Gun and Property rights issues in the aftermath of Katrina .(please watch video clip)

Again, Amuk, you strike the right note. It doesn't matter which puppet they are using, especially as the puppets are part of the puppeteer organizations, the end result seems to be the same; an every-increasing encroachment on our rights and liberties. When a situation arises, they capitalize on it, numbing us to their methods and even spinning the information so that we cheer for it. When a situation isn't there, they make them up, as was the case in Waco. For how many weeks did they have us looking forward to the gestapo charging in and taking the Wace "compound"? With the proper amount of time and with proper usage of their media, they cause us to help them further their goals.

Still, it seems that people, at least on this board, are beginning to scrutinize their actions much more closely, and without letting their political games clouding the constitutional facts of the issues.

Oh my gosh!

That's so sad about that lady. I can't believe they did that.

The forced evacuations were illegal. The disarming of the citizens was illegal.

And now they pushed a grandma down and forcibly pulled her away.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
It doesn't matter which puppet they are using, especially as the puppets are part of the puppeteer organizations, the end result seems to be the same; an every-increasing encroachment on our rights and liberties.

Thats what makes me want to scream

You complain about what Bush is doing now and they Chant "Clinton, Clinton" as if Clinton and Reno shredding the Constitution somehow made it OK for Bush to do the same.

I was attacking Clinton for doing it then and I am attacking Bush for doing it now and a few years from now I will be attacking the Democratic President (they have just about rode the Republican Horse to Death, time to switch) for doing the same.

Some, as you have said, are waking up, I just hope its not too little too late

Originally posted by Valhall

And now they pushed a grandma down and forcibly pulled her away.

They did not just push her down, they slammed her into what looked like a fridge and then onto the floor. I am amazed she doesn't have any broken bones.

If it had have been my mother there would have been a MAJOR problem

[edit on 13-9-2005 by Amuk]

The old lady looked pretty damn infringed skippy.

You would have your grandmother treated that way? I wouldn't. You don't attack someone for their own health, that's like screwing for the sake of chastity.

The right to bear arms does not infringe on the rights of others. Using those arms in an illegal manner is a completely separate issue. You can't, lawfully, take guns away from everyone because some people act outside the law.

That's not logical, and it's not legal.

We're witnessing a serious breach of trust here, AGAIN (so many times one can't possibly keep count). The trust has been repeatedly broken, habitually broken, by nearly every politician to come out of either camp in the last 50+ years. It's a disgrace, and I think appeasements are cheap.

The government owes its existence to the people, not the other way around. The people have the power to do away with the government, and that's a power the government DOESN'T have.

Originally posted by Amuk
Skippy you have yet to say what you think of the video?

Is this the way the government should "protect" its elderly?

You read my first reply?

Yes I have seen the video. Should old ladies be tackled? No, but I would have tackled her too if she waved that gun at me.

Originally posted by skippytjc
Yes I have seen the video. Should old ladies be tackled? No, but I would have tackled her too if she waved that gun at me.

Waved what gun? She was holding it in the palm of her hand, NO finger on the trigger, basically a club, AT BEST!

You'ld tackle a senior for that?

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by skippytjc
Yes I have seen the video. Should old ladies be tackled? No, but I would have tackled her too if she waved that gun at me.

Waved what gun? She was holding it in the palm of her hand, NO finger on the trigger, basically a club, AT BEST!

You'ld tackle a senior for that?

Edit to add: Maybe we should tazer these guys:

www.arizonabiggamehunting.com...

Originally posted by Amuk
There is two issues bothering me about the after effects of this disaster that I believe will have long term repercussions.

One is the Government taking away citizens guns.

Isn't situations like this one of the REASONS for the second amendment?

Yep. And to supposedly keep a tyrannical government in check.

Lemme just say, first of all, if I had property that was being threatened, I'd be locking and loading too. The government's not gonna take care of your property. All they're gonna do is seize it/use it/sell it.

Folks who have such a stake should take measures to guard against these unlawful seizures. Now, I'm not for breaking the laws, but ya know what? Our very government has overstepped THEIR controlling legal authority (the US Constitution)! These laws that are governing what's going on down in LA. are unconstitutional! They are FEMA diktats authorized by presidential directive! Boiled down: PURE BS! It began under Carter and beefed up under Reagan in the early '80's (See: Garden Plot, REX 84)

I learned a valuable lesson once in boot camp. When you have something the government considers contraband, and you know you NEED it, don't show your entire hand. Be smarter than them. Play along. Give 'em what they think they want, and hold back on your stash. You keep half of it hidden and make them think they have it all. They'll go away, and you'll still be protected. I know its a dangerous game, but that's life; and you are the only one who, at the end of the day, is gonna look out for you and your own. The government sure won't.

My second issue is with the Government forcing people off their property.

I understand the water's bad and power's down and on and on.. but come on! I've seen so much property around the French Quarter that held up just fine! Why should they be forced to leave their property? Because of a health hazard? Look at those properties - do you think those folks can't handle taking care of themselves until all is restored?! Come on! Those folks have money! They'll be just fine. In a just world, the government has absolutely NO business making someone leave their property! But the fact is, we do not live in anything remotely resembling a just world. We live in a state of such corruption in governance it's beyond belief. This government (and probly most others) will do whatever they want to do, to hell with the people. Look at the recent Supreme Court decision on imminant domain! They said the city/state government can just TAKE your property - screw you! If it benefits the city/state, than so-be-it! Is that wrong? ABSOLUTELY! Guess what though? The days of there being much honesty left in the 2nd ammendment, I fear, are long gone.

I personally think this administration (and whoever else) sat back and let this tragedy happen. Why? To purge the poor and black element from the city of New Orleans so that the greediest and seediest power players can go in there and build their new shining white Las Vegas on the Gulf. Three cheers for Halliburton and Bechtel! From the Gulf to the Gulf they feed off misery and disaster. But I digress.

NO ONE should be forced out of their homes in New Orleans! It's WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Just my two cents.

Originally posted by skippytjc
but I would have tackled her too if she waved that gun at me.

First she wasnt waving the gun at anyone, she was holding it in her hand, second it is her house, she said she didnt want them there, and they did not listen, She should have shot them.

I hear what you're saying. And as I read your post a few things come up.

Originally posted by skippytjc
We basically have the freedom to do anything we want so long as it DOES NOT infringe on another’s rights or safety. I am sure nobody disagrees with me here, as this is plain fact.

My point is not to start an argument, but I do disagree with you. There are things we aren't legally allowed to do, even though they do not infringe on people's rights or safety. We cannot grow or own or smoke marijuana, even though it infringes on no one, for example. But we can drink alcohol to our heart's content. This arbitrary judgment by the government is what I'm against.

If the government allows people to stay, they run the risks of these people becoming hurt, sick or possibly dyeing.

People smoke cigarettes, skydive, ride bulls, go to war, fly airplanes, take pharmaceuticals, jump off cliffs, etc. The point is that life can be dangerous and the person who should decide the risks I take in MY life is ME. It's not the government's responsibility to guage whether or not I'm at risk. That lady lived 70 years - her judgment must not be too bad.

Bottom line: It’s a health risk and a public liability for these people to stay in their homes under these circumstances whether they think so or not.

All they'd have to do is have them sign a liability release. It would be a lot easier and a lot more humane that what's happening.

Originally posted by C0le

Originally posted by skippytjc
but I would have tackled her too if she waved that gun at me.

First she wasnt waving the gun at anyone, she was holding it in her hand, second it is her house, she said she didnt want them there, and they did not listen, She should have shot them.

Damn, this is scary C0le, we agree? I guess there's hope for the human race after all.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Again, Amuk, you strike the right note. It doesn't matter which puppet they are using, especially as the puppets are part of the puppeteer organizations, the end result seems to be the same; an every-increasing encroachment on our rights and liberties. When a situation arises, they capitalize on it, numbing us to their methods and even spinning the information so that we cheer for it.

I really hope some people's eyes are also opened by the lackluster "response" to this outrage I quoted from one merely political puppeteering organization in particular.

The NRA.

The reason is simple. They've got what they wanted. A manufacturer friendly environment. They are NOT a "gun rights" organization and DO NOT represent the 4 million FOOLS who sign up each year to pay for corporate lobbyists and elect the very politicians that do this to them.

I am shocked that some one would defend the actions that the LEO in the video took. Guess some people will support everything their government enforces. What the government did down in New Orleans was 100% illegal and many should get prosecuted but everything the government does is the right thing, right?

I left the NRA years ago when all they did was defend our "rights" to skeet-shooting and sport hunting.
They are much like Jessie Jackson; they make a good living off of the problem, so that they can "defend" us little people. A page right out of the NWO handbook.

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Amuk
One is the Government taking away citizens guns.

Isn't situations like this one of the REASONS for the second amendment? If you are not allowed to protect yourself in an area without government authority where can you? I can not believe my countrymen meekly handed over their only means of self defense, especially after seeing how the Government had 'Protected" them after the hurricane.

Amazingly, you must have missed the various media citings of looters and general riff-raff taking liberal aim at aid workers, levee re-construction workers, and such? The arms were taken away for a reason and a justifiable reason at that. The second amendment can be over-ridden for a number of reasons. Having returned (and heading back next week) from the French Quarter of New Orleans, be assured that those there were glad to see such a decree being made and subsequently enforced by local, state, and government people.

seekerof

Excuse me? Since when can the Second Amendment be "over-ridden"? What about the rest of them? Are they all just merely imaginary window dressings to you?
I suppose that the First Amendment only applies to people saying what the government wants to hear but can be easily over-ridden when "they" deem appropriate?


Thanks Amuk, You have enlightened me (once again) to the absolute B.S. that is being forced down our gullets in the name of "security".

"Cold Dead Hands" Indeed...

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by True Lies

This is like the Ruby Ridge injustice, let's not forget Waco either.

Great point True Lies.

This is not about the Republicans or Bush bashing. Its about the Government slowly increasing its strangle hold over us. This ties in nicely with the recent Supreme Court decision allowing people to be thrown off their property if a company thinks they can use it to make a buck with.

Its an inch here and an inch there and before you know it we are in a dictatorship.

Perhaps we are already in a dictatorship, but because media doesn't report it, it can't be true. All these instances reak of an authoritarian government. These crimes against the supreme law of the land speaks louder the media ever will.

The media now is a like a soap opera, you could turn it on tomorrow and even a week from now, and they would still be talking about the same thing, not missing out on much.

And to add to that, most of what we don't hear on the national news channels is what we need to hear the most.

How soon people forget the criminal actions of the government throughout the recent decades, and how soon people will forget about this outrage to add to the list of unconstitutional governance.

Deeply appalled.


[edit on 13-9-2005 by TrueLies]

as posted by TrueLies
Perhaps we are already in a dictatorship, but because media doesn't report it, it can't be true.

The media does not report it because the US is not a dictatorship.
Might want to read this objectively:
define:dictatorship

If, by chance, the US was or currently is a dictatorship, you can best be assured that the media would be saying such, despite their political leanings.

Here is the real concern, the United Nations:
U.S. gun rights at issue in UN effort








seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof

Here is the real concern, the United Nations:
U.S. gun rights at issue in UN effort

Your kidding, right?

We are susposed to be scared of the UN that everyone including us ignores, but its OK for OUR government to beat a 70 year old woman to the ground and take her gun away from her?

We have 200 pound Government Agents slamming elderly women around but the UN is the problem.......Got it

I have to agree with cole.....she should have shot the ..........nevermind

[edit on 13-9-2005 by Amuk]

Originally posted by skippytjc
I would have tackled her too if she waved that gun at me.

Where in the Video did she 'WAVE" the gun? She was holding it in the palm of her hand for Christs sake. Can you point out to me on the video the moment you would have feared for your life from this obvious viscous killer? I would have risked her dropping the gun on my foot or something to keep from hurting her.

You know I would have believed that 200 pound men body slamming 70 year old women who were NO danger to ANYONE would be the one thing everyone, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, etc could agree on was bad.

I guess I was wrong

The most alarming aspect of this whole situation for me is not only how easily Americans gave up their land and their fire arms but how many people fail to see the modern relevancy of "anitquated" rights such as the 2nd Ammendment. Granted, people who are not American citizens are not expected to know and understand our Constitution but it is unacceptable for American citizens to consider constitutional infrigements as unimprotant. It seems the prevalent opinion in reagrds to actions such as those taken against the elderly women is that they are justified because she had a gun and refused direct police orders. I am shocked to have to say this is not the case. The legality of an action is relative, obviously firing upon a police officer when in a situation such as the old woman found herself in is considered illegal. But legality and constitutionality are two different things. Laws are created by the government under the guise of protecting the citizenry when in reality they tend to serve those in charge. Our Constitutional rights are the very foundation of our country and is meant to ensure the longevity of the American people even in the face of armed confrontation with the government. Our nation was created not with the continuance of government in mind but the continuation of the very beliefs that led to the creation of this country. More over it was the wish of our founding fathers that we, as the free people of this nation, oppose the government when even a minor infringement is perpetrated.

I think the major stumbling block for most people is understanding that the government of the United States of America and the country of America are two very different and sometimes opposing things. We the people are the country, we created the government to serve the people and they are without power if not for our complaince. It is when the government ceases to serve the people that we must revoke our compliance. Our founding fathers wouldn't have had it any other way and that is the origin of our 2nd Ammendment right. Here in America we have the right to oppose the government, but it is the 2nd Ammendment that gives us the power to do so. We must not forget that in a tyrannical government anything that threatens the power of those in charge will be deemed illegal and that may include the ownership of a firearm, the propegation of "Un-American hate speech", the illegal occupation of "government land" which once was your home, and above all else, refusal to comply with orders. The American Judicial System was created by the people to create a safe, fair, and logical system by which we can punish those convicted of a crime against the community. When the government uses our legal system to justify grossly unconstitutional actions against it's own citizens it is time that we refuse to recognize the validity of such laws. The only law that we should recognize is that of the constitution and no law or executive order has the power to over ride the constitution.

We must seek to understand what is transpiring in New Orleans within the context of the aftermath of Katrina. New Orleans has been virtually destroyed, infrastructure is gone and the local government has run away. New Orleans has been abbandonned and there for it can be considered to be no longer under the control of the federal government as it was prior to Katrina. The only government in many areas of New Orleans are the citizens who stayed and survived and the power to govern their lands rests in the power of their fire arms. I am of the belief that the federal government is re-conquering New Orleans hence why it is being considered a "combat operation" against "insurgents". The people of New Orleans are no longer citizens of the federal government in the same way you and I are. By the power of default the people of New Orleans have become their own government, in a way, freer than any American has been in a while. The disarming and taking back of New Orleans is very much a combat operation, the only difference between this and Iraq being that the Iraqis didn't willingly turn over their land and arms. The Federal American Government has lost New Orleans, it is no longer a part of their sphere of influence, I suppose we should count ourselves lucky that it was a storm and not another country that took New Orleans.