Pages: 1 2 3

 

2007-12-30 22:41:22
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7152
What about the reality that New Orleans was a lawless war zone after Katrina...?   

Anybody outside a 25 mile radius was not affected by this action... I understand being wary of rights being trampled but this is an extenuating circumstance...  Should they just wait until everyone loots, shoots and kills each other?
Love is the answer
2007-12-30 22:49:27
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6759|New Haven, CT
I am not going to contribute to this argument, since I am undecided on what was being violated. However, I would like to point out that demeaning comments are completely unnecessary and counterproductive toward the goal of convincing others of your point of view. They pointlessly inflame the debate, degrade its quality, and make their writer look like a self-infatuated idiot.

Example:

Mr. Arrogant wrote:

I won't even begin to address your "right or privilege" pedantry, as your predictably thoughtless interpretation is wrong
What does this add, other than confirming mikkel is suffering from a terrible superiority complex? Nothing. This phrase has no positive contribution in any way. Why include it?
2007-12-30 22:55:47
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6822
Ahh yes, New Orleans was a lawless war zone, so lets take the ability to defend yourself away from a normal law abiding citizen.....

New Orleans was a fuck up, plain and simple, I think the best thing would be for the government of New Orleans and Louisiana(as they deserve the most blame), is to say your right, we fucked up, were sorry, time to get someone else in the job and compensate for the violation of citizens rights.

Also, I wouldnt say our 2nd Ammendment rights werent violated, as there was no official statement that we could no longer purchase guns, our 4th Ammendment rights were VERY CLEARLY violated with the unlawful seizure of legally owned weapons. Thats the first step to a police state.

Last edited by Commie Killer (2007-12-30 22:58:22)

2007-12-30 23:41:41
stryyker
bad touch
+1,682|7155|California

New Orleans was a disaster area, under the control of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. That means that, for the most part, it was martial law unspoken.

People looting, no cops, no emergency workers, shit floating around.

But I am going to be harshly honest here. The people that stayed at their own will deserved what they got. They disobeyed a direct evacuation order, and they paid the price. People drown in their homes because they could not get out in time. The water pushed them to the rafters where they died. As the days passed, rescuers were being harassed. People would not leave to go to safe ground. They demanded that the emergency workers took them to a hotel.

What the shit? Lets look at the list

1. Disobey evacuation order
2. Looting on a massive scale
3. Crime, personal and property (that already not done)
4. General disregard for personal safety, and the safety of the rescuers

Reports out of New Orleans on September 1 stated that victims of Hurricane Katrina were being raped and beaten and that fights and fires were out of control, leaving corpses laying in the open as the city descended into anarchy.

“We have individuals who are getting raped, we have individuals who are getting beaten,” New Orleans Police Chief Eddie Compass said. Compass said that the 15,000 to 20,000 people who were at the New Orleans convention center awaiting buses grew increasingly hostile and had beat back 88 officers he had sent there to try to keep the peace.

“Tourists are walking in that direction and they are getting preyed upon,” Compass had said.

Reports of rampant violence though may have been overblown, even by New Orleans standards, as many reports of sensational violence have not been verified. "During a week when communications were difficult, rumours have acquired a particular currency. They acquired through repetition the status of established facts."

Indeed, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told a group of journalists on Wednesday that "martial law has been declared in Mississippi and Louisiana." though this was never the case as such a move would require a situation of lawlessness beyond the scope of local authorities to handle.
Seeing the looting that went on after the water receded, how much worse would crime had been if all of those guns were free for the taking?
2007-12-31 08:46:46
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6926|Northern California

nukchebi0 wrote:

I am not going to contribute to this argument, since I am undecided on what was being violated. However, I would like to point out that demeaning comments are completely unnecessary and counterproductive toward the goal of convincing others of your point of view. They pointlessly inflame the debate, degrade its quality, and make their writer look like a self-infatuated idiot.

Example:

Mr. Arrogant wrote:

I won't even begin to address your "right or privilege" pedantry, as your predictably thoughtless interpretation is wrong
What does this add, other than confirming mikkel is suffering from a terrible superiority complex? Nothing. This phrase has no positive contribution in any way. Why include it?
You're right, and I apologize for my degradation of the topic as well as I'm sure I wrote some passionate words towards Mikkel.
2007-12-31 11:45:49
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7067|949

Marinejuana wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

First Ken, do you know what happened?  From what I've read, it isn't clear HOW things were confiscated.  If police did come for weapons, they violated both if they entered illegally.  If they asked for the firearms and were given them, it's ONLY a second amendment violation.  How is that hard to understand?
If they ASKED and people complied, its not a violation at all.

If the police threatened force or arrest, it is violation of the 4th amendment.

From what I have read, the "emergency powers act" implemented by the Louisiana governor legally allowed the police to limit gun sales and confiscate guns from owners.  Now, I haven't read much on the act itself, but if that is true, the NRA lawsuit is without merit.  I will do some more research and post what my conclusion is.
This emergency powers act is not relevant if it violates multiple constitutional rights. Our rights protect us from legislation and individuals acting against us independently. In the case of New Orleans after Katrina, police both violated the 4th amendment, and in the process violated the 2nd amendment. You may believe that the 2nd amendment only legally addresses the sale of weapons, but the American people commonly believe their 4th amendment right is "the right to bear arms" and when this right is directly violated either by politicians that write laws meant to circumvent this basic right, or by cops in uniforms physically prying guns from an American's hand, then the offending party should prepare for the reorganization of his or her face.
The Emergency Powers Act was legal, at least thus far.  The case the NRA has brought is largely a test of this Emergency Act.  As it stands now, a new federal law has been passed to overrule the patchwork of State Emergency Acts.  It should also be noted that Louisiana itself passed a new version of the act protecting illegal confiscation of guns.  The very fact that the federal government, along with the various state legislatures, created and rewrote (respectively) a new set of laws gives merit to the idea that various State Emergency Acts were legal.  Or at the very least a circumnavigation of what could be a large court battle over the constitutionality of the Act.

I know you made a mistake in citing the 2nd amendment and calling it the 4th, no need to address that.

Not once did I say the 2nd amendment only addresses the sale of weapons, in fact I said exactly what the 2nd amendment covers in a previous post.

Marinejuana wrote:

Let me reiterate. If a cop shows up at your house demanding your legitimately acquired firearm. Shoot him. He's a criminal. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking this commonly known law and right. I realize that the amendment is written in such a way that it is not actually a straight-forward "right to bear arms" but I value the commonly held interpretation because the belief of 250,000,000+ people is more important to me than the intent of a political elite that wrote a misleading law.
If you shoot a cop for demanding your firearm, YOU most certainly are a criminal, at least in most states.  The cop could have no legal authority to do so, but that does not mean you can legally shoot him/her.

From what I gather, this court battle will be an argument between state's rights during emergencies vs. constitutional law.
2007-12-31 13:20:27
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6926|Northern California
[

Marinejuana wrote:

Let me reiterate. If a cop shows up at your house demanding your legitimately acquired firearm. Shoot him. He's a criminal. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking this commonly known law and right. I realize that the amendment is written in such a way that it is not actually a straight-forward "right to bear arms" but I value the commonly held interpretation because the belief of 250,000,000+ people is more important to me than the intent of a political elite that wrote a misleading law.
Woah, I missed this one..

Yeah, dude, that'd be the last dumb thing you'd ever do.  You have NO right to kill, shoot at, or otherwise prevent a cop from illegally confiscating your firearms.  You're only real recourse in retaining your lawful firearms is to have your registered or unregistered weapons hidden.  On a 2A site I frequent, the forum had a question in it regarding what we'd do if a cop or soldier comes for your guns.  Most people would say, "What guns?"  or "they were stolen."  And many had the plan of having their more important firearms dropped into some PVC piping and sealed shut and burried deep..at least a foot or two deeper than their 'decoy' boat anchor or other metal object that metal detectors might find.  Other solutions are clever, fool proof hiding within your home or near it...serious James Bond type hiding spots.  But you have to be a serious gun nut to do that stuff.  I know I'd like to have some unregistered firearms to hide.  If the SF Bay Area gets wasted from a big enough quake and a Katrina scenario plays out, I will not go without a firearm if possible.
2008-01-02 11:51:41
mikkel
Member
+383|7037

IRONCHEF wrote:

Mikkel,
I work in a law firm with lawyers of most practice groups.  I have attorneys who have freed gitmo prisoners, and others who have had their civil rights violated.  You don't know rights from wrongs youngster.  Keep the trap shut dude.
Okay, so because you claim to work in a law firm with lawyers, I'm supposed to take your word for this without any further merit. For all I know, you could be working as a security guard. If you really had any weight to throw around, or any argument at all, I'm pretty sure you'd make it rather than post empty statements and demeaning comments. If you want to weigh in with anything relevant, please, go ahead. If not, I'd suggest that you take your own advice.

Refer to KEN-JENNINGS posts.

nukchebi0 wrote:

I am not going to contribute to this argument, since I am undecided on what was being violated. However, I would like to point out that demeaning comments are completely unnecessary and counterproductive toward the goal of convincing others of your point of view. They pointlessly inflame the debate, degrade its quality, and make their writer look like a self-infatuated idiot.

Example:

Mr. Arrogant wrote:

I won't even begin to address your "right or privilege" pedantry, as your predictably thoughtless interpretation is wrong
What does this add, other than confirming mikkel is suffering from a terrible superiority complex? Nothing. This phrase has no positive contribution in any way. Why include it?
You're pretty big on chiming in on threads with off-topic remarks, nukchebi0. I'm going to have to remind you again that if you have nothing to contribute to a thread, you should stay out of it. As a side note, it's somewhat ironic that through this terrible grudge you have with me that you cannot seem to get over, you enter threads just to accuse me of being arrogant, while filling your posts with nothing but coy attacks and arrogant insults. You have nothing to add. You have a grudge that you seem to cannot get over, and you're infatuated with posting in threads just to attack other people, with not a single comment to the topic at hand. If anyone has a superiority complex, all signs seem to be pointing to you, I'm afraid.

Grow up.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-01-02 12:17:51)

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard