Disarming of citizens in NO

It is not a crock, that is evidant by the fact that they have guns. The 2nd Ammendment makes no stipulation that we must enact it, it is your right as a citizen to acquiesce and turn in your weapons. That right was given to us not only to protect us from the government, I believe most home owners have a gun to protect their home and family from criminals and still belive in the ability of the police to protect them ( i know that sounds contradictorary but given the context of NO I think it makes sense).

I suppose it is not as much a matter of the relevance of the ammendment as it is of personal individual judgment. You do have a right to refuse, to fire on the police, to resist arrest, all by yourself. Our rights in this country are individual personal rights and it is up to the individual to decide when to enact them.

But our rights are not just laws, they were never meant to be. They are beliefs. Every person, everywhere on the planet, has the ability to resist their government so long as they have a weapon. It was the wish of our founding fathers to instill the beliefe that we MUST resist our government if it has become tyrannical. It is up to each individual citizen to decide for themselves when the government has gone corrupt and it is up to them to enact their 2nd Ammendment right. They resisted at Waco, they were well within their constitutional rights, but here we see how our rights are not laws but beliefes. The dark side of such beliefes is that they usually demand your life in return. I doubt many have the strength to enter into combat for a beliefe many of them have not even read.

Id be willing to bet that those who have given up there firearms, couldnt tell you what the second amendment was if you asked them.

Originally posted by cargo
It is a crock because the citizens we have seen confronted with the opportunity to excercise their 2nd Amendment felt powerless to execute that which their constitution provides for them. You just need to look at the scenario: US soldiers forceably entering homes with the expressed purpose of disarming citizens, and you can see that they themselves (the soldiers) do not even recognise the contitution they fight to protect. I wonder what their response would be (as soldiers, and above all American soldiers) if they were on the receiving end of this constitutional breach.

So, again, I ask you this: You are postulating that because a constitutional right has been violated, it is therefore useless and/or invalid? You do realize this is akin to calling all laws regarding homicide "useless" because someone committed murder? Please tell me you see the inherent madness and lack of reason inherent to this ill logic...

Similarly, as I previously stated, there are inherent complexities to this issue. Until we have all the FACTS, it is rather shortsighted to suggest sweeping generalizations and conclusions that may not represent an issue in its entirety.

Such shortsightedness resulted in such preventable "disasters" as our current situation in Iraq and the appointment of a horsie show judge as the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I would strongly advise we attempt to lesson the amount of speculation and increase the amount of investigation with regards to the circumstances surrounding this (still unfolding) issue:

1. Is the (to date uncorroborated) article accurate?

2. If so, who conducted this forceful disarmament? Local civil police authorities? Out-of-area civil authorities? State police? National Guard? Federal civil law enforcement (DEA, ATF, etc.)? National military?

3. Was this a premieditated, authorized act, or simply a (SEVERE) lapse in judgement?

4. Who authorized this act? A police seargent on the scene? A precinct captain? A state official? A FEMA official?

While I can in no way attest as to how you investigate an issue, I for one strongly advocate seeking all available data before looking to draw a conclusion with any level of certainty, especially when such conclusions carry such far-sweeping implications. It's called the critical thought process... it is a lengthy process and does not rush to premature conclusions, nor does it prematurely construct erroneous extrapolations from such conclusions. However, it is often rewarding as it provides a clearer picture of the situation... the gestalt, if you will... which IMHO is required before one can develop the convitions required to drive action.

Originally posted by cargo
The very people who are tasked with being on the frontline in defense of the Constitution of the United States of America are in effect assuming (by order, something they can refuse if unlawful) the role as Gestapo.

Again. The reality of this situation involves a scattered, few holdouts. Your "jump" in concluding that therefore (to paraphrase in my words, not yours), 300,000,000 Americans are similarly incapable of acting against said violations of our constitutional rights is again premature and a flawed product of ill logic. The presence of 20,000,000 peeps in lockdown in SoCal following an earthquake and hundreds -- possibly a few thousand -- of scattered holdouts represent two completely different and distinct situations. If you are unable to ascertain this on your own, I really do not know what to say, aside from referring to the intrinsic value of the critical thought process as described above.

Originally posted by cargo
I am not advocating the engagement of citizens and authorities in gunfire. But from what I perceive of the 2nd amendment (I am not American), that is exactly what it calls for should a situation such as this occur. No?
[edit on 10-9-2005 by cargo]

Again, we need more clarity on the details surrounding and even confirming the circumstances as described in what to date is one, uncorroborated, article. The turth is in fact a construct of many details, and such strong conclusions and the width and depth of their implications if true are so severe that we must proceed carefully so as to not jump to premature conclusions. And as an American, I do hope and pray that in time it is revlealed that if this did in fact occur, it was an nothing more than an isloated instance resulting from an isolated lack of judgement.

Our immediate focus should be on the corroboration and further investigation of this story -- not on the jumping to premature and overgeneralized conlcusions with implications of such severe magnitude via flawed logic.

Originally posted by C0le
Id be willing to bet that those who have given up there firearms, couldnt tell you what the second amendment was if you asked them.

I'd wager a bet that at least half of them felt guilty for having a gun in the first place

Originally posted by BitRaiser
I've hoestly never understood the American fixation with guns.

Why must, at all costs, the American public feel that they have to be armed against their own people and/or government??

I'm not American, but I feel everybody should have a right to defend themselves, Americans, unlike people in many other countries, have that right.
Sometimes gov'ts turn on their people and I believe that's one reason why the Second Amendment was created, so that the people have a chance to defend themselves from a tyranical government even if they have to resort to violence.

If the gov't has weapons, the people should have the same right, imo.

Originally posted by godservant
However, they are, they will continue, and they will win, because there is nothing we can do about it now. The gov't is now much more powerful than the people - something that was never meant to be.

No they won't and no they aren't, not if you guys stand up to them, you have yet to realise the potential of the people, you easily outnumber them.

Originally posted by BitRaiser
I don't get it on an emotional level. I was raised to believe that guns are for cowards. Any pussy can pull a trigger, it takes a set of balls to NOT pull it.
[edit on 10-9-2005 by BitRaiser]

You are completely wrong there. Any dumbfound citizen can sit there and watch their rights and freedoms get taken away right before their eyes but it takes BALLS to stand up for what America was made for and fight back.

There needs to be more people like this man if people want to turn America back to what it was made for.
www.cnn.com...

Personally I think that guns are Good things to have, to protect yourself. However I was watching CNN last night, and they were talking about a home that they went into and found something like 175 guns, including a .50 caliber machine gun, and ammunition. Now I can see having 5 or 6 guns for various reasons, but 175??? and a .50 cal machine gun?! What was he gonna do with that, possum hunt?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Personally I think that guns are Good things to have, to protect yourself. However I was watching CNN last night, and they were talking about a home that they went into and found something like 175 guns, including a .50 caliber machine gun, and ammunition. Now I can see having 5 or 6 guns for various reasons, but 175??? and a .50 cal machine gun?! What was he gonna do with that, possum hunt?

People collect this stuff, if i had the money id have that many guns also, but i dont, So long as this person wasnt hurting anyone who cares how many guns he has?

The 175 guns isn't really the major issue for me. It's the .50 with ammo that is the big concern.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The 175 guns isn't really the major issue for me. It's the .50 with ammo that is the big concern.

308, will kill ya just as much as a 50cal will,If the guy has that many guns id guess the 50.cal is either a registered and accounted for, pre 86 ban weapon, or a post ban semi auto variant, Is it the fact that is a 50cal?

Cause if so then i myself would be more worried by a guy with the 50cal revolvers that are out now...

Yeah, but a .308 wont punch giant holes in vehicles that police are hiding behind. A 308 isn't going to demolish concrete walls. A .50 is just insane to have lying around the house, whether it was from before the ban or not. As far as if it's a semi-auto, it's insanely easy to change that to a full auto. It would take maybe half an hour for someone to alter it from semi to full IIRC. And then he could just sit in the window blazing away at anyone he wanted to.

[edit on 10-9-2005 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Yeah, but a .308 wont punch giant holes in vehicles that police are hiding behind. A 308 isn't going to demolish concrete walls. A .50 is just insane to have lying around the house, whether it was from before the ban or not. As far as if it's a semi-auto, it's insanely easy to change that to a full auto. It would take maybe half an hour for someone to alter it from semi to full IIRC. And then he could just sit in the window blazing away at anyone he wanted to.

[edit on 10-9-2005 by Zaphod58]

People could do alot of things if they wanted to but they havent..
A good shooter with a 308 could do far more damage moving from place to place sniping ppl with his light weight weapon, then a guy in a window with a hella heavy, hey look at me im the guy with the huge loud as hell attention grabbing ma duce.

[edit on 10-9-2005 by C0le]

Taking away our guns in our own country even at this time, it hasn't been long since we formed as a nation. You have to relize when we first formed as a nation things were much different though. At that time I don't think we ever had a gun that could kill 5+ people in the matter of seconds. They only had musket to musket and I believe they saw if majority rules then majority should win. (And yes majority will win in a musket battle.)

Of course that is the way it should be but then again there wasn't nearly as many people as there is now. Of course you have to consider the huge population growth weve had in the past 100 years. Not to mention the technological growth, weve grown a lot! I like the idea of being free, but in order to be free you have to fight. I am only going to question the possibility that in order to be free, is it better to have 1 tight group of people with in a nation to arm and control the nation? Or is it in fact better to leave militia groups with their own plans and eyes full of glory with arms, only to have to battle some time in the future.

It's almost a question of what is really a "free nation" and what exactly is "communism"? Which one really is better? Is controling arms a better way to be "free"? Or is holding arms a better way to secure and hold "freedom"? If you really want to know, its a personal question you have to dig down deep for. Noone can tell you this answer except for yourself.

Originally posted by SpilledBeans
Taking away our guns in our own country even at this time, it hasn't been long since we formed as a nation. You have to relize when we first formed as a nation things were much different though. At that time I don't think we ever had a gun that could kill 5+ people in the matter of seconds. They only had musket to musket and I believe they saw if majority rules then majority should win. (And yes majority will win in a musket battle.)

Well guess what? The government didn't have FEMA agencies, Homeland Security, countless agencies, machine guns, armies of men with black masks and armored vehicles used against hte population back then either! Did they?! How can we defend ourselves, if we still have a friggin MUSKET against our bloated, power-crazed government with all their power, weapons and technology???!!!!

Originally posted by Shadowflux
I'd wager a bet that at least half of them felt guilty for having a gun in the first place

It takes practice and presence of mind to wield a gun

Originally posted by UFObeliever
Any dumbfound citizen can sit there and watch their rights and freedoms get taken away right before their eyes but it takes BALLS to stand up for what America was made for and fight back.

...and it takes practice and presence of mind to wield your rights

And both are dangerous when not used with care and respect

Heh something someone send me a little bit ago.




[edit on 11-9-2005 by C0le]

Originally posted by UFObeliever
There needs to be more people like this man if people want to turn America back to what it was made for.
www.cnn.com...

That man at the start of the video is a true American...

Instead of giving them water or food they ask them to leave with guns at there sides, what a pity..... My guess they will starve the rest of the New Orleans people out.. They are certainly not helping them as one can see in that video.

[edit on 11-9-2005 by XPhiles]

sdrumrunner, I believe that if this happens to one law abiding citizen then it happens to all law abiding citizens (principally). Crock is probably harsh, but I don't see US soldiers standing infront of houses refusing to enter and confiscate weapons because it would be a breach of the constitution.

I'm surprised the regular rightwingers here havn't launched themselves at this with ferocity. Except maybe C0le (who, it seems, is beginning to wake up )

I am disgusted with this.

Here is another link

www.prisonplanet.com...

I am sure the City of New Orleans can rest easier knowing this obvious menace was disarmed. I wonder if they got the rest of her "Homies"? It didnt mention on TV but I have to wonder if she was a looter or a raper?

My country is going to hell in a handbasket and no one cares, and the train is being driven by the party that claims to be for personal freedom and rights.

I am so angry I cant speak, why isnt this being splashed accross every TV screen in America?

[edit on 13-9-2005 by Amuk]

Link doesnt seem to work for me.. amuk =(