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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

---

OH OH nevermind

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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

---

The 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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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...

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

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!

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Extreme events? LOL.

---

Hey, I think we get the point ~;)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

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 %.

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

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:

Here are some nra links


http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQs/De...spx?Section=70

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQs/De...spx?Section=27

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQs/De...spx?Section=25

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQs/De...spx?Section=21

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQs/De...spx?Section=21

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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
Murder 5.8
Robbery 146.6
Burglary 969.3

North Carolina per capita
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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

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:

Quote:

---

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):

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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

---

Right. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

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!

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

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. ~;)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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

---

Yup.

Here goes another round :shifty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.h...fornia,%201992

Now lets look at the proclamation and executive order.

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

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. ~:)

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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

---

Translation: OMG OMG the sky is falling, the sky is falling. Take some valium for christ sake. Your freaking out about nothing. And I bet you a plug nickel that taking guns from everyone in NO is perfectly legal in the disaster that exists there and now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

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

---

Well at least you seem to have calmed down a little. I however fear gun toting fascists and communist hippies in equal emasure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

(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.

Quote:

---

(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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Have fun digesting the actual laws of
Louisiana

---

Oh, I did.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article that you linked

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Oh, I did.

---

Good

Quote:

---

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..

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

sec21.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Yes indeed and your more then guilty of it.

---

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

Quote:

---

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