Concealed Carry Permit

[ChuckMK23]

Brought to you by the same people in New Orleans during Katrina who said you did not "have the right to defend yourself".

BATON ROUGE, LA (Sept. 22) – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and National Rifle Association (NRA) joined with individual gun owners in Louisiana Thursday morning, filing a motion in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana seeking a temporary restraining order to stop authorities in and around the City of New Orleans from seizing firearms from private citizens in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Arbitrary gun seizures, without warrant or probable cause, have been reported during the past three weeks since the Crescent City was devastated by the hurricane. In cases reported to SAF, police refused to give citizens receipts for their seized firearms. Earlier, SAF insisted that police account for all seized firearms, disclose their whereabouts, and explain how they will be returned to their rightful owners. Authorities have not responded.

Gun confiscations have been highly publicized since the New York Times quoted New Orleans Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass III, who said, “Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons,” and ABC News quoted Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley stating, “No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons.”

 

[Fly Navy]

Sort of like good old Hillary...who [highlight]wants[/highlight] all Americans disarmed, except, of course, for the Secret Service agents who protect her.

Let me fix that for you...

 

[Fly Navy]

“No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all
the weapons.”[/B]

And the people that were the most self-reliant and self-sustaining, were those that protected their property with force. There were some incidents where the armed refused to be dearmed... the police did the right thing and moved on.

 

[eddie]

And the people that were the most self-reliant and self-sustaining, were those that protected their property with force. There were some incidents where the armed refused to be dearmed... the police did the right thing and moved on.

That's a tough place for both parties to be in, I'd think; walking the line between "the rule of law" and "doing the right thing". Is there a definite place where you can draw that line as far as gun control is concerned (and I mean that from both the perspective of law enforcement and owners)?

 

[squeeze]

That's a tough place for both parties to be in, I'd think; walking the line between "the rule of law" and "doing the right thing". Is there a definite place where you can draw that line as far as gun control is concerned (and I mean that from both the perspective of law enforcement and owners)?

Yes, it's called the 2nd Amendment. The point of which is, to give the populace the means to resist the tyranny of the government (assuming you accept Jefferson as a valid source). Tyranny like the illegal seizure of arms.

Even Ghandi realized this.
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.

 

[eddie]

Yes, it's called the 2nd Amendment. The point of which is, to give the populace the means to resist tyranny. Tyranny like the illegal seizure of arms.

Even Ghandi realized this.
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.

Sigh I guess I've been unclear.

According to the 2nd Amendment, New Orleans law enforcement cannot take those weapons. However, local government has authorized it. My question is, can you actually draw a line, when considering firearms, as to when to not comply with local authorities and disrupt the rule of law? (yes, corrupt and unconstitutional, but still the law, and carrying SOME weight, no?)

Are you (all-inclusive "you," in case that wasn't clear) going to shoot Officer Jones (who, just for this situation, let's suppose doesn't agree with the policy either...) when he tries to dis-arm you because he is violating your constitutional right, or are you going to hand your stuff in?

Similar situation: Unlawful orders on the field of battle??? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

 

[squeeze]

That depends on how staunchly you feel about your civil liberties and principles. Are you willing to lay down your life for something you know is right or aren't you?

In this day and age where people gladly surrender their civil liberties for the illusion of security, no, I doubt many people would. But if you want to take mine away from me, well, Molon Labe.

But hey, I'm the site "liberal," remember?

 

[Lawman]

Sigh I guess I've been unclear.

According to the 2nd Amendment, New Orleans law enforcement cannot take those weapons. However, local government has authorized it. My question is, can you actually draw a line, when considering firearms, as to when to not comply with local authorities and disrupt the rule of law? (yes, corrupt and unconstitutional, but still the law, and carrying SOME weight, no?)

Are you (all-inclusive "you," in case that wasn't clear) going to shoot Officer Jones (who, just for this situation, let's suppose doesn't agree with the policy either...) when he tries to dis-arm you because he is violating your constitutional right, or are you going to hand your stuff in?

Similar situation: Unlawful orders on the field of battle??? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

Ill give you my advice and you can take it as you see fit, but this comes tempered from both experiance in the field and in the classroom. There will be a day to defend your actions and take an affirmative defence against something you did, but during a crisis is not that day. In a situation like Katrina civil services broke down, because the capabilities of the government broke down. If the government services provided to its citizens stop, then those citizens are released under their own recognizance to protect their way of life and that of the people whom they hold ties with (family, friends, ect). You do what you have to now to insure that you and your loved ones are safe. When the day comes to defend your actions let the people who challange your decisions climb up the moral highground that you are standing on. Take every procaution you can to avoid bloodshed but you never surrender your ability to protect yourself in a situation like the one we saw in Katrina. The deliberations of a government body over the constitutionality of a decision mean nothing to the man who stands on the porch of his broken and beaten castle trying to keep the wolves at bay who would see harm visited upon what he has left.

 

[Fly Navy]

That's a tough place for both parties to be in, I'd think; walking the line between "the rule of law" and "doing the right thing". Is there a definite place where you can draw that line as far as gun control is concerned (and I mean that from both the perspective of law enforcement and owners)?

Squeeze and Lawman covered most of it, but I'll add. The government of New Orleans was non-functional after the hurricane (and before some would argue...). It is a general duty of a government to protect its citizens, they failed, and that is to be expected when an entire city gets screwed up by a hurricane. Control was lost, it is up to YOU as Joe Citizen to defend yourself and maintain order until it can be restored. The police confiscating firearms is NOT restoring order. If anything, it would damage it more because well, then looters have carte blanch. The greatest mistake most people fall into is expecting the government to be able to do everything for them... and expecting them to do everything in your best interest...

To put it in another way... you know there are bad guys out there breaking into property and stealing everything. They're disgusting people (if you can call them that) and in many cases armed and dangerous. The police CAN NOT protect you. They don't have the ability to. Would you give up your sole ability to defend yourself, family, and property?

Does that make sense?

 

[eddie]

Does that make sense?

Yes.

 

[nittany03]

Yes.

Please tell me you're joking.

 

[Godspeed]

Does that make sense?

Yeah.

 

[Fly Navy]

Please tell me you're joking.

What's wrong with what I said?

 

[mules83]

I got this from a friend and didnt feel like putting this in a new thread so i'll slap it here.

>> Marine Corp's General Reinwald was interviewed on the radio the
>>other day and you have to read his reply to the lady who interviewed
>>him concerning guns and children. Regardless of how you feel about gun
>>laws you gotta love this!!!!of the best comeback lines of all time.
>>
>> It is a portion of National Public Radio (NPR) interview
>>between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who
>>was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military
>>installation.
>>
>> FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you
>>going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
>>
>> GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing,
>>archery, and shooting.
>>
>> FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't
>>it?
>>
>> GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly
>>supervised on the rifle range.
>>
>> FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly
>>dangerous activity to be teaching children?
>>
>> GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them
>>proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
>>
>> FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent
>>killers.
>>
>> GENERAL REINWALD: Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a
>>prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
>>
>> The radio went silent and the interview ended.
>>
>> You gotta love the Marines!

 

[Fly Navy]

Yeah that "interview" never happened.

http://www.snopes.com/military/reinwald.htm