This is relatively old news, but I wanted to put it up anyway, just to see if anyone (and here I am thinking of a few people who regularly shill for the police state) would defend the actions of the government.
Also, does anyone think that this kind of thing could never happen again?
What should one do about it if it does?
youtube blocked here. Brief me on it
From the YouTube page:
[i]The video you will see on this web site is horrifying. The crimes committed against law-abiding gun owners are beyond comprehension. The arrogance of anti-gun politicians and government officials and their hate of freedom will churn your stomach.
The law is the law, the Constitution is the Constitution. If ONE local mayor or police chief can decide what the Second Amendment means, it opens the door to tyranny–where ANY mayor or police chief can say what the Second Amendment means.
You’ve seen this brand of abuse of freedom in the history books–in the pages about days of gun confiscations leading to the terror of Stalin, Mao and Hitler. But you’d never in a million years think it could happen in America.
Well, it can and it did. And it will happen again unless we take action today.
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, Police Superintendent P. Eddie Compass unleashed a wave of confiscations with these chilling words:
“No one will be able to be armed. We will take all weapons. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.”
Thousands of firearms were then confiscated from law-abiding gun owners. The police gave no paperwork or receipts for those guns. They just stormed in and seized them.
Now, one year later, these crimes against gun owners have snowballed into a far greater threat to our freedoms.
Even though NRA secured a court order demanding their immediate and unconditional return, almost every single confiscated firearm remains locked in government trailers.
With the stroke of a pen, Mayor Nagin and Police Superintendent Compass are getting away with “murder”–a savaging of the second, fourth and fourteenth amendments of our Constitution. And they have put America on notice that they’re going to keep seizing lawfully owned guns under any pretense.
New Orleans gun owners are showing up at these trailers, with serial numbers of their firearms, expecting Mayor Nagin and his band of anti-gunners to respect the Federal courts.
They are met by stony-eyed bureaucrats who say serial numbers aren’t enough–and that gun owners now need PROOF OF PURCHASE of these firearms.
How many of those gun owners do you think had original receipts for those firearms? And even if they did, how many do you think could find those receipts in the wreckage of a hurricane?
Many of these firearms were passed down from father to son, generation to generation. Some are precious heirlooms. Some are collector’s pieces won in our wars. And they were all lawfully owned and they must be returned to their owners.
With your help we’re going to make the first time in New Orleans the LAST time in America. Thank you![/i]
I agree it’s against the constitution but you can kinda understand WHY they did it… especially with all the idiots who were shooting at rescue helicopters.
The problem is that the overwhelming majority of firearms confiscated were NOT owned by any of those idiots shooting at rescue helicopters.
They were owned by the people who could have used them to protect themselves from those idiots.
And yes, I can “kinda understand” why the government does a great many things. It does not follow, however, that I condone those things.
Dear Varq, you know my stance on guns (summary: A nation is better off if only the military and some policemen are armed as long as crime is generally low; I basically argue that gangsters always have the advantage of the aggressor and a an unarmed society is a nicer society.)
You also know that I don’t take the argument seriously that arming the masses will grant them the ability to fend off the (fascistic) state.
The youtube flic is an excellent example why this is a fallacy: The state, like the armed robber, catches you flat-footed. He has all advantages: he knows where you’re living, fighting/resisting will endanger you and your family even more, tactical/strategical superiority, the manpower etc. etc.
Why didn’t the people resist?
Answer: you can’t resist the armed state with your pants down in your household. You can either choose to go guerrilla mode or you don’t.
And 99% won’t.
So just keep monitoring your state and nation and see that it doesn’t slowly chew away your rights.
It’s the metamorphosis you can fight, not the full-fledged beast.
Nagin should be shot. Every government agency that had part in that should be sued out of existence and every politician involved should be thrown out of office. Not much else to do. I wouldn’t shoot it out with the cops but you can be sure they wouldn’t get all my guns in that situation.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Nagin should be shot. Every government agency that had part in that should be sued out of existence and every politician involved should be thrown out of office. [/quote]
I agree , but…
won’t happen!
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I wouldn’t shoot it out with the cops but you can be sure they wouldn’t get all my guns in that situation.
[/quote]
How is that? They smashed Grandfather’s old rifle in that flic, why should they spare your smith & wesson?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Nagin should be shot. Every government agency that had part in that should be sued out of existence and every politician involved should be thrown out of office.
I agree , but…
won’t happen!
Zap Branigan wrote:
I wouldn’t shoot it out with the cops but you can be sure they wouldn’t get all my guns in that situation.
How is that? They smashed Grandfather’s old rifle in that flic, why should they spare your smith & wesson?
[/quote]
They wouldn’t find them all.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Dear Varq, you know my stance on guns (summary: A nation is better off if only the military and some policemen are armed as long as crime is generally low; I basically argue that gangsters always have the advantage of the aggressor and a an unarmed society is a nicer society.)
You also know that I don’t take the argument seriously that arming the masses will grant them the ability to fend off the (fascistic) state.
The youtube flic is an excellent example why this is a fallacy: The state, like the armed robber, catches you flat-footed. He has all advantages: he knows where you’re living, fighting/resisting will endanger you and your family even more, tactical/strategical superiority, the manpower etc. etc.
Why didn’t the people resist?
Answer: you can’t resist the armed state with your pants down in your household. You can either choose to go guerrilla mode or you don’t.
And 99% won’t.
So just keep monitoring your state and nation and see that it doesn’t slowly chew away your rights.
It’s the metamorphosis you can fight, not the full-fledged beast.
[/quote]
I think we have learned one thing, the US military cannot even hold the lid on Baghdad.
If the US citizens do not want to follow orders even holding Los Angeles would be next to impossible.
With their system of a force divided in different branches and the National Guards there would not be a monolithic force either
but several armed forces.
Under such conditions no government could dream to rule without consent.
Varq, it makes me furious.
I usually give the gov’t the benefit of the doubt. Meaning that even if think their actions are misguided, I believe it’s someone who’s honestly trying to do the right thing.
However, fuck with my guns and I immediately think you’re trying to do something sinister and underhanded, and deserve a bullet in your skull. Attempt to take away my means of protecting myself, and you lose all benefit of the doubt and move straight into ‘hostile enemy’ status.
There’s absolutely no bona fide actions the government should be trying take that begin with disarming citizens.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Dear Varq, you know my stance on guns (summary: A nation is better off if only the military and some policemen are armed as long as crime is generally low; I basically argue that gangsters always have the advantage of the aggressor and a an unarmed society is a nicer society.)
You also know that I don’t take the argument seriously that arming the masses will grant them the ability to fend off the (fascistic) state.
The youtube flic is an excellent example why this is a fallacy: The state, like the armed robber, catches you flat-footed. He has all advantages: he knows where you’re living, fighting/resisting will endanger you and your family even more, tactical/strategical superiority, the manpower etc. etc.
Why didn’t the people resist?
Answer: you can’t resist the armed state with your pants down in your household. You can either choose to go guerrilla mode or you don’t.
And 99% won’t. [/quote]
Tell that to these guys.
Fortunately 1 can do the work of 100 when they “go guerrilla mode”. Sure the .gov has the advantage of catching you with your pants down if you’re complacent. But why couldn’t the brits catch Sam Adams or John Hancock? Why couldn’t they interrupt the Committees of Correspondence? Oh, but they have technology now mike! Yeah? So do we. We have the internet. We have encryption. We have numbers.
And are you telling me that if 99% of my brethren are cowards then I should be declawed and denied my fighting spirit?[quote]
So just keep monitoring your state and nation and see that it doesn’t slowly chew away your rights. [/quote]
How? Frankly, without the means to resist the best thing to do is stop monitoring it; you’ll only die depressed. Take our guns and the best thing would be to take alittle soma and sit down to some American Idol.[quote]
It’s the metamorphosis you can fight, not the full-fledged beast.
[/quote]
No, YOU can’t fight the beast. You seem to lack the stomach for it. So do you just go along with the beast and wait for someone else to save you? Let me temper this. I’m not trying to be insulting. What is your opinion of the “boss” jews during the Holocaust? The ones that saved their asses by allying with the Nazis? Were they right not to fight?
And when do you know that you’ve got the beast? So far as I see it, liberty is always in a state of flux.
mike
This was a big deal. I’ve yet to hear a single person on the right or left try to defend this as being Constitutional. Yet how many of those National Guard officers are in any trouble at all for following these unlawful orders and violating their oath? Zero. Do you think those same officers will stop when we’re putting Muslims into Internment camps FDR style after the next 9/11?
This should be a wake up call for everyone. You should take this moment to ask yourself where your line in the sand is. Do you even have one? At what point in time will you decide that you personally are going to fight back?
Don’t answer this question abstractly and don’t post it on here. But ask yourself in concrete terms what it will take. Would you have given up your guns in Katrina and hoped the courts would give them back? Will you let your Muslim buddy from work be rounded up and shipped off? Will you allow the next Bonus Army to be run over by the current crop of US troops? I know where I have drawn the line, do you?
mike
Thanks, Mike. Just the kind of responses I was hoping for.
I think either I or Zap Branigan used the Warsaw Ghetto example with Schwarz over a year ago. Lemme go check the Liberty Control thread and refresh my memory. As I recall, he didn’t buy it then.
New Orleans has possibly the most corrupt, dysfunctional police force on the continent, with the likely exception of Mexico.
Before Katrina, a travel advisory for Canadians traveling to New Orleans was to never allow the police to pull you over, but that if they tail you with flashers on, you should drive yourself to a police station.
The rationale is crooked cops are less likely to pull shit there.
As for post-Katrina, I’d bet the advisory is “don’t go”.
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
New Orleans has possibly the most corrupt, dysfunctional police force on the continent, with the likely exception of Mexico.
Before Katrina, a travel advisory for Canadians traveling to New Orleans was to never allow the police to pull you over, but that if they tail you with flashers on, you should drive yourself to a police station.
The rationale is crooked cops are less likely to pull shit there.
As for post-Katrina, I’d bet the advisory is “don’t go”.[/quote]
Funny stuff. NO was a fun town but the whole state is corrupt. I used to work for a company that had an office outside Baton Rouge. There were regular break ins with minor theft and vandalism until they started making a regular donation to the local cops. Problem solved.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
They wouldn’t find them all.[/quote]
Why is that? You got something other than your head up there?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They wouldn’t find them all.
Why is that? You got something other than your head up there?[/quote]
Go away little boy. The grown ups are trying to discuss something.
Mikey,
What would you have done in that situation?
Would you have fired on the National Guard?
New Orleans was a good expmple of what happens during unforseen crisis and featured various groups that were out of control and operating on their own.
I don’t support what they did regarding the gun confiscation in any way shape or form. I hope the NRA nails them on this.
That being said. I spend 10 weeks in NO after Katrina. I never saw anyone shoot at a helicopter or heard of it happening other then in the media. I always travelled armed and so did all members of our crew. Not open carry but we were all armed. We worked in all of the parishes. I was also set up near a National Guard camp. They had free access to our coffee and food trailer. We got ice and water from them. They knew we were armed and we were never asked about it. My crew was also multi-racial as were the guard crews so it wasn’t just good old boys getting along.
I don’t doubt any of the stuff on the youtube clip happened I just don’t think it was widespread.
I wouldn’t shoot it out with our troops. It’s the last thing anyone needed. We carried our weapons for protection and if we engaged somone it would be to evade and move to cover and help. We weren’t a military force. We were there to help the city and the people.