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

[scooter_the_shooter]

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

[scooter_the_shooter]

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

[Adrian II]

Many of the cities around here have laws banning firearms ownership, so if you live within the city limits, you're not allowed to own a gun.

I thought North Carolina had a preemption law since 1996? For non-Americans: that is a State law forbidding local city or county governments from enacting any local gun laws that are stricter than the State gun laws.

[Adrian II]

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?

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crazed Rabbit

[lars573]

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

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[Spetulhu]

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

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

[Redleg]

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

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

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

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

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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.

[lars573]

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

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

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

[Spetulhu]

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

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

[lars573]

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. Anyway were going off course. The US NG taking all the guns in NO is an action I can find no fault with in any way shape or form. They *probably* could have said anyone caught with a fire arm will be shot-to-harm on site. Like I said civil libierties and due process are nullified by emergency measures. Emergency measures and it's big brother Martial law are designed to turn any nation into a police state over night.

[Redleg]

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

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

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

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

[Xiahou]

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

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

[Redleg]

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

What do you think suspending Habeas Corpus does?

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

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15

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

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

From what I know it does the following.

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

Amendment IV.

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

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

Amendment V.

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

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

Amendment VI.

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

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

Amendment VIII.

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

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

Amendment IX.

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

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

[Ser Clegane]

Howdy sheriff. Making your round of the board?

Yup.

Here goes another round

[Xiahou]

Calling New Orleans a rebellion is downright ridiculous. Martial Law should be reserved for real organized rebellions, and real invasions.

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

What do you think suspending Habeas Corpus does?

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

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

[Redleg]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

What is ignoring the civil authorities mandatory evacuation order?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.gunowners.org/prespower.h...fornia,%201992

Now lets look at the proclamation and executive order.

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

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

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

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

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

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

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

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

GEORGE BUSH

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

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

[Redleg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Peru]

Possession of a firearm becomes an offence.

People are then arrested for possessing illegal firearms.

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

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

[bmolsson]

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

[lars573]

Redleg, here's the beef:

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

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

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

Also to go back to Redlegs point about Habeas Corpus.

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

They are obviously going by the public safety part. In a case where civil authority has fallen apart like NO is a defacto rebellion. It's not safe there no one has real control of the place.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

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

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

[lars573]

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.

[Redleg]

Redleg, here's the beef:

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

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

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

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

[Redleg]

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

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

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

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

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

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

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

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

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

Crazed Rabbit

[Kaiser of Arabia]

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

[lars573]

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.

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.