http://gamingtrend.com
September 01, 2014, 08:23:13 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: NO police confiscating all legally owned firearms  (Read 2999 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Raven
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 428


View Profile
« on: September 09, 2005, 03:07:55 AM »

While the ACLU sits on their hands.

Video
Logged
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2005, 03:11:00 AM »

Considering the situation down there...jesus christ I'm honestly not sure which side I fall on considering the mess down there. Huh.
Logged
weeskwee
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 149


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2005, 03:20:07 AM »

i don't see a problem. it's gone all thunderdome up in that bitch.
Logged
Raven
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 428


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2005, 03:22:01 AM »

Let's put it into perspective.

People are being ordered out of their homes, and even if they have plans to stay somewhere besides an evacuation center, their guns are still illegally confiscated.

So even if a NO resident plans to live with friends or family, in another state, where gun ownership is legal, the owners are still forced to leave their guns behind.

I have no problem with banning guns from evacuation centers, but this goes way beyond that.
Logged
Daehawk
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11755



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2005, 03:32:58 AM »

Thats some serious bullshit and totally illegal. People up to no good will still have thier guns and now the home owners are defenseless and the crooks will know that. Id not let them in. If they bust in then shoot the cops.

In related news I saw where in areas surrounding the disaster where refugees have fled that sales in gunshops have tripled or more.
Logged

---------------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.

Check my trader rating. Im 22+ and zero negs. Trade with me! smile
Raven
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 428


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2005, 03:38:52 AM »

And while this jack booted thuggery takes place, Dubya (who could not have gotten elected without NRA support), and the ACLU sit on their hands.

This story is just starting to break, and hopefully gun owners will spread the word.

Oh, and what are the odds of these citizens ever getting their legally owned forearms back.

I'd say about zero chance.
Logged
Kagath
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2486


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2005, 03:48:00 AM »

Didn't they say that there was Martial Law instated there? It's not really suprising. I'm more suprised it took this long with the people shooting at troops.
Logged

Playing: ? 360 | ? | BF4 PC / XB1 | ? - WINGS *are* shit lately.
PSN/Live: MrStark77
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2005, 03:59:49 AM »

A friend was telling me about some guy who left with his gun and ammo, a crossbow, his dog, an outdoor stove, and some water.  And thats it.

He out in the wilderness somewhere, basically away from people.  And given how everything turned out, it seems he is probably happier and safer than sticking around and waiting for the authorities to manage things.
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3613


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2005, 01:49:08 PM »

Quote
People are being ordered out of their homes, and even if they have plans to stay somewhere besides an evacuation center, their guns are still illegally confiscated.

So even if a NO resident plans to live with friends or family, in another state, where gun ownership is legal, the owners are still forced to leave their guns behind.

I have no problem with banning guns from evacuation centers, but this goes way beyond that.


As a general rule, I do not support the idea of seizing legally owned and obtained firearms from law-abiding citizens.

In this very specific case, as Kagath pointed out, New Orleans is a (very appropriate) state of martial law.  Virtually all civil liberties, including the freedom of speech, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and yes, even the right to bear arms are suspended under martial law.  In fact, the only articles in the Bill of Rights that I'm aware of being irrevocable are the ones concerning a speedy trial and the right of the accused to face the accuser before a jury of their peers.

In other words, you can be angry at George W. Bush for allowing martial law to be declared in the city all you want -- I believe it was necessary to bring the situation under control, myself -- but the ACLU has absolutely no grounds on which to fight the seizure of people's firearms in this case.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 09, 2005, 07:45:35 PM »

Quote from: "Autistic Angel"
Quote
People are being ordered out of their homes, and even if they have plans to stay somewhere besides an evacuation center, their guns are still illegally confiscated.

So even if a NO resident plans to live with friends or family, in another state, where gun ownership is legal, the owners are still forced to leave their guns behind.

I have no problem with banning guns from evacuation centers, but this goes way beyond that.


As a general rule, I do not support the idea of seizing legally owned and obtained firearms from law-abiding citizens.

In this very specific case, as Kagath pointed out, New Orleans is a (very appropriate) state of martial law.  Virtually all civil liberties, including the freedom of speech, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and yes, even the right to bear arms are suspended under martial law.  In fact, the only articles in the Bill of Rights that I'm aware of being irrevocable are the ones concerning a speedy trial and the right of the accused to face the accuser before a jury of their peers.

In other words, you can be angry at George W. Bush for allowing martial law to be declared in the city all you want -- I believe it was necessary to bring the situation under control, myself -- but the ACLU has absolutely no grounds on which to fight the seizure of people's firearms in this case.

-Autistic Angel


This is not entirely correct. The entire role of the judiciary is drastically weakened when martial law exists and the ability to hold American citizens without trial is greatly expanded until the state of martial law ends. I'll dig out the old books and find out what specifically changes.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #10 on: September 09, 2005, 08:23:41 PM »

Personally, Im far more worried about this.
Logged
Big Jake
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1300


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 09, 2005, 11:55:44 PM »

Can anyone tell me: where does the 'martial law' geographical area end?  The city limits of New Orleans?  Under what circumstances can it be expanded?

(and juding by the way things have gone the last couple years, when do we institute the Two Minutes Hate?)
Logged

The price of great bacon is eternal vigilance.
Greggy_D
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1093


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 11, 2005, 02:02:17 AM »

Guys....Martial Law has NOT been declared in NO.
Logged
Marik
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 62


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 11, 2005, 04:32:11 PM »

I'm with Unbreakable - this is one of the most troubling things I've seen our government do in a while.  Instead of the arms checking each other's powers we're seeing the judicairy all but give the executive a handjob and a pat on the back.

I cannot fathom how out of it these people must be if they're willing to grant wartime powers that trump the bill of rights in perpetuity.  We're fighting a war with no objective, no time frame, and even as our leader puts it *no conceivable end in sight*.  If the War On Terror means the bill of rights doesn't function whenever our government chooses to ignore it, we may as well kiss it goodbye.  It ain't gonna come back.  

This War on Terror isn't going to be called off any time soon.  Who gets jailed next because there is reasonable pretext that they may be an enemy combatant?  Take this guy out and *give him a trial* if we're so f#n certain he's a terrorist and leave the bill of rights in peace.  Its downright scary that judges are willing to tear up the 6th amendment with a note put in its place saying "Will return when executive considers it acceptable."

At this point I don't even know where to place my faith.  Neither the conservative nor liberal branches of the supreme court have been too outspoken against this sort of thing historically.  I've got a bad feeling the decision will stand....
Logged
Interloper
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 600



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2005, 04:35:38 AM »

Wait a minute, so one reason I own a gun is for protection in just such a disaster, and the gov'ts gonna come along and take it away?!  That's bullshit, pure and simple.   :evil:
Logged

stiffler
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4071


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2005, 11:34:20 PM »

Quote from: "Interloper"
Wait a minute, so one reason I own a gun is for protection in just such a disaster, and the gov'ts gonna come along and take it away?!  That's bullshit, pure and simple.   :evil:


Well, there's always the "cold, dead hand" part of the equation...

But I agree.  I mean, other than this (and perhaps zombies) what use is my 12 guage shotgun with no stock?  I'm a man looking for a riot!

Why in the hell did I buy that?  A good folding stock is what I need.  And a flashlight attachment because those look cool.  Actually, having played Doom 3, I'd call it a necessity!  Quick, to Google!

But yeah, I support the idea behind the ACLU, but where's the love?
Logged

Xbox Live Gamertag: cstiffler
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #16 on: September 13, 2005, 03:46:29 PM »

Quote from: "stiffler"
But yeah, I support the idea behind the ACLU, but where's the love?


I think a better question is- where is the NRA?

There are either going to be a lot of guns pried from cold dead hands, or else a lot gun owners need to be removing a lot of bumper stickers.
Logged
Fuzzballx
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 676


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: September 13, 2005, 07:17:26 PM »

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200509%5CCUL20050909b.html

There is your outrage.

From my point of view.  I would not, if on a jury, decide guilty to any charges against anyone who was otherwise innocent of crimes for using lethal force to prevent the confiscation of their legal firearms.  This statement applies specifically to this situation where an order has gone out to confiscate all legally owned firearms in absense, to my knowledge, of martial law and any rights loss martial law might entail.

No.Fucking.Way.  

"Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils" - General John Stark
Logged
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2005, 08:53:09 PM »

Quote from: "Fuzzballx"
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200509%5CCUL20050909b.html

There is your outrage.

From my point of view.  I would not, if on a jury, decide guilty to any charges against anyone who was otherwise innocent of crimes for using lethal force to prevent the confiscation of their legal firearms.  This statement applies specifically to this situation where an order has gone out to confiscate all legally owned firearms in absense, to my knowledge, of martial law and any rights loss martial law might entail.

No.Fucking.Way.  

"Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils" - General John Stark


If you kill a law enforcement officer following orders-in this case to confiscate your firearms-you are going to jail. Period. You preach all you want about the virtues of owning a sawed off shotgun or a Kalishnikov, but if you think anyone has the right to kill a law enforcement officer carrying out their duty-whether you think it right or not, whether you read the 2nd Amendment as giving you the right to own a firearm-you are going to go to jail, and you are going to deserve it.
Logged
CrayolaSmoker
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3614

Sponge Bath Slut


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 13, 2005, 11:04:23 PM »

You have the constituational right to bear arms, not the consitutional right to fire them.  Shoot someone when not directly in danger for your life, and you're a murderer - not some stalwart constitutional defender.

Stand for your principals, get arrested, go to jail, then laugh your countersuit all the way to the bank if you must.  But don't kill law enforcement.
Logged

Wii: 1429 3414 0674 4114 | 360: CrayolaSmokerGT
smokingcrayolas.net | surrogacy blog
Samurai
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 119


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: September 13, 2005, 11:20:51 PM »

Finally showed up on the NRA's website.  It wasn't on there when the story first broke out.  Hopefully this can get some sort of backlash going in favor of the 2AM.
Logged

Welcome to the Bovine.
Big Jake
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1300


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: September 13, 2005, 11:33:34 PM »

OK, to Crayolasmoker & Rage who apparently have decided having a badge makes you 'right no matter what': It's a known fact that the Stazi were Ambassadors of Fun.

When a government becomes a facist tyranny, it's the police who will be carrying out the ugliest & most imhumane policies, not the army.  Resisting police who are carrying out facist decrees is a noble endeavor.
Logged

The price of great bacon is eternal vigilance.
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #22 on: September 13, 2005, 11:57:23 PM »

It's about damn time.  I don't own a gun, but I support the right of people to lawfully own them, not just for self protection, but as a balance against possible future abuses of government.
Logged
RamPanther
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 92


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: September 14, 2005, 12:09:09 AM »

Personally, I would be much more upset at being forced to leave my home in comparison to getting my firearm confiscated. Some of the people who were forced to leave the city were in no immediate danger and well provisioned. On the news they showed one particular man whose home had no flood damage. Furthermore, he filled his home home with a small gas generator, a healthy supply of dried foods, medical supplies, and other odds and ends.  He was by no means some sort of strange survivalist, but rather an educated man that went out and bought all of these things a few days before the hurricane hit.  He was still forced to leave his home.
Logged
VynlSol
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 680


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: September 14, 2005, 12:20:02 AM »

No one should be confiscating legally owned firearms from people in New Orleans.

I understand the thought process behind implementing such an endeavor, but I think it's wrong-headed and doesn't speak to the heart of the matter.

It could be worse I suppose. Rather than the police being instructed to confiscate all firearms from citizens, they could have been instructed to detain all males between 13-35. Then ship them to an internment camp until the emergency is over. Cuz, ya know, that seems to be the age range and gender of troublemakers.

And they just don't need troublemakers running around during an emergency, hindering rescue efforts and such. It's for the good of the community, you see.
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3613


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: September 14, 2005, 12:25:42 AM »

Quote
From my point of view. I would not, if on a jury, decide guilty to any charges against anyone who was otherwise innocent of crimes for using lethal force to prevent the confiscation of their legal firearms.


I'm just curious: would you also acquit someone who used lethal force to ensure their own freedom of speech?

-Autistic Angel
Logged
CrayolaSmoker
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3614

Sponge Bath Slut


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 14, 2005, 01:37:57 AM »

Quote from: "Big Jake"
OK, to Crayolasmoker & Rage who apparently have decided having a badge makes you 'right no matter what':


I said no such thing.  Try reading for content next time.

Quote
When a government becomes a facist tyranny, it's the police who will be carrying out the ugliest & most imhumane policies, not the army.  Resisting police who are carrying out facist decrees is a noble endeavor.


Silly me.  I see a difference between resisting police by fighting within the system and resisting police by murdering them.
Logged

Wii: 1429 3414 0674 4114 | 360: CrayolaSmokerGT
smokingcrayolas.net | surrogacy blog
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #27 on: September 14, 2005, 06:42:14 AM »

Wouldnt killing somebody trying to disarm you be self defense?  Especially if that disarmament would also lead to an unlawful detention?
Logged
Beer Goggles
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1012



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: September 14, 2005, 12:24:53 PM »

The ACLU is too busy protecting us from Christmas, the Boy Scouts and city logos.
Logged
Big Jake
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1300


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: September 14, 2005, 01:58:16 PM »

No, Unbreakable.  It's murder because that makes Cs emotional argument better.

[Helen Lovejoy] "Won't someone please think of the police!?"
Logged

The price of great bacon is eternal vigilance.
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #30 on: September 14, 2005, 08:23:32 PM »

Quote from: "Beer Goggles"
The ACLU is too busy protecting us from Christmas, the Boy Scouts and city logos.


And dont forget stopping Florida prosecutors from looking at the medical records of fat ass drug addicts.
Logged
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: September 14, 2005, 08:38:23 PM »

At least they "protect" everyone on both sides of the spectrum. I mean, just finding a silver lining.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #32 on: September 14, 2005, 09:00:01 PM »

Here is the deal with the ACLU, and most people don't "get it"-

The ACLU will protect anybody who is having their civil liberties violated, because civil liberties apply to EVERYONE in the country.  So while they are in the unfortunate position of defending Nazis and pedophiles sometimes, would you feel comfortable having your rights chipped away because a large body of precedent was built against your rights by going after despicable people?

The ACLU bashing comes mainly from people who are too shortsighted to understand their actual reason for being.
Logged
CrayolaSmoker
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3614

Sponge Bath Slut


View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 14, 2005, 10:26:28 PM »

Quote from: "unbreakable"
Wouldnt killing somebody trying to disarm you be self defense?  Especially if that disarmament would also lead to an unlawful detention?


No.  Just because someone is trying to disarm you does not mean they are a direct and imminent threat to your continuing to live.  If the person trying to disarm you is going to kill you, then it would be self defense.
Logged

Wii: 1429 3414 0674 4114 | 360: CrayolaSmokerGT
smokingcrayolas.net | surrogacy blog
gameoverman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1422


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: September 14, 2005, 11:30:34 PM »

Quote from: "unbreakable"
Here is the deal with the ACLU, and most people don't "get it"-

The ACLU will protect anybody who is having their civil liberties violated, because civil liberties apply to EVERYONE in the country.  So while they are in the unfortunate position of defending Nazis and pedophiles sometimes, would you feel comfortable having your rights chipped away because a large body of precedent was built against your rights by going after despicable people?

The ACLU bashing comes mainly from people who are too shortsighted to understand their actual reason for being.


Sadly, in real life I know too many people who do 'get it', but don't care.  The reason is that they never see themselves being on the 'other' side.  

For instance, I have a friend who couldn't care less about people having rights violated when arrested because 'police wouldn't be arresting them if they weren't doing something wrong'.  Since my friend doesn't break the law, he sees himself as already protected from abuse, so the ACLU is not needed.

I tried to explain to him that his thinking is fine, as long as he's on the right side of the equation.  But things change and the day may come when he'll find himself on the other side, then he'll wish people were there to help him and fight for his rights.

In fact, at work things are beginning to change for him.  When his buddy was in charge, he and other people of the right 'type' got preferential assignments, scheduling, etc.    Now a new person has been put in charge, a person of a different type shall we say.   Now that person is favoring people of that type, leaving my friend with the short end of the stick.

Of course he was all indignant "I have seniority, they are just playing favorites, this is wrong!" etc.    I reminded him that from what he told me this is how it was before, and he never complained about the favoritism, and bias before....when he was benefitting from it.  Now all of a sudden it's an outrage?

He got mad and wouldn't talk about it anymore, hehe.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #35 on: September 15, 2005, 05:10:07 AM »

Quote from: "CrayolaSmoker"
Quote from: "unbreakable"
Wouldnt killing somebody trying to disarm you be self defense?  Especially if that disarmament would also lead to an unlawful detention?


No.  Just because someone is trying to disarm you does not mean they are a direct and imminent threat to your continuing to live.  If the person trying to disarm you is going to kill you, then it would be self defense.


So I'm supposed to know an attackers specific reason for wanting to take my weapon away?
Logged
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: September 15, 2005, 06:32:14 AM »

Quote from: "unbreakable"
Quote from: "CrayolaSmoker"
Quote from: "unbreakable"
Wouldnt killing somebody trying to disarm you be self defense?  Especially if that disarmament would also lead to an unlawful detention?


No.  Just because someone is trying to disarm you does not mean they are a direct and imminent threat to your continuing to live.  If the person trying to disarm you is going to kill you, then it would be self defense.


So I'm supposed to know an attackers specific reason for wanting to take my weapon away?


Law enforcement are not "Attackers". No sane or rational person automatically assumes law enforcement are-there may be instances when they act as such, but to immediately assume that and act with hositlity against them is just illogical, illegal, and stupid. A police officer that confiscates a firearm may be violating your constitutional rights, but he is most likely also simply following orders. Your meeting that with deadly force is criminal, period, and I think you know that. There is an avenue to adress that grievance-the court system. Avail yourself of it. Violence should never be the recourse-but by all means, encourage gun owners to act that way. Give people more reason to want the guns.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #37 on: September 15, 2005, 08:32:22 PM »

Quote from: "Rage"
A police officer that confiscates a firearm may be violating your constitutional rights, but he is most likely also simply following orders.


"Following orders" isn't an adequate defense for breaking the law.  Just take a look at the Nuremberg Trials (I am NOT implying that cops are Nazis, btw)- not a single person who claimed innocence because they were 'following orders' was acquitted, since it would only apply if disobeying an order is the equivalent of a death penalty.

Quote
Your meeting that with deadly force is criminal, period, and I think you know that. There is an avenue to address that grievance-the court system. Avail yourself of it.


If I am using my weapon for self defense, as is my right as a US citizen, and some ill befalls myself or my family because I was stripped of my defense (and a lawless situation such as a natural disaster seems just the time when such a defense is most important), I hardly think my 'court date justice' would be sufficient.

Thinking of courts and allowing so-called law enforcement to break the law shows how badly some people are domesticated.  Yes, rule of law will return to the area, but it wasn't present at the time.

Quote
Violence should never be the recourse-but by all means, encourage gun owners to act that way. Give people more reason to want the guns.


So, we get to have them, but only so long as it doesn't become inconvenient for the powers that be?  That doesn't make it sound like we have a 'right' to gun ownership, it makes it sound more like limited permission to use firearms.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.18 seconds with 99 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.065s, 2q)