-
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
hsmith
Regular Member
imported post
But wait, the NRA sued and won!!1
lol, people think the courts have any bearing on how laws are actually used - fools.
more of the same, the gov't trampling the rights of individuals. when are people going to wake up.
But wait, the NRA sued and won!!1
lol, people think the courts have any bearing on how laws are actually used - fools.
more of the same, the gov't trampling the rights of individuals. when are people going to wake up.
RIAShooter
Regular Member
imported post
Wow just wow
Wow just wow
rodbender
Regular Member
imported post
Looked all over, can't find anything else on this. It's a hoax. It's not on Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBCor even CNN. None of the websites have anything about it.
Looked all over, can't find anything else on this. It's a hoax. It's not on Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBCor even CNN. None of the websites have anything about it.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Your search - gustav gun source:cnn - did not match any documents.
Your search - gustav gun source:cnn - did not match any documents.
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
It's not a hoax but rather that anyone evacuatingnawlins on commercial transportation paid for but the gubmint is having to follow the same guidelines as normal and are not being allowed to carry their guns on the bus, plane or train. If they did not want to turn over their guns they could arrange for their own transportation. It is standard protocol and why you can't find anything on it.
It's not a hoax but rather that anyone evacuatingnawlins on commercial transportation paid for but the gubmint is having to follow the same guidelines as normal and are not being allowed to carry their guns on the bus, plane or train. If they did not want to turn over their guns they could arrange for their own transportation. It is standard protocol and why you can't find anything on it.
Armed
Regular Member
imported post
PT111 wrote:
PT111 wrote:
I think you're right. The real test will come after the storm passes and they begin to make the rounds to see if there are any citizens in need of assistance. This should be a fairly small number tho. It would appear they did a much better job of evacuating the city this time around. That in itself should dramatically reduce the looting.
cloudcroft
Campaign Veteran
imported post
They put a certain group of people (poor/no car, etc.) in harm's way with that policy, that you can't take your guns (even one) with you if you want to LEAVE a natural disaster area. So you have to stay homeunderdangerous/life-threateningcondtions (even in a MANDATORY evacuation order)from a dangerous storm or perhaps even worse, get jerked out of your house in handcuffs by "the authorities" if you refuse to leave and/or disarm.
Maybe if you have the $$ to leave in your car (and be able to afford expensive lenghty hotel room stays) you can take them -- unless there are police/National Guard checkpoints,you get searched and they confiscate themthere-- but otherwise the only SURE way to keep your gun(s) is to STAY HOME and in storm's harm. If you're poor and have no way to leave, you have to be disarmed. That's discrimination against the poor.
Much like the earlier policy of not allowing people to leave with their pets, many people just stayed home in a dangerous situation because they would not leave their pets (and they shouldn't even have been put into that position of being forced to make such a choice).
Now, I suspect some people willSTAY in harm's (Gustav's) way because they choose NOT to rely on "the authorities" to protect them and their families, will not give up the tool(s) to exercise their right of self-defense,or want to havejack-booted thugs in their residences (or looters, which ALWAYS seem to stay) if they LEFT,to rummage around looking for their guns...which, as we know, are NOT illegal/contraband and should be left alone. I know here in Galveston I had planned to STAY regardless of how bad Gustav got -- and even if it hit here -- partly for that very reason.
So for a nanny-state policy that is supposed to prevent violence -- guns on the bus, in citizens' possession at disaster/refuge centers, etc. -- people staying home is also a form of violence visited upon them from the storm, a direct result of the "you can't take it with you" policy.
What also gets me is that here in TX, even if you have a CHL, it doesn't matter, you can not carry your gun. What complete crap. If "the authorities" -- or civilian bus companies -- can't trust a person who qualified to get a CHL in the first place, they shouldn't have CHLs available because the permit apparentlymeans nothing in reality.
Yes, we need "the authorities" -- and bus companies, with won't let US cary any guns but also won't provide anarmed guard on board who could at leastTRY to prevent violence to passengers -- they need to be sued big-time.
-- John D.
P.S. Besides searching for firearms, did they also search for the crack and alcohol thelow-lifes were bringing with them?
They put a certain group of people (poor/no car, etc.) in harm's way with that policy, that you can't take your guns (even one) with you if you want to LEAVE a natural disaster area. So you have to stay homeunderdangerous/life-threateningcondtions (even in a MANDATORY evacuation order)from a dangerous storm or perhaps even worse, get jerked out of your house in handcuffs by "the authorities" if you refuse to leave and/or disarm.
Maybe if you have the $$ to leave in your car (and be able to afford expensive lenghty hotel room stays) you can take them -- unless there are police/National Guard checkpoints,you get searched and they confiscate themthere-- but otherwise the only SURE way to keep your gun(s) is to STAY HOME and in storm's harm. If you're poor and have no way to leave, you have to be disarmed. That's discrimination against the poor.
Much like the earlier policy of not allowing people to leave with their pets, many people just stayed home in a dangerous situation because they would not leave their pets (and they shouldn't even have been put into that position of being forced to make such a choice).
Now, I suspect some people willSTAY in harm's (Gustav's) way because they choose NOT to rely on "the authorities" to protect them and their families, will not give up the tool(s) to exercise their right of self-defense,or want to havejack-booted thugs in their residences (or looters, which ALWAYS seem to stay) if they LEFT,to rummage around looking for their guns...which, as we know, are NOT illegal/contraband and should be left alone. I know here in Galveston I had planned to STAY regardless of how bad Gustav got -- and even if it hit here -- partly for that very reason.
So for a nanny-state policy that is supposed to prevent violence -- guns on the bus, in citizens' possession at disaster/refuge centers, etc. -- people staying home is also a form of violence visited upon them from the storm, a direct result of the "you can't take it with you" policy.
What also gets me is that here in TX, even if you have a CHL, it doesn't matter, you can not carry your gun. What complete crap. If "the authorities" -- or civilian bus companies -- can't trust a person who qualified to get a CHL in the first place, they shouldn't have CHLs available because the permit apparentlymeans nothing in reality.
Yes, we need "the authorities" -- and bus companies, with won't let US cary any guns but also won't provide anarmed guard on board who could at leastTRY to prevent violence to passengers -- they need to be sued big-time.
-- John D.
P.S. Besides searching for firearms, did they also search for the crack and alcohol thelow-lifes were bringing with them?
cloudcroft
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Armed,
True, and most of the low-life lootertrash probably got on the city-provided buses to be evacuated to designated "safe cities," but I sure don't think those "safe cities" will be any safer when the buses get there and the trash disembarks and is then free to "do their thing."
...jsut like last time during Katrina.
And some of the trash never went back home.
-- John D.
Armed,
True, and most of the low-life lootertrash probably got on the city-provided buses to be evacuated to designated "safe cities," but I sure don't think those "safe cities" will be any safer when the buses get there and the trash disembarks and is then free to "do their thing."
...jsut like last time during Katrina.
And some of the trash never went back home.
-- John D.
Armed
Regular Member
imported post
Cloudcroft - Yes, I remember reading about the increase in crime from the transplanted evacuees out of NOLA. I also just read todaythat peoplewere stocking up on AR-15's and ammo in advance of the storm. //www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=22379 Let's see what happens. Hopefully - nothing out of the ordinary.
Cloudcroft - Yes, I remember reading about the increase in crime from the transplanted evacuees out of NOLA. I also just read todaythat peoplewere stocking up on AR-15's and ammo in advance of the storm. //www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=22379 Let's see what happens. Hopefully - nothing out of the ordinary.
longwatch
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Was not pleased to see this pic.
Was not pleased to see this pic.
longwatch
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Or this pic. That is to get into a shelter according to the caption.
http://tinyurl.com/56k68h
Or this pic. That is to get into a shelter according to the caption.
http://tinyurl.com/56k68h
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
longwatch wrote:
longwatch wrote:
Weren't the trains with evacuees AMTRAK Trains? WTF?? Since when does a publicly owned train violate people's constitutional rights?
bourneshooter
Regular Member
imported post
longwatch wrote:
longwatch wrote:
Longwatch is this picture available in any larger size? That way one could read the company name on the polo shirts.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Ok, I'm just not really getting bunged up about this. Well over a million of people evacuated in private vehicles carrying whatever they wanted including guns and ammo. If you want the gov't to evacuate you and house you then you have to follow whatever retarded rules they make up like you can't have a gun on the bus or in the evacuation center.
While I am sympathetic with Cloudcroft's comments I do not agree. If you choose to live somewhere that is at high risk for natural disaster/evacuation and you cannot afford to evacuate yourself then there will be a natural consequence, ie when the rest of the people of the state use their money through taxes or donations to send buses, trains or other conveyances to evacuate you, you have to follow the rules of whoever does the evacuating.
I did chuckle at the no-firearms policy being call a nanny-state policy. Think about it. People are at home and find out about a week in advance that there is a natural disaster heading your way. So they wait around until the GOV'T tells them to leave. But then they suddenly realize that they do not have the means to leave, so they want the GOV'T to provide transportation for them. But then they have no place to go and no equipment or supplies to take care of themselves wherever they evacuate to so they want the GOV'T to provide food, water, shelter, sanitation. Then after it is over they want the GOV'T to clean up their neighborhood, make their homes habitable again and then provide them transportation home. I think that whether or not they can take a gun or knife on an evacuation bus or into an evacuation center is the LEAST of these people's "nanny-state" problems.
Now if I hear/read about confiscations from people who left in private vehicles or who paid normal fares for transportation (beyond the normally outrageous and ridiculous TSA restrictions on our freedoms and liberty) then I am going to get pretty upset and excited about things. But if you are going to suck on the teat of government, you can't complain about the quality of the milk.
Edit: spelling
Ok, I'm just not really getting bunged up about this. Well over a million of people evacuated in private vehicles carrying whatever they wanted including guns and ammo. If you want the gov't to evacuate you and house you then you have to follow whatever retarded rules they make up like you can't have a gun on the bus or in the evacuation center.
While I am sympathetic with Cloudcroft's comments I do not agree. If you choose to live somewhere that is at high risk for natural disaster/evacuation and you cannot afford to evacuate yourself then there will be a natural consequence, ie when the rest of the people of the state use their money through taxes or donations to send buses, trains or other conveyances to evacuate you, you have to follow the rules of whoever does the evacuating.
I did chuckle at the no-firearms policy being call a nanny-state policy. Think about it. People are at home and find out about a week in advance that there is a natural disaster heading your way. So they wait around until the GOV'T tells them to leave. But then they suddenly realize that they do not have the means to leave, so they want the GOV'T to provide transportation for them. But then they have no place to go and no equipment or supplies to take care of themselves wherever they evacuate to so they want the GOV'T to provide food, water, shelter, sanitation. Then after it is over they want the GOV'T to clean up their neighborhood, make their homes habitable again and then provide them transportation home. I think that whether or not they can take a gun or knife on an evacuation bus or into an evacuation center is the LEAST of these people's "nanny-state" problems.
Now if I hear/read about confiscations from people who left in private vehicles or who paid normal fares for transportation (beyond the normally outrageous and ridiculous TSA restrictions on our freedoms and liberty) then I am going to get pretty upset and excited about things. But if you are going to suck on the teat of government, you can't complain about the quality of the milk.
Edit: spelling
MetalChris
Regular Member
imported post
deepdiver wrote:
deepdiver wrote:
Nice!
cloudcroft
Campaign Veteran
imported post
So because you are poor, you lose rights. I do not agree.
Yes, rich people can afford great lawyers and poor peopleMIGHT only get a public defender, and that IS the reality, but it's still not right. One shouldn't have to be able to afford (buy) justice. I have no sympathy for trash (i.e., re: behavior, not income), so I'm not talking about them, just decent poor people.
And almost any place to live in the country has it's problems...earthquakes, mudslides, forest fires, tornadoes and hurricanes...removeall those places for residential areas and you lose lots of territory.People can live wherever they want,but that shouldn't mean they have to give up any civil rights because of THAT, either.
Again, if "the authorities" can't even trust people who have a CHL "the authorities" issued, thenthere is a real problem.
-- John D.
P.S. I agree with government-provided transportation having rules, but said rules should not contravene civil rights.
So because you are poor, you lose rights. I do not agree.
Yes, rich people can afford great lawyers and poor peopleMIGHT only get a public defender, and that IS the reality, but it's still not right. One shouldn't have to be able to afford (buy) justice. I have no sympathy for trash (i.e., re: behavior, not income), so I'm not talking about them, just decent poor people.
And almost any place to live in the country has it's problems...earthquakes, mudslides, forest fires, tornadoes and hurricanes...removeall those places for residential areas and you lose lots of territory.People can live wherever they want,but that shouldn't mean they have to give up any civil rights because of THAT, either.
Again, if "the authorities" can't even trust people who have a CHL "the authorities" issued, thenthere is a real problem.
-- John D.
P.S. I agree with government-provided transportation having rules, but said rules should not contravene civil rights.
superdemon
Regular Member
imported post
Were the trains leased by FEMA for the evacuation?
Were the trains leased by FEMA for the evacuation?
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
cloudcroft wrote:
cloudcroft wrote:
I don't agree with the government provide transportation except as a expense deal where itwill be cheaper to get them out of there than to bury them afterwards. You decide to live te feet below sea level and then complain when mother nature does what she has been doing for a million years and expect someone else to take care of you but complain about it. Heck they have two feet let them walk in they don't want to follow the rules. That would be like you wanting to stay at my house but only if you could bring your dog along.
unreconstructed1
Regular Member
imported post
cloudcroft wrote:
unfortunately, that seems to be the general consensus in most places. strange really. In Tennessee, you have to take an 8 hour class, have went your entire lifetime without a felony conviction, be fingerprinted and voluntarily submit to a background check. and the State that issues the permit still doesn'ttrust you in many places, and we are one of the states with more freedom than many.
obviously you didn't read the fine print:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed*
* ammendmentvalid at participating locations only . limit one right per person per visit. must show valid license, permit, or registration in order to redeem said right. right not offered in New York, California, Massachussetts, District of Columbia or other areas where right has been deemed inappropriate. other restrictions may apply, see neighborhood, city, county, state, federal and international representatives for more details.
cloudcroft wrote:
unfortunately, that seems to be the general consensus in most places. strange really. In Tennessee, you have to take an 8 hour class, have went your entire lifetime without a felony conviction, be fingerprinted and voluntarily submit to a background check. and the State that issues the permit still doesn'ttrust you in many places, and we are one of the states with more freedom than many.
obviously you didn't read the fine print:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed*
* ammendmentvalid at participating locations only . limit one right per person per visit. must show valid license, permit, or registration in order to redeem said right. right not offered in New York, California, Massachussetts, District of Columbia or other areas where right has been deemed inappropriate. other restrictions may apply, see neighborhood, city, county, state, federal and international representatives for more details.