was just being sarcastic - I forgot to do that on the post.

The Generalization though is still slighlty off - most American's in my opinion don't think that the world is a jungle. The issue of gun ownership is far more ingrained and complex then just that.

Look at the varying degree's of opinion on the issue of weapons in the United States. You will find those who support getting rid of all weapons, those who support getting rid of all firearms, those who support limitations on the types of weapons an individual is allowed to own, and those who support absolutely no restrictions on the type of weapons an individual can own.

Then you start getting into why people think this way. Some do indeed think that the world is a jungle and therefor they must protect themselves from it. Then you have those who support the 2nd Amendment based solely on the premise of why the founding fathers placed the Amendment in the constitution using the words that they did. To buy into the argument that the world is a jungle - I would have to live in constant fear of my survival - therefor I need the ability to protect myself from the greater predator. Well I don't live in fear, I don't own a single handgun, I have only a couple of weapons - one is an historical family piece that I am proud to have - an 1873 Winchester with a serial number below 30000. I also only own a shotgun and a hunting rifle.

Why is violence so ingrained in the american conscience is what you should be asking AdrainII and it really is a good question for all Americans to consider.

However Kaiser your xenophoia for Mexicans is beginning to show through.

Because Canada and Switzerland don't have millions of mexicans, a good number of them criminals, pouring across their boarders every year with the intent to drain off of society and threaten good citizens with harm and death?

Canada has a few problems along their coastal cities last time I really check the news about their violence issues. Not near as bad as the United States - but the illegal immigrantion problem also effects them - but primarily with Asians.

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 18:48

I have only a couple of weapons - one is an historical family piece that I am proud to have - an 1873 Winchester with a serial number below 30000.Woot! That must be a real beauty - Winchester being about the best 19th century lever rifle.
http://www.armchairgunshow.com/images/1173WW0085.jpg

Why is violence so ingrained in the american conscience is what you should be asking AdrainII and it really is a good question for all Americans to consider.I have been asking this for the past five posts, Redleg.

scooter_the_shooter

09-10-2005, 19:01

Redleg I will trade you my new winchester I just bought a couple months ago ~D (its probably not worth a third of what your is :help: )

I dont understand people who want guns banned...why do you fear them? If guns kill then pens write hate mail ~D

Don Corleone

09-10-2005, 19:03

Adrian, I understand your point, that as long as we're looking to defend ourselves, we'll see a threat out there, somewhere. It's an interesting viewpoint. I'm not certain I agree with it, as Canada has roughly the same firearms ownership rate (if not slightly higher) but has a much, much lower violent crime rate.

I honestly don't know why Americans tend to be more violent than most other Western socities. I mean, we do have Quentin Tarantino, but the Brits have Guy Ritchie. Not all that much difference, so it's not the media aspect. We have gun ownership, but so do the Canadians, so it's not that either. It's not a question of laws & legality. It might have something to do with the way our penal system is set up, as I believe our prisons are a hell of a lot worse than anyplace else. Beyond that, the only thing we have left is cultural defintions... how do we see ourselves and what do we as a society value.

If I lived in a place that I didn't feel the need to own a gun, I probably wouldn't. I might keep a shotgun for sporting (trap & skeet) but I wouldn't keep a .357 magnum next to my bed. But I live in a relatively pleasant middle-to-upper class neighborhood in a fairly nice part of town, and we've had 3 home invasions this year alone. You tell me if I'm being paranoid.

Redleg

09-10-2005, 19:04

Woot! That must be a real beauty - Winchester being about the best 19th century lever rifle.
http://www.armchairgunshow.com/images/1173WW0085.jpg

Mines a little more worn then that - it comes from about 5 generations of the family where at least 2 of them activitily used the the weapon. But its still in remarkable shape.

I have been asking this for the past five posts, Redleg.
[/quote]

I think they missed it in the langauge that you used. That is why I used the words that I did. I have been guilty of doing the same thing in a previous thread with Tribesman because of the point I wished to make and my desire to defend my point, so I sort of understand why some have missed what you were really asking. Sometimes its better to just point out what the question is - verus trying to lead them to the answer.

But what is the fundamental difference that causes Americans to bring a gun to a conflict where Canadians or Swiss don't? Can you tell me that?

You asked the question - but without the use of the word violence many missed what your question really was about. Why is there so much violence in the American Culture?

Spetulhu

09-10-2005, 19:06

And I won't hesitate to blow the head off of the theives. So we're at an equal standing. Freedom means more than any man's life.

Your freedom and property means nothing when the army secures an area. If your house is in the way it gets demolished. If you aim a weapon at soldiers you may get demolished. The US constitution may grant you rights, but precious few of them are considered in a war zone. If the army thinks armed civilians cause problems weapons get collected. Armed civilians shooting at troops get collected too, and they're not brave defenders of the Second Amendment. They're insurgents or even terrorists.

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 19:12

Beyond that, the only thing we have left is cultural defintions... how do we see ourselves and what do we as a society value.I know a lot of this has to do with the history of how your country came to be what it is. I studied this whole 2nd amendment issue a while back and I realised that Madison's amendment was really political and reflected the need of a militia culture for the young Republic to defend itself against foes external and internal. The Winchester is a symbol of that spirit. But the times they have a-changed, and sleeping with a locked and loaded .357 by my bedside would not be my idea of domestic bliss. Once again, that gun would be a symbol, not of freedom but of fear.

Kaiser of Arabia

09-10-2005, 19:13

However Kaiser your xenophoia for Mexicans is beginning to show through.

Canada has a few problems along their coastal cities last time I really check the news about their violence issues. Not near as bad as the United States - but the illegal immigrantion problem also effects them - but primarily with Asians.
I hate all illegals equally, Mexicans making up the majority of the illegal populance AFAIK.

Strike For The South

09-10-2005, 19:16

AntiochusIII

09-10-2005, 19:19

Rubbish. When the army tries to take your weapons, when you have been charged with no crime, it is blatant abuse of power. That's the exact reason we have the 2nd amendment: to blow the heads off of soldiers who try to take our guns.Erm...considering there HAS been people shooting at the rescuers themselves for no apparent reason, the army's reaction is most reasonable.

Oh yes, shoot them. Go ahead. Shoot those bloody grunts.

This may help, in a way, explains indirectly Adrian's legitimate question about American culture and its tendency to violence.

Or perhaps we could blame it on Hollywood and their glorification of guns? ~:handball:

Edit: Oh, I just forgot. The chief blame on gun culture belongs to Cowboy Bebop. It's just too good and has too large fanbase that its influence goes out of control. ~D

Don Corleone

09-10-2005, 19:19

I know a lot of this has to do with the history of how your country came to be what it is. I studied this whole 2nd amendment issue a while back and I realised that Madison's amendment was really political and reflected the need of a militia culture for the young Republic to defend itself against foes external and internal. The Winchester is a symbol of that spirit. But the times they have a-changed, and sleeping with a locked and loaded .357 by my bedside would not be my idea of domestic bliss. Once again, that gun would be a symbol, not of freedom but of fear.

I'm not arguing. But with 3 home invasions in my neighborhood in a year, and the amount of time I spend travelling for work, don't you think it would be foolishly irresponsible for me to tell my wife "Don't worry baby. Lock the bedroom door and dial 911. They'll be here in less than 15 minutes"?

Redleg

09-10-2005, 19:20

Rubbish. When the army tries to take your weapons, when you have been charged with no crime, it is blatant abuse of power. That's the exact reason we have the 2nd amendment: to blow the heads off of soldiers who try to take our guns.

Incorrect Gelatinous Cube when an area is declared a diaster area as New Orleans has been declared - and again read what the declaration states and the Lousiana Law states in that regrads.

Certain aspects of civil liberities are lost the minute that such a declaration is declared.

If you attempted to prevent the soldier from preforming his duties that were authorized by the civil authority based upon the declaration of emergancy - you would be in violation of the Constitution - not the soldier. That declaration entitles the authority to ask you to leave, if you refuse to leave that declaration entitles the government to force you to leave. Which is where New Orleans is now. When the government is going to force you to leave - its smart of them to also take your weapons before they attempt to force you to comply with the law that the civil authority has asked you once to comply with and now they have to force you.

Crazed Rabbit

09-10-2005, 19:29

Erm...considering there HAS been people shooting at the rescuers themselves for no apparent reason, the army's reaction is most reasonable.

No, it is most unreasonable and stupid. It is punishing people who have not commited any crime, who are just sitting at home with guns for protection. It's like arguing that since some crooks use cars, all cars should be consficated.

Crazed Rabbit

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 19:34

I'm not arguing. But with 3 home invasions in my neighborhood in a year, and the amount of time I spend travelling for work, don't you think it would be foolishly irresponsible for me to tell my wife "Don't worry baby. Lock the bedroom door and dial 911. They'll be here in less than 15 minutes"?In Switzerland, they do respond within 15 minutes.

scooter_the_shooter

09-10-2005, 19:36

Redleg

09-10-2005, 19:39

I'd be willing to bet the founding fathers would be apalled at the forced removal of people from their homes. If they wanna sit around in a flooded city, that's their business.

You might be surprised on what they would of thought concerning this issue.

AntiochusIII

09-10-2005, 19:42

No, it is most unreasonable and stupid. It is punishing people who have not commited any crime, who are just sitting at home with guns for protection. It's like arguing that since some crooks use cars, all cars should be consficated.

Crazed RabbitThe army is defending itself, as well. They're trying to secure the area - make it safer. This is a disaster area - a martial law area. What do you expect? Let them risk their own soldiers just so to satisfy somebody's sudden streak of "freedom" in a disaster zone? More guns and bigger guns for everybody are the answers against the rampant shooting with guns?

Please...

Redleg

09-10-2005, 19:44

Cube is right. Do any of you want big brother coming taking your guns and property, I know I don't!

It seems like were becoming the UK (in some ways) :help:

No offence to the UK members but from what I read about your country it seems kind of like a police state :embarassed: with all the banned guns, registered knives, and security cameras. :dizzy2:

Again big brother is not coming to take your weapons - over reaction is just that - over reaction to the news story. Try actually reading about what is going on - then making up imagary scenerio's that the 2nd Ammendment will be ended based upon this one event.

Don Corleone

09-10-2005, 19:49

In Switzerland, they do respond within 15 minutes.

My wife and child could be raped, tortured and murdered in 10. Assuming the police bother to come. THIS is the grand plan you have for the safety of my family? We'll make certain a good police report gets written after the fact?

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 20:07

THIS is the grand plan you have for the safety of my family?Yours is a gun. I would not call that a grand plan either. Three burglars or rapists, armed with guns, would easily overwhelm you.

I already said I would probably have a gun too if I lived in the United States. But I wouldn't stop thinking about ways to get rid of the darned things and the whole violent culture associated with them. If you don't do that, you are going to be sitting there with that gun beside your bed, looking at five times the murder rate of Switzerland and a whole lot more no-go areas than Switzerland, a whole lot more can't-do things, kids growing up in cars instead of on the streets, etcetera.

Ronin

09-10-2005, 20:09

My wife and child could be raped, tortured and murdered in 10. Assuming the police bother to come. THIS is the grand plan you have for the safety of my family? We'll make certain a good police report gets written after the fact?

one can dream up extreme cenarious to justify about anything one wants....

the fact stands that these events do not happen with any kind of regularity to justify having arms in the hands of regular citizens, certainly not enough to justify all the problems that those guns out there create...

but...like adrianII said and i think correctly the problem is one with the society´s views towards others.....frankly i´m at a loss to justify where such a behaviour comes from in the american society...but the truth is that it is there...

Samurai Waki

09-10-2005, 20:18

Americans don't like change. Thats were the behavior comes from.

scooter_the_shooter

09-10-2005, 20:27

Ok gun grabbers I have not hurt any one or intend to unless it is for a good reason. But yet you want to take my property away? And my favorite means of fun (yes target shooting is better then the tw games)

If you don't want a gun fine but dont take mine. If you want to disarm america go ahead and try but you won't last long.

Why are you people so afraid of guns...a gun has never hurt anyone. You should be after the criminals instead of the guns!

I need to go out and get me that sks with the evil bayonet and grenade mount....just to anger the anti gunners ~D

WHY cant you anti gunners just leave us alone? You dont like guns? fine DONT BUY ONE THEN. You like guns? fine go buy one and exercise your god given right to be able to defend your self!

scooter_the_shooter

09-10-2005, 20:39

Cube is right you hear things like that on the news almost every day in the USA :embarassed:

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 20:42

Extreme events? LOL.Hey, I think we get the point ~;)
Come live in America for a few years, pal. Try New York, or another big city, and tell me that that is an Extreme Event. LOL.Los Angeles was an eye-opener for me. Rape is just around the corner there, I know. It is even part of the initiation rituals for new gang members. But how did this come about? And don't give us the crap about welfare and being soft on crime, because if those were the causes all of The Netherlands would be one big Skid Row.

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 20:51

And, of course, you have to realize that it is protected under the constitution. And that is something alot of us take very seriously.I know that. And unlike most Euro-muppets I do realise that effective gun control would a tall order given the number of illegal guns and the networks used to (re)distribute them. I would own a gun myself if I lived in the United States, no doubt about it. But that wouldn't stop me thinking about how to get out of the mess because, you see, it is not life as I know it or how I would want it to be for my kids. It is a bit like tort practice in the U.S. -- I know where it comes from, but I wouldn't want to live with it.

scooter_the_shooter

09-10-2005, 20:57

I could seee why you would not want your kids around crime....but whats wrong with guns? they are not bad.

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 21:07

I could seee why you would not want your kids around crime....but whats wrong with guns? they are not bad.Guns aren't bad, my friend, if only they were not used so often on American streets. A year ago I would have said that gun ownership was the main reason for that violence, but my views have changed in the meantime. Lawd, ah have seen the light...

It is not the number of privately owned guns that sets your country apart, it is the violence in American culture as Redleg called it. That's what we are on about, not gun ownership.

Don Corleone

09-10-2005, 21:32

one can dream up extreme cenarious to justify about anything one wants....

the fact stands that these events do not happen with any kind of regularity to justify having arms in the hands of regular citizens, certainly not enough to justify all the problems that those guns out there create...

but...like adrianII said and i think correctly the problem is one with the society´s views towards others.....frankly i´m at a loss to justify where such a behaviour comes from in the american society...but the truth is that it is there...

I had three home invasions in my neighborhood alone (not my city, my neighborhood). How much more regular should they be before I should get concerned?

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 21:43

I had three home invasions in my neighborhood alone (not my city, my neighborhood). How much more regular should they be before I should get concerned?Every American home invader knows that the home owner probably owns a gun. And there have been 3 invasions in your neighbourhood alone? Apparently guns do not deter invaders. So much for your grand plan, Don.

scooter_the_shooter

09-10-2005, 21:49

There is only a gun in 1 in 3 houses so he has a pretty good chance of getting a non gun owner.

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 21:54

There is only a gun in 1 in 3 houses so he has a pretty good chance of getting a non gun owner.That is the national average. In middle class homes the ratio seems to be over 50 %.

scooter_the_shooter

09-10-2005, 22:02

Guns do help stop lots of crime they are used in defense 2.5 million time a year in the US alone (by civilians not the police)

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 22:04

Guns do help stop lots of crime they are used in defense 2.5 million time a year in the US alone (by civilians not the police)They do not stop the home invasions in Don's neighbourhood.

Crazed Rabbit

09-10-2005, 22:08

Perhaps because the people in his neighberhood don't have guns, and the criminals prey on middle class areas where residents think nothing will happen?

EDIT: How about dealing with the fact that guns defend 2.5 million people a year, instead of trying to weasel out of it by throwing out red herrings?

Crazed Rabbit

Kaiser of Arabia

09-10-2005, 22:09

I just realized that somthing like this started off the Turner Diaries. This truely is the end.

Don Corleone

09-10-2005, 22:14

They do not stop the home invasions in Don's neighbourhood.

Aaah, but North Carolina has fairly restrictive gun laws. South Carolina doesn't have such a tight clamp and their violent crime rate is signficantly less.

Don Corleone

09-10-2005, 22:16

Every American home invader knows that the home owner probably owns a gun. And there have been 3 invasions in your neighbourhood alone? Apparently guns do not deter invaders. So much for your grand plan, Don.

They haven't come to my house yet. And no, most people are not armed around me. Many of the cities around here have laws banning firearms ownership, so if you live within the city limits, you're not allowed to own a gun.

I guess at some point, we ought to look at the fact that we're arguing apples and oranges here. It seems that for Adrian you could substitute the term 'prevent crime' for 'own a gun'. In terms of where I'm coming from you could substitute 'defend yourself'.

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 22:17

Perhaps because the people in his neighberhood don't have guns, and the criminals prey on middle class areas where residents think nothing will happen?Middle class peope own more guns than anyone else in the U.S. Try and weasel your way out of that.

Meanwhile, watch how I weasel out of the 2.5 million. Could you tell me how many crimes were prevented by other means than using a gun? Just so we can compare, see. Otherwise, your number is pretty useless.

Ser Clegane

09-10-2005, 22:24

Meanwhile, watch how I weasel out of the 2.5 million. Could you tell me how many crimes were prevented by other means than using a gun? Just so we can compare, see. Otherwise, your number is pretty useless.

I would also like to add that it would be appropriate style and common courtesy in debates not to just throw some numbers around but to provide a source for these numbers, so that anybody who is intersted would be able to see

a) who came up with these numbers
b) how they came up with the numbers
c) what cases of crime prevention are included in these numbers

Thanks in advance :bow:

scooter_the_shooter

09-10-2005, 22:34

I get my numbers from the NRA and other pro gun sites ~D

I dont know who has the truest numbers.

For example depending on where you look there are 50-80 million gun owners in the USA.

Depending on where you look there are 150 to 200,500 million guns in the USA

depending on where you look there are 1.5 to 2.5 million times a gun is used for defence a year.

So I just picked the ones that helped my agenda the most (but are some where near the middle)... just like the brady campaign does ~D

...........................

armed citizen...scroll down and pick a state!

http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

Ser Clegane

09-10-2005, 22:39

I get my numbers from the NRA and other pro gun sites

I thought so much ~;)

But seriously, although that source implies that we should treat the numbers carefully (as the source is obviously biased) that does not mean that they are automatically false.

Do you have a link were they actually give more details on the numbers?
I think it would be better to judge the credibility data based on the methodology and not just discount it on any perceived bias of the source. :bow:

scooter_the_shooter

09-10-2005, 22:46

Here are some nra links

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQs/Default.aspx?Section=70

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQs/Default.aspx?Section=27

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQs/Default.aspx?Section=25

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQs/Default.aspx?Section=21

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQs/Default.aspx?Section=21

scooter_the_shooter

09-10-2005, 22:50

I frequent ak47 world often they have some nice info on aks....although I bought one they dont recomend.

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 22:51

Aaah, but North Carolina has fairly restrictive gun laws. South Carolina doesn't have such a tight clamp and their violent crime rate is significantly less.

Here are some numbers I found that support your statement about differing crime rates.

Year 2000

South Carolina per capita (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/sccrime.htm)
Murder 5.8
Robbery 146.6
Burglary 969.3

North Carolina per capita (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nccrimn.htm)
Murder 7.0
Robbery 156.5
Burglary 1,216.1

However, just about every source I look at says that gun laws in North Carolina are softer than in most of the rest of the United States. Two-thirds of North Carolinians live in homes where a firearm is present. North Carolina ranks ninth in the US in gun homicides per capita. Suicide by firearm is also more frequent in NC than in the US as a whole. In 1998, firearms were used in 67 percent of murders, 47 percent of robberies, and 30 percent of aggravated assaults committed in North Carolina. Every five days in NC a child age 17 or younger is killed by a gun in a homicide, suicide or accidental shooting. Between 1986 and 1996, the firearm death rate for ages 5-14 rose 66 percent, and for ages 15-24 the rate increased 46 percent. Many illegal guns from NC turn up in murders in places as far as New York. Boston is complaining aboutthe constant smuggling of guns from both North and South Carolina into the city.

I accept your remarks about NC city councils limiting gun ownership at face value. Of course if you limit gun ownership only in one particular area of a State where guns are otherwise very prevalent and the purchase of guns for criminal purposes is so easy, you are turning the residents of that one particular area into sitting ducks.

scooter_the_shooter

09-10-2005, 22:53

I dont get why people bring up suicide with guns....If they use a knife, gun, or rope they are still dead :dizzy2:

scooter_the_shooter

09-10-2005, 22:59

true.... but people use the sucide rate as reasons to ban them :dizzy2:

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 23:19

Many of the cities around here have laws banning firearms ownership, so if you live within the city limits, you're not allowed to own a gun.I thought North Carolina had a preemption law since 1996? For non-Americans: that is a State law forbidding local city or county governments from enacting any local gun laws that are stricter than the State gun laws.

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 23:34

I would also like to add that it would be appropriate style and common courtesy in debates not to just throw some numbers around (..)Howdy sheriff. Making your round of the board? :cowboy:

Crazed Rabbit

09-10-2005, 23:35

I would also like to add that it would be appropriate style and common courtesy in debates not to just throw some numbers around but to provide a source for these numbers, so that anybody who is intersted would be able to see

Here ya go:
(EDIT: this is the site for the 2.5million defensive gun uses-DGUs)
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Here's something about the murder rate in Washington DC, which has climbed 134% in the last 30 years (after banning guns), while the murder rate has dropped in the rest of the nation.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176c.html

Here's another on how resisting armed robbery with a gun is the safest (ie. least likely way to get injured) way-bar none.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html

The important bit (thought the site also has many other reasons why gun control is bad):

Gun control advocates like to cite a recent article in the New Enqland Journal of Medicine that argues that for every intruder killed by a gun, 43 other people die as a result of gunshot wounds incurred in the home.[43] (Again, most of them are suicides; many of the rest are assaultive family members killed in legitimate self-defense.) However, counting the number of criminal deaths is a bizarre method of measuring anticrime utility; no one evaluates police efficacy by tallying the number of criminals killed. Defensive use of a gun is far more likely to involve scaring away an attacker by brandishing the gun, or by firing it without causing death. Even if the numbers of criminal deaths were the proper measure of anticrime efficacy, citizens acting with full legal justification kill at least 30 percent more criminals than do the police

Crazed Rabbit

lars573

09-10-2005, 23:42

I dont get why people bring up suicide with guns....If they use a knife, gun, or rope they are still dead :dizzy2:
How to kill yourself like a man by Maddox (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=manly_suicide)

On the situtation in NO. All you pro-no-gun-laws people need to sit down take a depressiant and listen for a second. NO is under martial law/emergency measures what ever you want to call it. This means civil liberties/due process/the US constitution and all that are out the f-ing window until the emergency is over. The NG is using Stalin logic, that is 1 man 1 problem 1 bullet no problem. They are taking everbodies guns because finding the people who are shooting at the resue workers, probably for no other reason than to stick it to the man, would be unfeasable. So they grab everones guns temporarily until they clean all the shit off the fan and the walls. Anyone who believes that taking guns from NO people who is the first step to taking everyones guns is a paranoid gun fondelling myopic alarmist.

Adrian II

09-10-2005, 23:59

Here ya go:
(EDIT: this is the site for the 2.5million defensive gun uses-DGUs)
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.htmlRight. It says not 2.5, but 2 million. And that number is the outcome of Gary Klecks research. His research does not compare defensive gun use to other defensive strategies, either individual or collective ones.

More importantly, the quote from Gary Kleck has the following conclusion:

The positive associations often found between aggregate levels of violence and gun ownership appear to be primarily due to violence increasing gun ownership, rather than the reverse. Gun availability does affect the rates of gun violence (e.g. the gun homicide rate, gun suicide rate, gun robbery rate) and the fraction of violent acts which involve guns (e.g. the percent of homicides, suicides or robberies committed with guns); it just does not affect total rates of violence (total homicide rate, total suicide rate, total robbery rate, etc.).In other words, the availability of guns turns non-gun crimes into gun crimes, that is all. The net effect of increasing or diminishing gun possession on the crime rate would be zero.

Violence increases gun ownership, not the reverse. Which leaves the extraordinary violence in American society to be explained. And that, as I said above, is the issue that interests me most.

Spetulhu

09-11-2005, 01:58

The NG is using Stalin logic, that is 1 man 1 problem 1 bullet no problem.

That's no Stalin logic, it's soldier logic. Shoot at the soldiers, get killed. Give them your gun when they ask for it, you get out and can ask for compensation later. Not to mention pay for news articles in any paper that wants to hear how the evil gun grabbers took your gun!

Redleg

09-11-2005, 02:09

The whole premise of the initial articles posted at the beginning of the thread is based upon hyperbole of the situation in New Orleans being used by some to promote their own political idealogue views about what the Constitution states and means.

Some really need to read from more then just one source and viewpoint.

What is going on in New Orleans has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. If you want to protest what is happening talk about the suspension of Habeas Corpus and the suppression of the 4th Amendment by the Governor of Louisiana instituting emergancy measures that are in pursuitant of the Laws of Lousiana but over ride those to rights granted in the United States Constitution.

The beginning of the End for the 2nd Amendment my horse's rear end.

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-11-2005, 02:56

Well Adrian, it might have something to do with how violence was used several times in defense of this country. The Revolution, War of 1812, Civil War, plus the violence in settling the West and numerous wars with the Native Americans and Mexicans.

I don't really know what it comes from, AII. :shrug:

lars573

09-11-2005, 03:59

That's no Stalin logic, it's soldier logic. Shoot at the soldiers, get killed. Give them your gun when they ask for it, you get out and can ask for compensation later. Not to mention pay for news articles in any paper that wants to hear how the evil gun grabbers took your gun!
No it's Stalin logic, he applied that formula to everything. No just war but economics the state bearaucracy everything. In this case it's,

1 man=people with guns
1 problem=some people with guns shooting at the relief effort
1 bullet=take away all the guns not in military/police/other security force's hands
No problem.

Spetulhu

09-11-2005, 04:53

No it's Stalin logic, he applied that formula to everything. No just war but economics the state bearaucracy everything.

By Stalin logic you should now be taken out behind the shed and shot. Discussing Stalin's logic is not allowed. ~;)

lars573

09-11-2005, 05:27

Only if I questioned the validity or the correctness of his policies. I was in fact defending and explaining them. By Stalin logic Cube, Rabbit, and Caesar are all the "problems" that require solving. :rifle: Anyway were going off course. The US NG taking all the guns in NO is an action I can find no fault with in any way shape or form. They *probably* could have said anyone caught with a fire arm will be shot-to-harm on site. Like I said civil libierties and due process are nullified by emergency measures. Emergency measures and it's big brother Martial law are designed to turn any nation into a police state over night.

Redleg

09-11-2005, 06:20

I guess I'm just fundamentally opposed to "Emergency Measures" then. And Martial Law as well, but that should go without saying.

The government should not ever, under any circumstances, have the right to just declare the constitution null and void for a certain area. Disaster or not.

You might want to check out Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2 of the United States Constitution then.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Xiahou

09-11-2005, 06:31

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. I don't think either rebellion or invasion applies in NO though. Also, that passage doesn't speak to suspending the Bill of Rights.

Redleg

09-11-2005, 06:59

I don't think either rebellion or invasion applies in NO though. Also, that passage doesn't speak to suspending the Bill of Rights.

What do you think suspending Habeas Corpus does?

What do you think a large group of people firing at the authorities is? It can be ruled as an insurrection. Which is an other name for rebellion.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Look at the history of the LA riots and the use of the 7th Infantry Division. It provides somewhat of an examble and comparrison. Not exact but both have similiarities.

From what I know it does the following.

It null and voids amendments 4 through 9 just by defination of it removing the requirment for the government to have a Writ of Habeas Corpus before they pursue any action against an individual.

Amendment IV.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Suspending Habeas Corpus means that the government no longer needs a warrant to conduct a seizure of your person or your property.

Amendment V.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No Grand Jury is needed to charge an individual with a infamous crime. There is no due process of law.

Amendment VI.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Yep just check out the history of people who were held prisoners for certain crimes during the Civil War. That shows where this amendment was violated very throughly by the government.

Amendment VIII.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The government does not have to grant you bail, nor does it have to hold a hearing to hold you in a jail. No hearings at all - all they have to do is pick you up.

Amendment IX.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just by suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus the federal government will violate this amendment.

Ser Clegane

09-11-2005, 07:08

Howdy sheriff. Making your round of the board? :cowboy:

Yup.

Here goes another round :shifty:

Xiahou

09-11-2005, 08:43

Calling New Orleans a rebellion is downright ridiculous. Martial Law should be reserved for real organized rebellions, and real invasions.That, and it hasn't been declared by Congress- so, legally, its not insurrection.

What do you think suspending Habeas Corpus does?I'm aware of what it does, but the ammendments (by definition) were written after the original text of the Constitution- you know, to ammend it.

As you've pointed out, the Bill of Rights, sadly, isn't worth much anymore. I could show examples of how virtually all of them are "legally" violated on a daily basis- not just in an emergency.

Redleg

09-11-2005, 08:57

I'd call something on the scale of NO a job for the local police, and maybe some National Gaurd if it's too much for the cops, to be dealt with in a civilized manner. Calling New Orleans a rebellion is downright ridiculous. Martial Law should be reserved for real organized rebellions, and real invasions.

I haven't called it a rebellion now have I?

What I have shown is that the constitution does indeed have language that restricts parts of the constitution and its amendments called the Bill of Rights so declares the necessity of it. Which is a direct counter to your statement of

The government should not ever, under any circumstances, have the right to just declare the constitution null and void for a certain area. Disaster or not.

The governor of Louisana has declared it a diaster area in accordance with Louisana state law. In that law it has provisions that do indeed allow the government to function in exactly the method in which they (the government of Louisana - since its still National Guard and other local authority) are currently functioning.

The 2nd Amendment has not been violated to the extend that some of you would like us to believe. What has been done is a restriction in civil liberties because of the nature of the diaster and the declarations of the Governor of Louisana in accordance with her state's constitution and laws.

Obviousily the situation in New Orleans is beyond the scale of the local police since the Mayor requested not only state assistance but federal assistance. Obviousily the situation is beyond the control of the State authorities - because they would not have requested Federal aid. Now it could be seen as beyond the abilities of the Federal system - but since the situation is stablizing in some ways - the Feds are begining to get a handle on it. (woefully slow in my opinion).

Calling what is happening in New Orleans a rebellion is not ridiculous its a little extreme but since a city government that has lost control of its citizens and the town. Was their civil authority in New Orleans able to handle the crisis and the violence that was going on? Much of it similiar to what happen in Los Angeles in 1992.

Before I go on lets look at how insurrection is defined by Websters

an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

What is ignoring the civil authorities mandatory evacuation order?

What is looting? What causes it and does it classfy by its act an insurrection against the civil authority?

The definition according to Websters:
looting is a : to plunder or sack in war b : to rob especially on a large scale and usually by violence or corruption

What is shooting weapons at the establish civil authority which is trying to restore order for a city?

Do you reconginze that an emergency declartion been declared in accordance with the Louisana State Constitution and the Laws of Louisana?

Do you recongize that this allows the state to take the necessary steps to restore order within the boundries of their state to the extend that is stipulated in the law?

Do you understand the the United States Constitution does indeed allow the state to do this - when the governor deems it necessary? And that the United States Constitution also allows the President to do so - if it meets the conditions placed in the clauses already mentioned.

Now to use a similiar scenerio - for violence and looting - not diaster

On May 1, 1992, President Bush issued Proclamation 6427, commanding "all persons engaged in such acts of violence and disorder to cease and desist therefrom and to disperse and retire peaceably forthwith."(32) That same day, he issued Executive Order 12804, which stated that:

Units and members of the Armed Forces of the United States and Federal law enforcement officers will be used to suppress the violence described in [Proclamation 6427] and to restore law and order in about the City and County of Los Angeles, and other districts of California.(33)

http://www.gunowners.org/prespower.htm#California,%201992

Now lets look at the proclamation and executive order.

http://www.uhuh.com/laws/donncoll/eo/1992/P6427.TXT

Law and Order in the City and County of Los Angeles, and Other
Districts of California

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

WHEREAS, I have been informed by the Governor of California that
conditions of domestic violence and disorder exist in and about the City
and County of Los Angeles, and other districts of California, endangering
life and property and obstructing execution of the laws, and that the
available law enforcement resources, including the National Guard, are
unable to suppress such acts of violence and to restore law and order;

WHEREAS, such domestic violence and disorder are also obstructing the
execution of the laws of the United States, in the affected area; and

WHEREAS, the Governor of California has requested Federal assistance in
suppressing the violence and restoring law and order in the affected area.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE BUSH, President of the United States of America,
by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws
of the United States, including Chapter 15 of Title 10 of the United
States Code, do command all persons engaged in such acts of violence and
disorder to cease and desist therefrom and to disperse and retire
peaceably forthwith.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of May, in
the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-two, and of the
Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and
sixteenth.

GEORGE BUSH

Can't seem to find Executive Order 12804 on line - so it might just have to wait a bit.

However do you now want to deny that Maritial Law has been used to restore order within the borders of the United States? That our constitution allows for this necessity - no matter how repungate it would seem to the average citizen. Most understand that this was done during the American Civil War - but few know the number of times that its been done outside of that. The LA riots of 1992 is the most recent use - and it was minimized because of the Language of the Promclaimation and the Executive order - that and the General in charge of the JTF was not willing to violate the Posse Comatias Act - even though many lawyers would of stated that he could of the with language used in both the proclaimation and the executive order giving the military the authority to intercede in the behave of the citizens with policing actions.

Redleg

09-11-2005, 09:08

That, and it hasn't been declared by Congress- so, legally, its not insurrection.

Well I haven't even gotten into how Lousiana law allows for the state to do exactly what is being done in New Orleans when a diaster is declared. Since some wanted to call what was happening in New Orleans as the beginning of the end of the 2nd Amendment - I decided to use a little hyperbole of my own - when regular words were not working and this turned into another gun debate.

When its not a gun debate but a Constitutional authority debate about what the Federal Government can or can not do in an declared diaster or emergancy. Its also a debate about wether or not the state authority can also suspend certain rights within the state for similiar reasons.

If the Federal government can do it - and the state constitution also allows for it - then as long as the government is acting within the constraints of the Constitution and the establish legal code - such comments like GC's of

Rubbish. When the army tries to take your weapons, when you have been charged with no crime, it is blatant abuse of power. That's the exact reason we have the 2nd amendment: to blow the heads off of soldiers who try to take our guns.

Statements like this shows a lack of understand about what the constitution says. Its a good think GC is not in New Orleans because he might have found out that he not only would of deserved to get shot by the National Guard soldiers - but that he was indeed violating the law and the constitution while the soldiers were fulfilling their obligations under the constitution.

I'm aware of what it does, but the ammendments (by definition) were written after the original text of the Constitution- you know, to ammend it.

However those amendments do not supercede the two clauses I referenced.
Those two clause do indeed allow the government to restrict your liberities under certain conditions.

As you've pointed out, the Bill of Rights, sadly, isn't worth much anymore. I could show examples of how virtually all of them are "legally" violated on a daily basis- not just in an emergency.

Sure they can be "legally" violated - that is the nature of the consitution - legislative laws can futher refine what the constitution states.

Paul Peru

09-11-2005, 12:06

Possession of a firearm becomes an offence.

People are then arrested for possessing illegal firearms.

Therefore the ban was a failure because "gun crime" is rising.

I think gun crimes are probably on the rise in Norway as well.
It is now a punishable offense for hunters to carry lead shot. ~:)

bmolsson

09-11-2005, 13:19

Just for the record: I am for gun control.....

lars573

09-11-2005, 15:30

Redleg, here's the beef:

Martial Law is wrong. It is punishing the many for the deeds of the few. If the constitution is on my side, awsome. If some law or another agrees with me, cool.

But whether that is or is not the case, I am fundamentally opposed to Martial Law.
Well your most definatly wrong on that one. While Martial law can be abused (it's how Hitler took absolute control of Germany in 1933) it is in some cases nessisary to save lives. In a disaster situation like NO the regualr froms of due process wouldn't work. In fact going by buisness as usual would have cost many lives. The response would have been 2 times slower and thousands more would have died of starvation/thrist. Governments need the ability to shred the rights of their citizens at certain times. NO is one of those times. If not for the emergency powers taken by the state NO would be a toilet for the next 20 years.

Also to go back to Redlegs point about Habeas Corpus.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
They are obviously going by the public safety part. In a case where civil authority has fallen apart like NO is a defacto rebellion. It's not safe there no one has real control of the place.

Kaiser of Arabia

09-11-2005, 15:43

Sure they can be "legally" violated - that is the nature of the consitution - legislative laws can futher refine what the constitution states.
The bill of rights has been worthless for some time because of these bloody amendments and the like. Can't you see the opressive Communist government is begining to destroy our fundemental rights as a human being? Maybe I'm just paranoid, I don't want to beleive it's true, but the signs are all there. What is to stop the Government from declaring the entire United States a disaster zone and stealing all of our guns? Then opressing our rights to free speech, destroying our freedom of religion, getting back Prohibition, forcing us to testify in court (somthing we lost long ago but still), and holding us without trial in state-founded Gulags in Alaska?

lars573

09-11-2005, 15:54

Redleg

09-11-2005, 16:41

Redleg, here's the beef:

Martial Law is wrong. It is punishing the many for the deeds of the few. If the constitution is on my side, awsome. If some law or another agrees with me, cool.

The constitution is not on your side - Martial Law was one of the possiblities considered in the formation of the constitution. The Law does not agree with you either - one must read the law as it relates to Lousiana and the measures that the governor has instituted because of the situation. In fact the Law and the Constitution of both the state of Lousiana and the United States are more on the side of the governor on this issue then on yours.

But whether that is or is not the case, I am fundamentally opposed to Martial Law.

Being opposed to it is one thing, however to state that what is happening in Louisana is unconstitutional - would be false. To say what is going on in Louisana as it relates to New Orleans and weapons is unconsitutional would again be false. The 2nd Ammendment is not being violated in the way some of you are allegeding in this discussion. Saying you would shoot the soldier who is performing his duty as proscribed by both the Constitution and his enlistment oath - and especially when he is following the lawful orders of the governor of the state of Louisana - well that would fall into the category of insurrection.

Redleg

09-11-2005, 16:47

The bill of rights has been worthless for some time because of these bloody amendments and the like. Can't you see the opressive Communist government is begining to destroy our fundemental rights as a human being? Maybe I'm just paranoid, I don't want to beleive it's true, but the signs are all there. What is to stop the Government from declaring the entire United States a disaster zone and stealing all of our guns? Then opressing our rights to free speech, destroying our freedom of religion, getting back Prohibition, forcing us to testify in court (somthing we lost long ago but still), and holding us without trial in state-founded Gulags in Alaska?

Your right your being paranoid. The government and our laws were initially establish with as much flexiblity as possible to allow for adjustments in society.

Are some of those founding principles being violated in the name of progress - most likely - but that was also the founding fathers intent - to allow the nation to grow and develop as it aged. As long as the fundmental principles of the Constitution are not changed - those who oppose measures will always be able to protest.

What is to stop the Govenment from declaring the entire United States a disaster zone - well for one the laws are written that certain criteria must be meet for it to be declared such, to to force citizens to do things other criteria must be meet. Measures such as those used in New Orleans are currently only used as a last resort. Just like sending in the 7th Infantry into Los Angeles in 1992 was a last resort by the federal government because local authority lost complete control.

But then again one of the reasons the government would hesitate in doing such a thing is yes indeed the 2nd Amendment. However again going into hyperbole that the measures taken in New Orleans to restore order is beginning of the end of the 2nd Amendment is just that. Hyperbole - extravagant exaggeration.

Crazed Rabbit

09-11-2005, 18:55

But then again one of the reasons the government would hesitate in doing such a thing is yes indeed the 2nd Amendment. However again going into hyperbole that the measures taken in New Orleans to restore order is beginning of the end of the 2nd Amendment is just that. Hyperbole - extravagant exaggeration.

Exaggeration? I think not. There was no real reason to consficate the firearms of the people staying at their homes. There is no chance that they would actually get the guns of someone who had been perfoming criminal acts. Do you think the people who have their guns stolen are going to get their guns back? The gov't is just using this as a chance to take guns.

Martial Law has not been declared (LA state law doesn't have it), and the 'emergency situation' does not provide for siezing guns.

Soon, every liberal city council that hates guns will use a storm or blizzard where any criminal uses a gun to sieze all guns. Its the legitamizing of stealing guns for 'safety'. But I guess you don't care, just as long as they don't take your long guns, huh?

Crazed Rabbit

Kaiser of Arabia

09-11-2005, 21:13

The constitution and the people who represent you. The rule of law and such in the US hasn't degraded to the that paranoid people like you think it has Kaiser. Oh yeah I'd becareful your starting to sound like a socialist hippie with all that anti-government crap.
Lol, I'm too insanly conservative. I'm the opposite of a Hippy: I fear Communism and the left, rather than Fascism and the right :balloon2:

lars573

09-11-2005, 22:58

Redleg

09-12-2005, 00:05

Exaggeration? I think not. There was no real reason to consficate the firearms of the people staying at their homes. There is no chance that they would actually get the guns of someone who had been perfoming criminal acts. Do you think the people who have their guns stolen are going to get their guns back? The gov't is just using this as a chance to take guns.

Indeed it is an exaggeration to claim that this beginning of the end of the 2nd Amendment.

Martial Law has not been declared (LA state law doesn't have it), and the 'emergency situation' does not provide for siezing guns.

You need to check out the Louisana Law there - you might be surprised what you find.

Here I will give you some help

Powers of the governor

A. The governor is responsible for meeting the dangers to the state and people presented by emergencies or disasters, and in order to effectuate the provisions of this Chapter, the governor may issue executive orders, proclamations, and regulations and amend or rescind them. Executive orders, proclamations, and regulations so issued shall have the force and effect of law.

B.(1) A disaster or emergency, or both, shall be declared by executive order or proclamation of the governor if he finds a disaster or emergency has occurred or the threat thereof is imminent. The state of disaster or emergency shall continue until the governor finds that the threat of danger has passed or the disaster or emergency has been dealt with to the extent that the emergency conditions no longer exist and terminates the state of disaster or emergency by executive order or proclamation, but no state of disaster or emergency may continue for longer than thirty days unless renewed by the governor.

(2) The legislature, by petition signed by a majority of the surviving members of either house, may terminate a state of disaster or emergency at any time. This petition terminating the state of emergency or disaster may establish a period during which no other declaration of emergency or disaster may be issued. Thereupon, the governor shall issue an executive order or proclamation ending the state of disaster or emergency.

(3) All executive orders or proclamations issued under this Subsection shall indicate the nature of the disaster or emergency, the area or areas which are or may be affected, and the conditions which have brought it about or which make possible the termination of the state of disaster or emergency. An executive order or proclamation shall be disseminated promptly by means calculated to bring its contents to the attention of the general public and, unless the circumstances attendant upon the disaster or emergency prevent or impede it, promptly filed with the Military Department, state of Louisiana, office of emergency preparedness, and the secretary of state.

C. The declaration of an emergency or disaster by the governor shall activate the state's emergency response and recovery program under the command of the director of the state office of homeland security and emergency preparedness.

D. In addition to any other powers conferred upon the governor by law, he may do any or all of the following:

(1) Suspend the provisions of any regulatory statute prescribing the procedures for conduct of state business, or the orders, rules, or regulations of any state agency, if strict compliance with the provisions of any statute, order, rule, or regulation would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action in coping with the emergency.

(2) Utilize all available resources of the state government and of each political subdivision of the state as reasonably necessary to cope with the disaster or emergency.

(3) Transfer the direction, personnel, or functions of state departments and agencies or units thereof for the purpose of performing or facilitating emergency services.

(4) Subject to any applicable requirements for compensation, commandeer or utilize any private property if he finds this necessary to cope with the disaster or emergency.

(5) Direct and compel the evacuation of all or part of the population from any stricken or threatened area within the state if he deems this action necessary for the preservation of life or other disaster mitigation, response, or recovery.

(6) Prescribe routes, modes of transportation, and destination in connection with evacuation.

(7) Control ingress and egress to and from a disaster area, the movement of persons within the area, and the occupancy of premises therein.

(8) Suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives, and combustibles.

(9) Make provision for the availability and use of temporary emergency housing.

E. In the event of an emergency declared by the governor pursuant to this Chapter, any person or representative of any firm, partnership, or corporation violating any order, rule, or regulation promulgated pursuant to this Chapter, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or confined in the parish jail for not more than six months, or both. No executive order, proclamation, or regulation shall create or define a crime or fix penalties.

F. No organization for homeland security and emergency preparedness established under this Chapter shall be employed directly or indirectly for political purposes.

G. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section, except in an imminent life threatening situation nothing herein shall restrict any uniformed employee of a licensed private security company, acting within the scope of employment, from entering and remaining in an area where an emergency has been declared. The provisions of this Subsection shall apply if the licensed private security company submits a list of employees and their assignment to be allowed into the area, to the Louisiana State Board of Private Security Examiners, which shall forward the list to the chief law enforcement office of the parish and, if different, the agency in charge of the scene.

Notice the bolded items the state can force you to leave the area and prevent you from taking your weapons. Futhermore they can take them from you to insure that they are not left behind for some looters to grab hold of.

Have fun digesting the actual laws of Louisiana

Link to the complete act.
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=85670

Soon, every liberal city council that hates guns will use a storm or blizzard where any criminal uses a gun to sieze all guns. Its the legitamizing of stealing guns for 'safety'. But I guess you don't care, just as long as they don't take your long guns, huh?

Crazed Rabbit

LOL - I just knew someone would end up saying that. Again Hyperbole is what you are doing. By the way no liberial city council can do this - it comes from the state and federal level only. City's don't have consitutions - they have charters and must comply with State Laws.

Crazed Rabbit

09-12-2005, 00:23

(4) Subject to any applicable requirements for compensation, commandeer or utilize any private property if he finds this necessary to cope with the disaster or emergency.

The property is not being used to help cope with the disaster or emergency. It implies that the police could only do this if they needed the extra guns (hence 'commandeer or utilize', not 'consficate'). They don't, and are not claiming that they do.

(8) Suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives, and combustibles.

Taking guns from people who already legally own them is not suspending or limiting the sale, dispensing, or transportation of guns. That would be making sure people with guns aren't moving around the city (which they weren't), giving away guns (which they weren't), or selling guns (which they weren't). None of this provides for taking the guns of people sitting in their homes.

Notice the bolded items the state can force you to leave the area and prevent you from taking your weapons. Futhermore they can take them from you to insure that they are not left behind for some looters to grab hold of.

But the state is not forcing people to leave their homes. They are letting them stay their and just taking their guns.

Have fun digesting the actual laws of
Louisiana

Oh, I did.

LOL - I just knew someone would end up saying that. Again Hyperbole is what you are doing. By the way no liberial city council can do this - it comes from the state and federal level only. City's don't have consitutions - they have charters and must comply with State Laws.

Exageration? Hardly. 100 years ago the stranglehold the government has on us, with social security, taxes for just about everything, regulations on just about everything, would have been unimaginable. No, this one event doesn't mark the end - it is just a step. AG Janet Reno said registration is just a step to consfication, and this is just another way the gov't has found to increase its power. And if cities have to comply with state laws, how do so many get off with banning guns directly against the state constitution?

You've heard the anology about the frog in the water. It applies now.

Crazed Rabbit

Redleg

09-12-2005, 01:50

The property is not being used to help cope with the disaster or emergency. It implies that the police could only do this if they needed the extra guns (hence 'commandeer or utilize', not 'consficate'). They don't, and are not claiming that they do.

The measure means the government can do many thing in order to cope with the diaster - not that the property must be used.. It does not imply anything - its a clear cut measure based upon the declaration of the governor. The governor made a declaration.

Authorities continued trying to clear the city of holdouts, and also confiscated guns from homeowners. Police and soldiers feared deadly confrontations with jittery residents who have armed themselves against looters.

It seems again that the authority to confiscate weapons is there in the declaration and the Law check out the law a little more carefully. Is measure number 4 again.

Taking guns from people who already legally own them is not suspending or limiting the sale, dispensing, or transportation of guns. That would be making sure people with guns aren't moving around the city (which they weren't), giving away guns (which they weren't), or selling guns (which they weren't). None of this provides for taking the guns of people sitting in their homes.

Correct but you missed part of the measure - which goes along with the diaster declartion. There is a mandatory evacuation. And a declaration of diaster where extra-ordinary measures are authorized by the Louisiana Constitution and their laws.

But the state is not forcing people to leave their homes. They are letting them stay their and just taking their guns.

Goes along item 4 already highlighted now doesnit.

It seems again that the authority to confiscate weapons is there in the declaration and the Law check out the law a little more carefully. Is measure number 4 again.

Oh, I did.

Good

Exageration? Hardly. 100 years ago the stranglehold the government has on us, with social security, taxes for just about everything, regulations on just about everything, would have been unimaginable. No, this one event doesn't mark the end - it is just a step. AG Janet Reno said registration is just a step to consfication, and this is just another way the gov't has found to increase its power. And if cities have to comply with state laws, how do so many get off with banning guns directly against the state constitution?

Yes indeed exageration - and your doing it again. The diaster in no way shape or form is linked to the movement to remove weapons from American homes.

Ask your state legislation that question. Then you might ask your city that question also. However states can make certain laws that go beyond the United States Constitution - so I would image cities can make laws that fall within the State consitution. But then the city is not telling you that you can not own a weapon - its telling you something else. Show a statue from a city that states you can not own a weapon. They most often go into what is allowed to be sold within the city limits - and that weapons need to be registered.

Here did a little more research just for you..

But stopping Ohio cities from passing gun laws is difficult, because home-rule provisions in the state constitution give local officials certain governing rights, said John Mahoney, deputy director of the Ohio Municipal League.

Generally, if the state doesn't regulate something, local governments are allowed to pass laws to fill in the gaps, he said, as long as they don't conflict with state laws.

http://www.knowledgeplex.org/news/103912.html

Oh by the way registration of weapons in no way violate the concept of the 2nd amendment, it falls into the well regulated militia part of the amendment. The military has all its weapons register with serial number accountablity for the weapons maintained. So does the National Guard - a militia in the pure sence of the word.

You've heard the anology about the frog in the water. It applies now.

Crazed Rabbit

Yes indeed and your more then guilty of it.

Spetulhu

09-12-2005, 01:57

So when is the UN going to take power there? I've heard they have built concentration camps for American gun nuts in advance, just waiting to round them up. Along with anyone else who makes trouble, of course. :end:

Why is there no smilie with a pyramid tin foil hat?

Ja'chyra

09-12-2005, 08:33

Just when you think a thread cannot get any more melodramatic.

Coming to a cinema near you "And So It Begins: the Begining of the End for the Second Amendment."

I for one find this whole thread quite amusing and totally pointless.

Petrus

09-12-2005, 10:33

Why do you think Switzerland, land of a assualt rifle (in the real sense of the word) in every home, has the lowest crime in the world?

Crazed Rabbit

I think this is due to the origins of assault rifle possession.

Swiss citizen are conscripts and are given a registered assault rifle by the army so that they can bear arms as soon as mobilization is declared.

Those weapons are not anonymous as their legal owner is registered , so it is not possible to dispose of them freely.

Xiahou

09-12-2005, 16:14

When its not a gun debate but a Constitutional authority debate about what the Federal Government can or can not do in an declared diaster or emergancy. Its also a debate about wether or not the state authority can also suspend certain rights within the state for similiar reasons.Well, if you want to argue that the federal Constitution only applies to the federal gov and not the states, that'd be an interesting discussion. Is this what you're saying?

However those amendments do not supercede the two clauses I referenced.
Those two clause do indeed allow the government to restrict your liberities under certain conditions.By definition an amendment 'amends' the original text. So yeah, I'd say they do supercede the original Constitution insofar as the specific rights outlined in the amendments.

Sure they can be "legally" violated - that is the nature of the consitution - legislative laws can futher refine what the constitution states.Constitutional amendments can 'refine' what the Constitution states. Simple legislation should not 'refine' or restrict rights outlined in the Constitution.

Here are some excerpts from the Louisiana Constitution:
From Article1, sec4

Property shall not be taken or damaged by the state or its

sec21.
The writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.
I don't think an emergency powers act has the ability to supercede the state Constitution.

Now as to the seizing of firearms from homes in NO... Am I surprised? Not at all. I'm not even particularly outraged by it. I just think it shows the sad fact that citizen's rights that are supposedly constitutionally protected on both state and federal levels aren't worth much anymore. Even looking to the federal 'Bill of Rights'- Amendments 1,2,4,6&7 are trampled on a daily basis.

Redleg

09-12-2005, 18:23

Well, if you want to argue that the federal Constitution only applies to the federal gov and not the states, that'd be an interesting discussion. Is this what you're saying? Nope - that each has its role and place. States can add measures and laws that are not covered in the United States Constitution, they can add measures and laws that are in fact in the United States COnstitution as long as their laws do not violate the Federal document.

By definition an amendment 'amends' the original text. So yeah, I'd say they do supercede the original Constitution insofar as the specific rights outlined in the amendments.

They only supercede the parts of the Original Constitution that they apply to. The 2nd Amendment does not supercede the government's authority to restore order.

Constitutional amendments can 'refine' what the Constitution states. Simple legislation should not 'refine' or restrict rights outlined in the Constitution.

Simple Legislation is what establishes the laws that govern the nation - the laws must fall within the concepts of the constitution.

I don't think an emergency powers act has the ability to supercede the state Constitution.

That would be for the courts to decide - I think the Louisiana legislative process granted it the authority to supercede their constitution. The constitutionality of it would have to be challenged because the act followed the legal process into being.

Now as to the seizing of firearms from homes in NO... Am I surprised? Not at all. I'm not even particularly outraged by it. I just think it shows the sad fact that citizen's rights that are supposedly constitutionally protected on both state and federal levels aren't worth much anymore. Even looking to the federal 'Bill of Rights'- Amendments 1,2,4,6&7 are trampled on a daily basis.

Nor should you be outraged by it - the govenment must systems take extra-ordinary measures to restore order during an emergancy of such scale. An interesting note - were you upset when the government in essence declared Martial Law in Los Angeles in 1992?

Xiahou

09-12-2005, 18:53

An interesting note - were you upset when the government in essence declared Martial Law in Los Angeles in 1992?Federal troops were called in for law enforcement (and rarely used I understand) during the riots to back up the NG and civillian authorities. But I'm not aware of martial law being declared or habeas corpus being suspended. You could argue that the President violated the Posse Comitatus act though by deploying troops without congressional authority, I guess.

But then, I never studied the LA riots in depth so maybe you have more information.

Crazed Rabbit

09-12-2005, 21:20

The measure means the government can do many thing in order to cope with the diaster - not that the property must be used.. It does not imply anything - its a clear cut measure based upon the declaration of the governor. The governor made a declaration.

It most certainly implies that the property must be taken in order to help the police cope the disaster. Nowhere in there does it talk about consfication or commandeering to prevent use of objects by looters. Cope in this sense means using something to help you get the job done. The police are not using the guns to help cope witht the disaster.

Yes indeed exageration - and your doing it again. The diaster in no way shape or form is linked to the movement to remove weapons from American homes.

Ask your state legislation that question. Then you might ask your city that question also. However states can make certain laws that go beyond the United States Constitution - so I would image cities can make laws that fall within the State consitution. But then the city is not telling you that you can not own a weapon - its telling you something else. Show a statue from a city that states you can not own a weapon. They most often go into what is allowed to be sold within the city limits - and that weapons need to be registered.

Here you go: Morton Grove IL, where you are not allowed to posess a gun:
http://www.vpc.org/press/9503mg.htm

You don't think anti-gunners are wtting themselves with excitement over the possibility this brings? The NOPD may not be actively trying to dismantle the 2nd amendment, but antis are going to use it as best they can. They'll scream about public safety, the need to keep guns out of criminal's hands during a disaster, etc.

Oh by the way registration of weapons in no way violate the concept of the 2nd amendment, it falls into the well regulated militia part of the amendment. The military has all its weapons register with serial number accountablity for the weapons maintained. So does the National Guard - a militia in the pure sence of the word.

Seeing as registration has next to nil value for bringing in criminals, and that it provides an easy way for the government to find out who has guns, and that some figures in government (Janet Reno) have said that registration is just a step to consfication, and that registration and then consfication has occured in CA and NY, I'd say the only result of registration is making it easier to consficate guns. And the military? Its not like someone is going to advocate disarming them.

Yes indeed and your more then guilty of it.

If anything, I'm the frog who jumps out when the temp increases one degree.

I'm not even particularly outraged by it.

Have you seen the video of the old woman being tackled to the floor by police for holding a revolver by the barrel?

Crazed Rabbit

Redleg

09-12-2005, 21:45

Federal troops were called in for law enforcement (and rarely used I understand) during the riots to back up the NG and civillian authorities. But I'm not aware of martial law being declared or habeas corpus being suspended. You could argue that the President violated the Posse Comitatus act though by deploying troops without congressional authority, I guess.

Your close - the general in charge refused to do some missions because of the Posse Comitatus act. The President placed him in a dangerous position declaring an emergency and giving him authority - but not getting Congress to declare it so.

But then, I never studied the LA riots in depth so maybe you have more information.

The similiarities between the two conditions are amazing - in regrads to looting and restoring order.

Redleg

09-12-2005, 21:57

It most certainly implies that the property must be taken in order to help the police cope the disaster. Nowhere in there does it talk about consfication or commandeering to prevent use of objects by looters. Cope in this sense means using something to help you get the job done. The police are not using the guns to help cope witht the disaster.

Then we have a difference in opinion - cope to me in the military sense of the word - is to do what you believe necessary to get the task accomplished. Not necessary use the equipment but also prevent others from using it.

Here you go: Morton Grove IL, where you are not allowed to posess a gun:
http://www.vpc.org/press/9503mg.htm

Okay one city that bans the possession of handguns - and the law is being questioned like it should through the courts for its constitutionality. Good it should be questioned.

You don't think anti-gunners are wtting themselves with excitement over the possibility this brings? The NOPD may not be actively trying to dismantle the 2nd amendment, but antis are going to use it as best they can. They'll scream about public safety, the need to keep guns out of criminal's hands during a disaster, etc.

And they would be guilty of the same hyperbole you were in declaring it the beginning of the end. If I heard an anti-weapon screaming in that way and using the crisis to futher their agenda - I would have the same sort of conservation with them. That they are using hyperbole to futher their political point and then I would point out the aspects of the constitution and the law that allows the government to do such a thing, and argue that the government can only do this type of activity under spefic conditions spelled out state by state. The Federal Constitution allows you to keep and bear arms - the Constitution allows the government to establish limited controls via the same amendment.

Seeing as registration has next to nil value for bringing in criminals, and that it provides an easy way for the government to find out who has guns, and that some figures in government (Janet Reno) have said that registration is just a step to consfication, and that registration and then consfication has occured in CA and NY, I'd say the only result of registration is making it easier to consficate guns. And the military? Its not like someone is going to advocate disarming them.

You missed the point - the 2nd Amendment also allows the government to set condtions about accountablity of weapons. Its within the wording of the amendment - a well regulated militia.

If anything, I'm the frog who jumps out when the temp increases one degree.

I wait until I see a pattern of problems - New Orleans is already being used by both groups to promote their cause concerning weapons - and in my opinion both are wrong because they are ignoring the why to promote their own agenda's on the issue.

Have you seen the video of the old woman being tackled to the floor by police for holding a revolver by the barrel?

Crazed Rabbit

Nope I normally stay away from television media - to much hyperbole used to make whatever point the so called journalist is trying to make.

Crazed Rabbit

09-12-2005, 23:18

Then we have a difference in opinion - cope to me in the military sense of the word - is to do what you believe necessary to get the task accomplished. Not necessary use the equipment but also prevent others from using it.

That is a valid interpretation of the word, but seeing as the laws do not pertain to a military operation so much as a police action, in which they siphon gas if they need to but don't take cars if they fear people are going to misuse them. The fact is, the relief effort is unlike a military operation in that the soldiers aren't fighting combatants, but trying to help people. Thinking in terms of denying these people access to guns or other things is wrong.

Okay one city that bans the possession of handguns - and the law is being questioned like it should through the courts for its constitutionality. Good it should be questioned.

Unfortunately both state and federal courts found it to be constitutional.

You missed the point - the 2nd Amendment also allows the government to set condtions about accountablity of weapons. Its within the wording of the amendment - a well regulated militia.

I am skeptical of how much controls the 2nd amendment allows, due to the 'shall not be infringed'. A lot of this is infringement. Not only that, one must realize the concept that anti-gunners are just going to use one small control as an excuse for more controls, as I have shown.

I wait until I see a pattern of problems - New Orleans is already being used by both groups to promote their cause concerning weapons - and in my opinion both are wrong because they are ignoring the why to promote their own agenda's on the issue.

I see an ongoing effort by many people, governmental and private groups, to destroy the 2nd amendment. I need not point them out to you.

I'll concede that this alone would not be the end. But it is the culmination of events that is the problem.

Nope I normally stay away from television media - to much hyperbole used to make whatever point the so called journalist is trying to make.

Not a bad idea. But it is worth viewing, just to get an idea of the outrageousness of it all.

Crazed Rabbit

Redleg

09-12-2005, 23:34

Not a bad idea. But it is worth viewing, just to get an idea of the outrageousness of it all.

Crazed Rabbit

Why when I can come here and hear it from the patrons of the .Org. No need to experience it for myself anymore. The crap done by all the media sources about the Invasion of Iraq has turned me off completely on Broadcast Media. I rather read about it.

Adrian II

09-12-2005, 23:44

Why when I can come here and hear it from the patrons of the .Org. No need to experience it for myself anymore. The crap done by all the media sources about the Invasion of Iraq has turned me off completely on Broadcast Media. I rather read about it.Hear hear!

I kicked the 'habit' for two whole years. I just couldn't bother to replace the old TV when it broke down. Put it out with the garbage. Didn't miss the live footage, the hypes, the uninformed comment, the commercials and all the other junk for one second. The box is back since two years, but I hardly watch tv nowadays, my kids get 1/2 hour max and everybody is a lot more relaxed for it. Our Saturday nights are spent slooooowly cooking and eating, playing games, telling jokes and stories, relating experiences, all without some rectal aperture in the background telling us where it's at. I know the world is going to hell in a handcart, but my family sure isn't, not if I can help it.

Redleg

09-12-2005, 23:48

Hear hear!

I kicked the 'habit' for two whole years. I just couldn't bother to replace the old TV when it broke down. Put it out with the garbage. Didn't miss the live footage, the hypes, the uninformed comment, the commercials and all the other junk for one second. The box is back since two years, but I hardly watch tv nowadays, my kids get 1/2 hour max and everybody is a lot more relaxed for it. Our Saturday nights are spent slooooowly cooking and eating, playing games, telling jokes and stories, relating experiences, all without some rectal aperture in the background telling us where it's at. I know the world is going to hell in a handcart, but my family sure isn't, not if I can help it.

Well I am not that far yet. I still enjoy the History Channel, The Soprano's and now Rome on HBO, Law and Order on any of the cable networks and The SciFi channel when I have the chance. Other then that I am normally playing a computer game, swimmng with my son, or just relaxing doing absolutely nothing. Except when I am at work that is. Been working 50+ hours a week for ever.

Crazed Rabbit

09-12-2005, 23:53

Redleg

09-13-2005, 00:28

I rarely watch TV. Hardly ever even watched it when we had it. Just the very rare news, the occasional movie (free HBO in college-so no commercials now!), or the simpsons.

Now...back to the topic(or at least it's cousin, twice removed); the reason America is so violent.

Some contenders:
1) The drug war
2) gang turf wars and the like
3) the culture (I'm against it, seems like an easy way to cop out without getting to the reason).

Anyone have any ideas?

Crazed Rabbit

The War on Drugs and the Gang Turf Wars are really part of the culture I think. One would have to go futher back then that. One of the main reasons for violence in the United States is our desire and ingrained philosophy of rugged individualism.

I read (or is it red) a book about the Scot-Irish influence on the culture of the United States - and this was one of groups that had a lot of influence on our culture. The rugged individualism is one of the traits the author wanted to place as a benefit of the Scots-Irish immigrants. If its true or not is for each one of us to decide.

Then if one takes a good look at our history - American's have always associated themselve with figures that shapped from that mold for the most part - even if its not completely true of the individual in question.

The United States was also a nation founded on opposition to oppressive government - which would lead one to question the government in everything it does, however the culture of the United States also instilled into us that its okay to use violence to solve our disputes. How many times growing up do you hear your father say its okay to fight as long as you did not start it?

Hell I learned how to pick a fight without throwing the first punch just for that reason alone.

Violence is shown to us everyday - in our media, in our writings, and yes even in our everyday life. When you live in a society that likes violent entertainment - some of its bound to wear off into how the society functions.

Kind of rambling I know - but the thought has only begin to gain formulation in my head - and it takes many monthes of thinking before I could come up with a rational and coherient thought on the magnitude of the question. What is amazing is that no one will ever actually agree on why the American Culture has a tendency to violence - I guess there are just to many factors to agree on any one or even two main reasons for it.

But what the hell its easy to blame Hollywood for pumping us the entertainment that we want to buy. (Hows that for blaming Hollywood and pointing out ourselves at the same time.)