cccook
Founder's Club Member
imported post
unreconstructed1 wrote:
unreconstructed1 wrote:
Now that's funny. :lol:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
More gun confiscation for evacuees in New Orleans
- Thread starter Thundar
- Start date
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
cloudcroft wrote:
These people didn't lose any civil rights because of where they live. They didn't lose any civil rights because they were poor. They had their constitutionally protect right to keep and bear arms infringed because they relied on gov't instead of themselves to solve their problem, ie how to get out of an area they chose to live in that gets hit with hurricanes on a somewhat regular basis and then where to stay after they evacuated. My experience would lead me to believe that relying on gov't to provide for them instead of providing for themselves is precisely why most of these people are poor in the first place.
I'm not even saying that I could never end up in that situation or that I wouldn't be pi$$ed off. But I would be more pi$$ed off at my decisions that led to me having to rely on gov't than at the realities of the bad things that I have to deal with when I do rely on gov't.
cloudcroft wrote:
I'm not saying that wealth should have anything to do with someone's rights. What I am saying is that if you are going to use gov't resources to evacuate instead of your own resources you have to deal with their rules, like it or not.If they choose to stay and are forced to leave anyway, I got a problem with that. If the gov't confiscates people's guns who are NOT riding gov't transportation or staying in gov't provided shelters, I got a problem with that.
These people didn't lose any civil rights because of where they live. They didn't lose any civil rights because they were poor. They had their constitutionally protect right to keep and bear arms infringed because they relied on gov't instead of themselves to solve their problem, ie how to get out of an area they chose to live in that gets hit with hurricanes on a somewhat regular basis and then where to stay after they evacuated. My experience would lead me to believe that relying on gov't to provide for them instead of providing for themselves is precisely why most of these people are poor in the first place.
I'm not even saying that I could never end up in that situation or that I wouldn't be pi$$ed off. But I would be more pi$$ed off at my decisions that led to me having to rely on gov't than at the realities of the bad things that I have to deal with when I do rely on gov't.
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
superdemon wrote:
superdemon wrote:
Ooooh good point,if a contractee they have to follow the fed law on not taking firearms away....
superdemon
Regular Member
imported post
Venator wrote:
Yup.
However, it seemed to be local police doing the confiscating. Did the NRA lawsuit target feds only, or fed, state and local LEAs? I'm not familiar with it at all...
Venator wrote:
Yup.
However, it seemed to be local police doing the confiscating. Did the NRA lawsuit target feds only, or fed, state and local LEAs? I'm not familiar with it at all...
Prophet
Regular Member
imported post
cloudcroft wrote:
I don't think the declaration of independence espouses "Life, Liberty, and a train ride out of the Bayou". Just like it doesn't say Life Liberty and healthcare. The government shouldnt play nanny so if you dont want to take the train then dont.
cloudcroft wrote:
I don't think the declaration of independence espouses "Life, Liberty, and a train ride out of the Bayou". Just like it doesn't say Life Liberty and healthcare. The government shouldnt play nanny so if you dont want to take the train then dont.
Eagleeye
Regular Member
imported post
Get a load of this
Same ol Nothin in the Noggin Nagin....
http://www.infowars.com/?p=4294
Lord Nagin: Go Outside, Go to Jail
Infowars
September 2, 2008
Those who dared disobey the government decreed “mandatory hurricane evacuation” in New Orleans will be arrested and sent to jail if they wander “outside their properties during a dusk-to-dawn curfew,” according to the AFP. “Those persons who remain within the City of New Orleans do so at their own risk and are subject to arrest if they are outside the boundaries of their own property,” said Lord Nagin, Surpeme Commander of New Orleans. “Nagin warned Sunday that looters would be arrested and sent directly to prison.”
“What, no trial? I mean, I realize ‘legal niceties’ simply get in the way of maintaining recht und ordnung… um, sorry, law and order … but this is a nifty approach. Get arrested, go straight to the big house, no muss, no fuss, only the ease of legal administration,” writes Charles Featherstone for the LRC blog.
“You know, prisoners sitting in cells are so, well, economically unproductive. Wouldn’t it simply be easier if in the future, the kinds of people who refuse to obey gummint orders, would simply get whisked away to special camps, I mean detention centers, where they can spend their days laboring for the good of society? You know, felling trees and quarrying rocks and digging canals?”
Get a load of this
Same ol Nothin in the Noggin Nagin....
http://www.infowars.com/?p=4294
Lord Nagin: Go Outside, Go to Jail
Infowars
September 2, 2008
Those who dared disobey the government decreed “mandatory hurricane evacuation” in New Orleans will be arrested and sent to jail if they wander “outside their properties during a dusk-to-dawn curfew,” according to the AFP. “Those persons who remain within the City of New Orleans do so at their own risk and are subject to arrest if they are outside the boundaries of their own property,” said Lord Nagin, Surpeme Commander of New Orleans. “Nagin warned Sunday that looters would be arrested and sent directly to prison.”
“What, no trial? I mean, I realize ‘legal niceties’ simply get in the way of maintaining recht und ordnung… um, sorry, law and order … but this is a nifty approach. Get arrested, go straight to the big house, no muss, no fuss, only the ease of legal administration,” writes Charles Featherstone for the LRC blog.
“You know, prisoners sitting in cells are so, well, economically unproductive. Wouldn’t it simply be easier if in the future, the kinds of people who refuse to obey gummint orders, would simply get whisked away to special camps, I mean detention centers, where they can spend their days laboring for the good of society? You know, felling trees and quarrying rocks and digging canals?”
N00blet45
Regular Member
imported post
I agree that if you let the government take care of you that you concede being able to complain about the treatment you receive from them. In a common sense world your rights guaranteed by the government would be respected by that government. Common sense died shortly after the founders it seems.
Also just because you have rights doesn't mean that it is going to be convenient for you to express that right. Expressing your rights might mean that you have to huff it to a safe distance or rough out a storm, the cliché goes 'freedom isn't free'. Personally I'd rather end up a floating corpse than a refugee disarmed and degraded, but to each his own.
I agree that if you let the government take care of you that you concede being able to complain about the treatment you receive from them. In a common sense world your rights guaranteed by the government would be respected by that government. Common sense died shortly after the founders it seems.
Also just because you have rights doesn't mean that it is going to be convenient for you to express that right. Expressing your rights might mean that you have to huff it to a safe distance or rough out a storm, the cliché goes 'freedom isn't free'. Personally I'd rather end up a floating corpse than a refugee disarmed and degraded, but to each his own.
Dustin
Regular Member
imported post
N00blet45 wrote:
N00blet45 wrote:
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
Prophet wrote:
The federal law applies only to federal employees, and agents acting for the Feds. So a subcontractor would be included, or if the local police are working for the Feds. But it only applies when an emergency is declared in some official way. Each state would need to have legislation dealing with gun confiscation, some states have most haven't.
H.R. 5441 [109th]: Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007
Section 557 -
Amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) to prohibit any U.S. officer or employee, or person operating under color of federal law, under control of a federal official, or providing services to such person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, from: (1) seizing any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under federal or state law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation; (2) requiring registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by federal or state law; (3) prohibiting possession of any firearm where such possession is not otherwise prohibited; or (4) prohibiting the carrying of a firearm by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms, solely because such person is operating under the control of a federal agency in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency. Authorizes any individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to seek relief by bringing an action for redress and by bringing a civil action inU.S.district court for return of a confiscated firearm.
Prophet wrote:
The federal law applies only to federal employees, and agents acting for the Feds. So a subcontractor would be included, or if the local police are working for the Feds. But it only applies when an emergency is declared in some official way. Each state would need to have legislation dealing with gun confiscation, some states have most haven't.
H.R. 5441 [109th]: Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007
Section 557 -
Amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) to prohibit any U.S. officer or employee, or person operating under color of federal law, under control of a federal official, or providing services to such person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, from: (1) seizing any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under federal or state law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation; (2) requiring registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by federal or state law; (3) prohibiting possession of any firearm where such possession is not otherwise prohibited; or (4) prohibiting the carrying of a firearm by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms, solely because such person is operating under the control of a federal agency in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency. Authorizes any individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to seek relief by bringing an action for redress and by bringing a civil action inU.S.district court for return of a confiscated firearm.