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

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

Reporters are having their cameras smashed or consficated.

http://www.canada.com/fortstjohn/sto...8-77e557a2b7f8

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/...urricane2.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

This wont happen not in my state :charge:

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.

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by That Ridiculous Article

"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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by That Ridiculous Article

"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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by That Ridiculous Article

"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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by That Ridiculous Article

"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:

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

State run is good I think...

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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

---

Not you, Crazed Rabbit. ~:)

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!'

Quote:

---

Not you, Crazed Rabbit.

---

~:)
Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

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.

Quote:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

~: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.

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.'

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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

---

Here's something on the Home Office website:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Home Office

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcellus

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?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

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!

Quote:

---

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

---

On the other hand her attacker won't be carrying a gun. And I've been in (martial arts) clubs with women who could kick my arse, no hesitation admitting it. And they were no muscle bound ogres I can promise you.

Quote:

---

The criminals can and always will have access to any gun out there.

---

Simply untrue as a matter of fact in the UK. In the US, maybe so. In which case I guess you are stuffed.

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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

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.