Disarming of citizens in NO

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Sometimes here on ATS we have discussions about gun control. We tend to fall into the two typical camps, of those who don't want people armed, and those who say its their right.

One of the most common reasons given is to protect themselves from the government if it ever goes rogue. You can see here in NO how futile that argument is. When armed officers are allowed to enter the house and force people by gunpoint to leave.

I saw a news article on TV where a reporter was talking to an elderly woman who didn't want to leave. She locked all her doors and windows and refused to talk to anyone except the female reporter, allowing her into the house for an interview. After agreeing it was futile to stay the reporter opend the front door and said it was safe to come in. Then armed men, with drawn guns stormed in ready to shoot.

Don't tell me anymore that citizens with weapons prevent the govenment keep the government honest, or guns will protect you from them. That cultural myth is totally buried in the events over the last few days.




posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken


Don't tell me anymore that citizens with weapons prevent the govenment keep the government honest, or guns will protect you from them. That cultural myth is totally buried in the events over the last few days.



No they do, however, it requires one to be willing to stand up and fight for his or her rights, An believe me, if this continues, and goes beyond NO, there are alot of us up north willling to defend that right, I dont care rather you are a Liberal, Conservative or whatever else, We all know the stuff thats been going on down there isnt right, and is only the begining, I think the problem here is, much like most things these days, it slowly happens and when you finaly realise whats going on its to late, I guess most people expect the goverment to say BAM no more guns NO more free speach ect ect, They expect some kind of blatent signal to know when to defend there rights, But we havent gotten and probably will not get such a signal, It will and is happening slowly, one thing at a time. and will as said, be to late when everyone finaly realises whats going on.

[edit on 9-9-2005 by C0le]



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
hehehe ...

"I'm from the government, and I am here to @#%$@ rescue your @#$% ass! So on the floor you @#$@ flood victim! NOW!

www.whatreallyhappened.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0le
No they do, however, it requires one to be willing to stand up and fight for his or her rights,
...
I think the problem here is, much like most things these days, it slowly happens and when you finaly realise whats going on its to late,
...
It will and is happening slowly, one thing at a time. and will as said, be to late when everyone finaly realises whats going on.


C0le, man, I hate it when I agree with you! (just kidding)
But I'm with you all the way here. A gun doesn't provide protection if a person isn't willing to use it. It just becomes a liability. And it's not going to keep the government from running over our rights unless the people are willing to use it.

This story has me ready to scream.

I saw it on CNN. They even said something like, "This isn't what it looks like." Whaaaa? What are they doing, helping these people get their handcuffs on? This is disgusting, frustrating, unnerving and very, very scary.

There is way more to this forced evacuation than we know. Something more is behind getting every single person out of there...



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   

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??


The reason the founding father of our countries wrote this amendment was to empower the citizenry to ensure that we never fall under the unaccountable and absolute control of tyranny. As you have surely by now read for yourself, there are more than a few Americans who would actively resist a carte blanche dismissal of our constitutionally guaranteed rights.


Originally posted by BitRaiser
How's this for an idea:
Say a band of looters is heading your way. Rather than shooting 'em, try inviting them to merge what they have with what you have? Try forming a community and HELPING each other.
Is it such a stretch to imagine that maybe if you extend your hand in friendship that maybe the guns aren't required?


Really, BitRaiser, are you so naive?
May I please be invited to this shelter of idyllic bliss in which you live? It is my understanding that in Iceland, parents leave their children unattended outside stores. The reason for this is the existence of a cultural environment that fosters such trust in the communal interest. Yes, this is a nice ideal... and one (albeit sadly) completely and verifiably absent from the reality of American culture!


Originally posted by BitRaiser
The way I see it, the Second Amendment (and things like the inserection act) are part of the problem and in no way can ever be part of the solution. These are manifestations of paranioa that happen to be constitutionally endorsed.

Isn't it time to just GET OVER IT?


My perception and subsequent assessment of you is slowly transitioning away from naivety... and not in a positive direction. Did you just really advocate the complete and casual dismissal of the Constitution?

May I advise you educate yourself on rise of facism in the 20th Century? You are truly so obviously (and blissfully) oblivious to the ease with which our inalienable rights as human beings may be so easily suspended without the protection awardeda people by a written constitution?

And before you simply crack back and ask me what the 2nd Amendment has to do with the above, please reread my repsonse to your first comment as quoted above.

Please do humanity a service and never run for public office.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   

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??

It seems to me to be the root of the scociaty of fear which has alowed "the powers that Be" to so easily manipulate and mislead the public.

Why not just put down the firggin guns and start looking at each other as fellow human beings?

How's this for an idea:
Say a band of looters is heading your way. Rather than shooting 'em, try inviting them to merge what they have with what you have? Try forming a community and HELPING each other.
Is it such a stretch to imagine that maybe if you extend your hand in friendship that maybe the guns aren't required?

The way I see it, the Second Amendment (and things like the inserection act) are part of the problem and in no way can ever be part of the solution. These are manifestations of paranioa that happen to be constitutionally endorsed.

Isn't it time to just GET OVER IT?



I don't know how things are in Canada, but here in America our Founding Fathers knew that government was not your friend but rather your enemy. We were to be armed to protect against invasion and against a corrupt government. The Constitution is supposed to be a leash and the government dogs are busily chewing their way through it.

It even says in the Bible that if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. You have the right to defend yourself, your family, and your home.

In Switzerland, people are required to have guns in their homes, and the crime rate is very low.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
I saw on TV, i think a similar scene- but these navy-blue uniforms- ALL drew their sidearms as they entered the house enmass...is that the same
news clip your citing? or are those M4 's rifles?


These guys were in temperate wooded (green) camo uniforms with boonie hats and baseball cap-like hats on. The all had M4's, I recognised them immediately. Most also had a sidearm strapped to their legs. The reporter interviewed a couple of them. One said some thing like "This is surreal, I never imagined I would have to to this in my own country".

I'm sure that if I have seen this footage in my country, there is no doubt that there are Americans who have also seen it over there.


[edit on 9-9-2005 by cargo]



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdrumrunner

The reason the founding father of our countries wrote this amendment was to empower the citizenry to ensure that we never fall under the unaccountable and absolute control of tyranny. As you have surely by now read for yourself, there are more than a few Americans who would actively resist a carte blanche dismissal of our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

And look how well that worked out.

I see a nation armed to the teeth, but with civil rights vanishing at an alarming rate.
Those guns sure seem to help out lots!


Originally posted by sdrumrunner
Really, BitRaiser, are you so naive?
May I please be invited to this shelter of idyllic bliss in which you live? It is my understanding that in Iceland, parents leave their children unattended outside stores. The reason for this is the existence of a cultural environment that fosters such trust in the communal interest. Yes, this is a nice ideal... and one (albeit sadly) completely and verifiably absent from the reality of American culture!

I said it was an idea. Something worth thinking about.
But thinking isn't something you seem to be too inclined to do...
Better to get hostial over the fact that someone would dare to suggest that maybe the fixation on guns is the problem.
Yes... getting mad always fixes things.
Especially when you own a gun!!


Originally posted by sdrumrunner
My perception and subsequent assessment of you is slowly transitioning away from naivety... and not in a positive direction. Did you just really advocate the complete and casual dismissal of the Constitution?

Yup, I guess I did.
Just because something is completely irrational and out-moded, doesn't mean you should dare to consitter chuckin it out the window tho.
How silly of me to suggest that something drawn up in a completely different age could maybe no-longer apply to the modern/real world.

Originally posted by sdrumrunner
May I advise you educate yourself on rise of facism in the 20th Century? You are truly so obviously (and blissfully) oblivious to the ease with which our inalienable rights as human beings may be so easily suspended without the protection awardeda people by a written constitution?

Yes, you may.
Might I advise you that I live in a nation, very much like your own, but rather than having a national fixation on guns, we prefer beer.
We live not in fear of each other, or Govermental tyrany, or terrorism.
In fact, we don't fear much at all... except maybe a beer shortage.

May I ask you, who's nation is more free?

Originally posted by sdrumrunner
And before you simply crack back and ask me what the 2nd Amendment has to do with the above, please reread my repsonse to your first comment as quoted above.

I think I adressed that point quite nicely...
don't you?

Originally posted by sdrumrunner
Please do humanity a service and never run for public office.


Yes indeed.
It would be a horrible thing.
Advocating that people should treat eachother with respect and try very hard NOT to shoot at each other would no doubt be the end of sociaty as we know it.

BTW, my personal opinion is that guns are for people with insecurity issues and are afraid of either standing toe to toe with someone OR trying to find a better solution.

I have NO respect for someone who values their right to own firearms more than other people's right to life.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Those of you who voted for a candidate simply because they were supported by the NRA should
read this and pass it on.

"Gosh but THEY said I could keep my guns!"

www.sonic.net...

Here are just a few Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:


EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis."

YES FEMA COULD SHUT DOWN THE INTERNET

Under a declared national emergency FEMA and our most honorable government leaders
essentially have the right to suspend your constitutional rights and congress can not review the action for 6 months.

Perhaps NOW Americans will FINALLY wake up and begin to understand what our leaders
have voted into law.

Perhaps NOW Americans will FINALLY take a more active role in their state and local governments.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   
``

...well, its not just the troublemakers, those who have protection
(as in deterrent) are being disarmed.
as a result, they're being set up as unarmed-potential- victims...

i don't think the armed citizens had their weapons to make the authorities skiddish...or to threaten the gov't with any milita insurrection


...on Thursday, in the city's well-to-do Lower Garden District,
a neighborhood with many antebellum mansions,
members of the Oklahoma National Guard seized weapons from the inhabitants of one home.............and briefly detained before being let go.

"No one will be armed. We are going to take all the weapons"
......

apnews.myway.com...



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   
NO is under martail law I believe, so there wouldn't be any laws stating that people in NO can arm themselves correct? Maybe I am wrong. If so, please correct me.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   
For the most part the people are being treated well. In some cases people are putting up resistance to being pulled from there homes so guns are drawn as protocall if they don't come out freely. Guns are removed frome the homes to keep thugs from breaking in and stealling them. What I don't know if records are being kept as to who owns the guns when they return.
I estimate that 10-15% of the houses are livable. Another 5% might be salvaged with home owners being allowed the repair them and move back in. Of the other 80% it's still to early to call. Marshall law should be lifted in surrounding areas west and north of the city and those people still have their guns. I believe the 2nd Am will be restored to NOLA when this is over. I know several civs working in the city now that still have their weapons and the guard has been there. Now that the peace has more or less returned they put them in the closet unloaded for now.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   
BitRaiser, I don't know anyone who would not support nor espouse the idea of the idyllic societal conditions of which you speak. It is not the ideal I fault. Not whatsoever.

What I do believe is flawed, however, is your erroneous and overly simplistic assumption that such a transition can simply be "winked" into transition. Truth of the matter is yes, I, as I am sure would many Americans, would gladly embrace the utopia you describe. But one must first create the utopia.


Originally posted by BitRaiser

Originally posted by sdrumrunner

The reason the founding fathers of our country wrote this amendment was to empower the citizenry to ensure that we never fall under the unaccountable and absolute control of tyranny. As you have surely by now read for yourself, there are more than a few Americans who would actively resist a carte blanche dismissal of our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

And look how well that worked out.

I see a nation armed to the teeth, but with civil rights vanishing at an alarming rate.
Those guns sure seem to help out lots!


Again, BitRaiser, this is an overly simplified observation that does not necessarily reflect the reality. There is a marked differnce between several thousands hold outs in a flooded basin and 40,000,000 peeps in lockdown following a big earthquake in SoCal. Furthermore, is it not duplicitous to advocate a position of endless pacifism on one hand, while seemingly suggesting otherwise in your quote above?


Originally posted by BitRaiser

Originally posted by sdrumrunner
Really, BitRaiser, are you so naive?
May I please be invited to this shelter of idyllic bliss in which you live? It is my understanding that in Iceland, parents leave their children unattended outside stores. The reason for this is the existence of a cultural environment that fosters such trust in the communal interest. Yes, this is a nice ideal... and one (albeit sadly) completely and verifiably absent from the reality of American culture!


I said it was an idea. Something worth thinking about.
But thinking isn't something you seem to be too inclined to do...
Better to get hostial over the fact that someone would dare to suggest that maybe the fixation on guns is the problem.
Yes... getting mad always fixes things.
Especially when you own a gun!!


How sad. Never once did I express anything that could even remotely be construed as hostility. Nor did I get mad. Nor did I once even remotely advocate anger as a solution to anything... In fact, I am the first to admit that many of us are absent in some of the msot important values we should embrace in our culture. If you carefully reread the above quote you will see this is so.

I'm afraid such gross misrepresentations of what I have said does nothing to constructively further the discussion, and in fact only serves to attempt to distort my message and drag down the intellectual quotient of the discussion.
May I suggest embracing the ideals you preach?

By the way, a quick fact checking mission will reveal that life in Canada is not as idyllic as you think:

From the Vancouver Board of Trade web site: "B.C.’s overall crime index per 100,000 as second only to the District of Columbia compared to all provinces and states in North America

In fact, a comparison of 2002 crime statistics will show San Diego's violent crime rate of 480.9 per 100,000 people is more than twice as low as Vancouver's (1,199 per 100,000 people).


Originally posted by BitRaiser

Originally posted by sdrumrunner
Did you just really advocate the complete and casual dismissal of the Constitution?


Yup, I guess I did.
Just because something is completely irrational and out-moded, doesn't mean you should dare to consitter chuckin it out the window tho.
How silly of me to suggest that something drawn up in a completely different age could maybe no-longer apply to the modern/real world.


I don't know how else to react to your suggested casual dismissal of the Constitution.

Apparently, you are completely unaware of how exactly a democratic government functions. There are legislative processes in place to amend the consitution. Furthermore, (in theory at least) the balance of power between the judical, leglislative, and executive branch exists so as to ensure rapid changes could not be made to the constitution. History is filled time and time again with examples of the folly of rash judgement.

Sadly, I am no longer sure I can simply say "look here" anymore.
I believe we have lost way from our roots as a Jeffersonian Democracy, a democracy of the "citizen stateman." Somehow, politics has become a career -- and I personally believe it was never intended to be as such.


Originally posted by BitRaiser
May I ask you, who's nation is more free?


Well, considering Canada is a consitutional monarchy and the Queen of England is your official monarch, I would say "us."



Originally posted by BitRaiser
BTW, my personal opinion is that guns are for people with insecurity issues and are afraid of either standing toe to toe with someone OR trying to find a better solution.

I have NO respect for someone who values their right to own firearms more than other people's right to life.


Again, a gross misrepresentation of my previous post... Never once did I endorse the "values" you mention above...

Furthermore, this is yet again demonstrative of your lack of understanding of the inherent complexity to the issue. No, Silly Rabbit, we do not all possess guns because we're "insecure." While it very well may be an arbitrary dependence, it is also a deeply engrained, cultural, learned behavior that we have lived with, generation after generation, for well over 200 years. It is not a "pretty thing" that can so easily and simply be put down. The issue is in fact far more complicated than you seem to understand.

And regarding your personal opinion, please remember that your very right to a "personal opinion" is a right guaranteed by your constitution. So maybe simply "throwing one out" is a shortsighted course of action.


[edit on 10-9-2005 by sdrumrunner]



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Bottom line: Your 2nd Ammendment appears to be a crock. I'd be willing to hear arguments to the contrary. Do you support the disarmament of citizens in NO or indeed other states? If not, what are you going to do about this?

Does martial law include house to house searches and confiscation of personal weapons?



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 02:56 AM
link   
sdrumrunner: we seem to have reached an understanding, here.

I know I'm being overly simplistic.
My first comment in this thread was "I have never understood...".
Even that wasn't exactly right. I get it in terms of the historic issues and how it has become so engrained into the culture that you CANNOT simply toss it out.

That, I get.

But:
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.
I don't understand the willingness to live in a sociaty of fear. The US media is an amazing fear maker... but most of it is utter BS.
I can't understand why you would live under a government you consiter your enemy. That's called "occupation". I would rather die fighting for my nation (if I believe in it) than to live in an occupied state.

And it's my obervation that The Right to Bare Arms and the sociaty of fear are linked.

It's the fear that has brought the US Public under the tyranical yoke of Bushco.

All the guns in the US didn't stop that, did it?

Ah crap... why am I even yaking?
Just watch Bowling for Columbine. Mr Moore made the point better than I can!

(BTW, thanks for the link. It's interesting, but the numbers are badly scewed. I can tell you why, but we've hijacked this thread enough!)

[edit on 10-9-2005 by BitRaiser]



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 03:08 AM
link   
I am under the impression that the US Constitution is simply a pacifier. I thinly veiled facade with which to continually appease the masses by reference. When TSHTF it all goes out the window faster than a look of bewilderment can materialise on the faces of those nationalistically chanting their slogans.

It disturbs me that we are seeing this happen in a country where I believed, strongly, it could never happen. This is the precedent. Whatever happens after this will be crucial. I watch with interest as to what the American people do about specifically this.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by cargo
Bottom line: Your 2nd Ammendment appears to be a crock. I'd be willing to hear arguments to the contrary. Do you support the disarmament of citizens in NO or indeed other states? If not, what are you going to do about this?

Does martial law include house to house searches and confiscation of personal weapons?


The 2nd Ammendment isn't a crock, it's their to help defend our other rights. The government is not now, nor has it ever been, there to protect our rights. This was a country by the people, for the people, and the 2nd Ammendment was there to allow us as citizens to make sure it stayed that way. People view things with a modern perspective, they confuse America the country with USA the government. We the people are America, this is our land and our home and under no circumstance should the government be allowed to take it away from us. The government should exist to serve the people. Our founding fathers gave us the right to bare arms to ensure that the ideals of the American people lived on, regardless of governments. Without our 2nd Ammendment rights we would have no means of defending ourselves from a corrupt tyrannical government. Sadly I feel there are few left who truly understand what our rights mean or I think more people would be outraged.

The 2nd Ammendment doesn't only allow us the right to bare arms. when translated it is clear our founding fathers were saying "Get a gun, and watch out for big corrupt governments"



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 03:39 AM
link   
People ask "why do americans need guns?" and in the same breath they themselves say our government is currently ran by a 'nazi'.
I thought it would be quite evident. anyway, guns dont do anything unless people are willing to use them, and it can't just be a few who are brave enough to resist otherwise they end up massacred just like at WACO. If the people of NO collectively decided they were tired of it and distributed weapons and forced the government out of the city i gurantee you they would think twice before sending in any more people. As i said, this has to be a collective effort otherwise the courageous people whod defend their rights will die for nothing.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Hi BitRaiser,

Fair enough.
Even though, in all honesty, as the very topic of the thread is the reported suspension of constitutional rights, I see it as a natural extension of the topic...

Please don't misunderstand me, BR... If I could believe with complete certainty that a) I would never once require the use of a firearm to protect myself or those I love from becoming the victim of a violent crime (e.g., home invasion robery), or b) the unlikely event of citizen-protection from tyrannical rule, then yes, I would be among the first to express willingness to consider readressing the 2nd Amendment.

However, therein lies the issue: If, as a country, we were to approve legislation to address the possible restructruing of the 2nd amendment, then so be it. In other words, if change to the amendment was brought about via the democratic process, then so be it.

But that's not what were talking about in this istance, is it? [Note: nor do I have faith that our deomcratic process is working nearly as well in reality as it should in theory, but this is a different topic altogether, isn't it?)

What was reported yesterday -- in one news source, mind you -- is the apparent violation of the existing constitutional rights of citizens. Now, according to FFTT, there exist plenty of executive orders, which if invoked, seem to essentially trample over a wide variety of our freedoms. But what is happening here appears illegal.

Now, as with every issue in modern society, there exists an inherent level of complexity here as well... I am yet to indepdently corroborate the original NYT article (can someone help me with this please?). If the article is in fact accurate, many questions remain: Were these the acts of local civil law authority? State? Federal? On whose authority? Was this executed as per a policy-driven mandate, or was it simply a lack of judgement?

The absence of follow-up information is frustrating, as I have no definitive answers to any of the above questions. The conflicting information coming out of the area sends more mixed signals than a drunken prom date.

I have additionally embedded comments below where appropriate.


Originally posted by BitRaiser
sdrumrunner: we seem to have reached an understanding, here.

I know I'm being overly simplistic.
My first comment in this thread was "I have never understood...".
Even that wasn't exactly right. I get it in terms of the historic issues and how it has become so engrained into the culture that you CANNOT simply toss it out.

That, I get.

But:
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.
I don't understand the willingness to live in a sociaty of fear.


True that.
You'll get no arguement from me there...



Originally posted by BitRaiser
And it's my obervation that The Right to Bare Arms and... fear are linked.


I agree completely. In fact, I provide some insight into what some of these "fears" are earlier in this post. But again, to simply lump these fears into the same bucket as state-driven, control-oriented phobias is again an oversimplification, my friend.



Originally posted by BitRaiser
It's the fear that has brought the US Public under the tyranical yoke of Bushco.

All the guns in the US didn't stop that, did it?


So once again the pacifist is advocating violence? Again, BR, it is not as simple as you portray. I didn't vote for Bush in this last election, I may agree that he was not elected as such in the 2000 election, and I may not hold everyone who did vote for him in the highest esteem, but nonetheless, by popular vote, he was elected in 2004 (For which I have one word: RECALL).

So my fellow Americans elected this incompetent, out of touch, anti-Midas. How can someone so quick to embrace pacifist values so quickly advocate the opposite course of action in response to what are in truth our consequences from the choice we, as a country, made?


Originally posted by BitRaiser
Ah crap... why am I even yaking?
Just watch Bowling for Columbine. Mr Moore made the point better than I can!
[edit on 10-9-2005 by BitRaiser]


I have. Have you ever seen Roger & Me? TV Nation? Canadian Bacon? Read Downsize This? In truth, I have been a fan of his blatant observations and in-your-face satire since he first shot Roger & Me. However, who once was a man of the American People has had some degree of purity of vision compromised by ego... I saw this really begin with Bowling..., where a vast lot of valid facts were tainted with the inclusion of fabricated and falsely represented statistics.

While he is still a "man of the people," IMHO his vision was compromised a long time ago when he decided to no longer let facts simply speak for themselves.
Not to say there aren't a lot of truths in all his movies. However in reality, one was not simply accept every number at face value...

As you yourself informed me, it was Benjamin Disraeli who said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."


To Cargo:

I am confused...
Are you suggesting the 2nd Amendment is a "crock" simply because it may have been violated?

By your logic, are you actually suggesting that if any law is broken, even once, it is therefore invalid? This logic seems flawed at best... Please explain.

If instead you are stating the 2nd Amendment is a "crock" because it did not protect the few holdouts who insisted on remaining behind and maintaining possession of their firearms, well, if by "crock" you mean it failed to protect those relatively few citizens, I cannot argue. You are correct.

If, hwoever, by stating it is a "crock" you are postulating that, "It did not protect isolated holdouts few in number, therefore it will not protect 300,000,000 Americans," I don't think I need to explicitly point out just how flawed this logic is, do I?

Again, I will reiterate the following: There is a marked difference between the holdouts who are relatively few in number and 20,000,000 citizens in SoCal stranded in and around their homes following a major earthquake. Surely you see the difference...



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
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.

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.

It is a crock because the citizens themselves, by their very actions, felt compelled to give up their arms. This is the opposite of what the 2nd Amendment means, as I have come to understand it. Although there appears to be a few "interpretations" being thrown around. If the 2nd Amendment really held its much touted weight with these people, then news outlets would probably be reporting the deaths of several well-to-do residents and a few National Guardsmen.

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]





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join