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

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
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? 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.

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

I don't care what the problem is I don't think they should be able to force someone off their private property. If I stay and die it is my problem, not the Governments.

Maybe its the cynic in me but I cant help but to wonder if help was not withheld just long enough to make it to where these actions would not be questioned.

These two actions set a bad precedence for future action of a similar nature. I can see them coming door to door taking Guns and forcing people off their homes "Just in case" in the future.

Any thoughts on how this will affect us in the future?

PS

I have added this video clip to my first post because I think it shines a light on the issue

www.prisonplanet.com...

[edit on 13-9-2005 by Amuk]

[edit on 13-9-2005 by Amuk]




posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I am also extremely concerned about these 2 issues.


Originally posted by Amuk
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.


Unfortunately, I'll bet all of them didn't hand over their guns, but we have no media or photographers in there to report about it. I would be completely surprised and shocked to find that every single firearm owner handed over their weapons. And with the Blackwater Mercinaries in there how will we ever know?

Now, it's not so much of a puzzle why our government has been turning away offered rescue help. They wanted to do it themselves, their way.



I don't care what the problem is I don't think they should be able to force someone off their private property. If I stay and die it is my problem, not the Governments.


Exactly. I brought this up in another thread. Why are they so all-fired anxious to get every single person out of the NOLA area? It's not like they're concerned for their lives. I mean that's been made pretty clear. They're clearing this place out completely for some sinister reason. Something yet to come. Something they don't want anyone to see.



I can see them coming door to door taking Guns and forcing people off their homes "Just in case" in the future.

Any thoughts on how this will affect us in the future?


I think it's the NWO. Simply. It's happening. Now. Here. Coming soon to a city near you...

I'm a cynic, too, but today, that only means I have my eyes open and I'm using my mind for thinking instead of watching the 'pretty colors' that are put out there to distract us from the reality of the situation.

Yeah, and if that happens here, I'll be conspicuously missing from ATS... and from everywhere because I'm not going anywhere.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
At least we know that military personal will not enforce in anyway the mandatory evacuation, that will be in the state level.

About the guns I have mixed feelings about this, one is that if you go into a shelter with a few thousands of people in a bunch, will it be necessary to have guns?

Now will the guns that are registered to the people as by laws, will be returned?



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Some thoughts:

On the gun thing, I still have trouble understanding the US fixation on the second amendment. I'm prepaired, however, to accept it as a cultural differance, but I still see it as the main source that led to "the culture of fear" and thus to the very easy take over of the government.
All the guns in the US didn't stop Bush from being re-elected, nor the war in Iraq, nor the dissolution of civil rights.
Fear did all that.
Someone who's not afraid, doesn't need a gun.
But as I say, it's a cultural thing... and userping civil liberties (questionable liberties or not) is not a good thing.

On the removal of people from NO:
There's still alot of businesses with salvagable capital in the affected area. People staying put are a threat to that since there's no law enforcment to keep thives at bay. It's privet sector companies that seem to have brought in Darkwater.
There's also the issue of the reported BioLab in the area. If these people are exposed to some of the nasty, but slow reacting bugs that may have been released there's a real threat of contagion. Even without a breach in the biolab that threat still exists from all the crap (litterally, for a portion) that's floating around.
Finally, there's the issue of image. If there people AREN'T removed, they could be deemed abandoned. Yes, pragmaticly it's their choise to remain, but counter spinners would still use it as ammunition against the administration (like they really need anymore!). Realisticly, there can't be any hope of restoration of basic utilities for a loooooong time.

SO;
In my view, there doesn't need to be any hidden agenda going on here. You needn't involved NWO theories, or wild speculation when there are more mundane explinations that certain people still don't want hung out in plain view.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   

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.




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

I don't care what the problem is I don't think they should be able to force someone off their private property. If I stay and die it is my problem, not the Governments.


This is a non-issue and is no longer being enforced.
At any rate, the recommendation and/or thought process behind enforcing property evacuations was mainly for health reasons. Again, if deemed as necessary to do, it should rightly be enforced, despite your property rights, etc. It was a temporary measure anyhow. Those removed would have had all rights to return.







seekerof



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof


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


This is a non-issue and is no longer being enforced.


Do you have a source on this? I haven't heard a thing about mandatory evacuations being called off...



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
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?


Sarcasm....how cute.

So the answer to armed gangs looting and pilliging is to disarm honest citizens? Another question, will those honest citizens have their firearms returned to them or will they become some cops new present? I would be willing to bet NO ONE will get them back.




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.


I saw them disarm an elderly lady at machine gun point, wrestle her to the ground and take away her only means of protection, but at the same time they allow business owners to bring in private muscle to protect their property and the Government doesn't have a problem with it? I guess its OK to protect your self with a HIRED gun just not the one in your nightstand.

I guess only the rich can be trusted to protect themselves.

Here is a link to the video of them 'Taking Granny Down"

I saw it on the O'Reilly Show first

www.prisonplanet.com...

I must admit that I imagine the entire state slept better after granny was taken down. Did they get the rest of her "homies"? They didn't say on TV but was she a looter or a raper?

I can imagine they where glad to have Armed men with machine guns storm their houses and be disarmed, after all the Government has done such a GREAT job protecting them up till then....right



Could this whole disarming the population thingy maybe have something to do with King Georges visit today?




[edit on 12-9-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Cole has a wonderful cartoon that hits home on this....


Originally posted by C0le



Thanks for the Image Cole and I am glad to see I am not the ONLY American Outraged at this



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Amuk i`ll go out on a limb and say the slow response was deliberate to exercise these actions the military displayed and is displaying for future nation wide (global?)implementations of what your wittnessing.

The bazar and outlandish is easier to believe than the US`s response to Katrina.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by gps777
Amuk i`ll go out on a limb and say the slow response was deliberate to exercise these actions the military displayed and is displaying for future nation wide (global?)implementations of what your witnessing.


I am usually the first to poo-poo such Ideas but I almost believe you on this one. You will not find ANYONE more of a patriot than me. I swore an oath to protect my Country years ago and I still am bound to it.

I did not swear an Oath to beat an old woman to the ground to take her only means of self defense from them.

I beg my brothers still in uniform, be it police or soldier to consider their oath and its true meaning. There may come a time when you need to determine who the real enemy to our country is.

BTW

Does the link work for everyone?
PS

I have invited two people from both ends of the political spectrum to give their opinion on this.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   
My apologies Amuk for not clicking the link as i took your word for it and did`nt know whether i could stomach watching it.

I just clicked on it to check for you and YES IT WORKS,AND I`M SHAKING WITH ANGER,do not expect anyone to completely describe in human words what an atrocity of treatment that is.

I also cannot believe a camera crew was there to capture it and the camera was`nt confiscated.

Edit to add. I can only guess that they want it to be public knowledge so that in future events people will know pysical force will be used on anyone that does`nt relinquish their rights to what ever they choose your rights to be.Why has`nt it hit main stream media tv? maybe it will.

Amuk in your reply to my first comments i`m confident that you were saying that ussually you would poo poo ON such idea`s.Just wanted to clear that up,and i dont take offence to people who have or do.I`ve been saying the same thing`s along the same lines for alooooooong time and i`m no lone ranger to that.


[edit on 13-9-2005 by gps777]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Just watched that, i hadnt seen it until just now, and it makes me sick, aside from the fact it was illegal to remove her from her home, aside from
the fact it was illegal to take her firearm, Was that nessesary? That guy had to be im guessing around 200lbs, bashing an elderly lady up against the wall onto the floor like that? ontop of that the women wasnt even holding the gun in a way which was threatening...

I wont finish my thoughts at this current time as it will most likely get me banned..

Heres a direct link to it, if you want to download it, www.prisonplanet.com...

[edit on 13-9-2005 by C0le]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by gps777
Amuk in your reply to my first comments i`m confident that you were saying that usually you would poo poo ON such idea`s.Just wanted to clear that up,and i don't take offense to people who have or do.I`ve been saying the same thing`s along the same lines for along time and i`m no lone ranger to that.


My apologies if my remark was taken wrong, I merely meant to say usually I don't buy into most of the conspiracy theories here but I must admit this one is sounding better every day.

I agree with you, I was trembling with rage myself, I could just picture my mother being "saved" like that. This film should be on every TV station in America



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   
I'm certainly far from what you could call an expert on US Constitutional Law, but I'll have a crack at it.

Starting from the top down, Article VI of the US Constitution, or the "Supremacy Clause", states:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

This Article basically states that federal law overrides state law where conflicting statutes arise; as stated, that the Constitution is "the supreme law of the land".

However, there is some contention over the meaning of the phrase "which shall be made in pursuance thereof".

There are three basic definitions of "pursuance":

1. A carrying out or putting into effect; prosecution.
2. Proceeding from and conformable to; in accordance with.
3. The continuance of something begun with a view to its completion.

If one takes the third definition as the intended meaning, then the supremacy applies to the Constitution, and all federal laws made after it.

However, if one interprets the first and second definitions as the intended meaning, whereby the whole phrase "in pursuance thereof" equates to the modern term "pursuant", then any and all laws which contradict or do not conform to the tenets of the Constitution are null and void, as the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Hence, not just any State Law, but also any FEDERAL Law which contradicts or does not conform to the Constitution and its ratified amendments is unconstitutional and therefore unlawful, null and void. Since no Constitutional amendment has ever been made which revokes or repeals the Second Amendment, the confiscation of arms borne by citizens of the United States is illegal.

US Constitution (Bill of Rights) Second Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Now this is where we start getting into areas of U.S. law that I'm especially unclear on, so if anyone can correct me, then please do so. As I understand it, if a U.S. citizen has committed a crime and been served an arrest warrant, or is in the act of committing a crime that endangers public safety, the police have the legal right to relieve that person of any weapons carried by that person during the course of arrest and in accordance with the legal principle of "reasonable force". However, the right to bear arms still remains and the police, once they have confirmed that the the gun is registered to that person, must return the weapon to its owner or to a beneficiary thereof if the arrestee is to be detained, and assuming the weapon is not to be used as evidence in court.

So in summary, the NOPD, the State of Louisiana, the Federal Government, and any agents thereof, have no legal authority to confiscate so much as a slingshot from the citizens of New Orleans who have not committed a crime which mandates they be arrested and detained, EVEN IF laws have been passed by those same bodies to supposedly provide legal grounds for such confiscations. Well, that's how I see it anyway...

This whole episode calls to mind the late William Cooper, who was possibly the greatest defender of the tenets of the US Constitution in modern times, and who agrees with my interpretation above. And he should know...he basically proved that taxation is illegal within the US and that the IRS has no legal authority to demand that the people pay tax, unless that authority is willingly surrendered to the IRS by same. He openly evaded tax for years and the feds and the courts never really pursued him with any real gusto over it because they were afraid the publicity would become huge and the secret would get out.

[edit on 2005-9-13 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Yes Amuk, the link works. I needed time to cool down before responding to it. It disgusts me. She wasn't even pointing it at anyone, more like a club and to think Granny was going to do any harm to Mr. Macho is bull#.

I used to this that the 2nd Ammendment was just an excuse to have guns but seeing this I'm rethinking my position on that.

Gotta go before I heat up again. Disgusting.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
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.


So is this the official conservative Republican position on gun control? It's only a problem if a democrat is president?

I've been looking to conservative sources of late for the prerequisite outrage one might expect for the disarming of law abiding citizens in order to disarm whatever criminal element they may be defending themselves from, and frankly find it lacking. Even defensive as cited above.

Though one thing appears obvious, the "liberal aim" of at least those consistent mouthpieces like the NRA isn't happy about this "unconstitutional power grab" at all and squarely deflects the blame where it belongs with carefully coded key-wording: The New York Times and local authorities.

Monday, September 12, 2005


National Rifle Association leader Wayne LaPierre slammed New Orleans authorities Monday for seizing legal firearms from lawful residents.

"What we’ve seen in Louisiana - the breakdown of law and order in the aftermath of disaster - is exactly the kind of situation where the Second Amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect themselves, " LaPierre said.

"When law enforcement isn’t available, Americans turn to the one right that protects all the others - the right to keep and bear arms," LaPierre said. "This attempt to repeal the Second Amendment should be condemned."

The New York Times reported last Thursday that no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to have guns, quoting the superintendent of police that "only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons."

A Louisiana state statute allows the chief law enforcement officer to "regulate possession" of firearms during declared emergencies. "But regulate doesn’t mean confiscate," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist.


Damn Louisiana riff raff with their liberal aim, elite media and local officials. Won't you send money to the NRA to re-elect a manufacturer-friendly Republican President and Congress (that don't give a damn about your rights, just gun manufacturer rights)?

I think it's obvious where loyalties lie among fair weather (and "so called") conservative gun rights champions.

The Iraqi residents of an occupied and embattled war zone which serve as the recruiting pool for the very riff raff taking aim at our peace keepers can legally have AK-47's but an American citizen can't have a handgun on his own property in a time of crisis? And conservatives, Republicans, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are okay with this? The NRA can't be of course, given it's token agenda of "protecting gun rights" while merely securing contributions for manufacturer-friendly politicians, but everyone else?

Shamefully inconsistent and transparently political. What were conservative mouthpieces saying after Waco? They in fact inspired revolution and (according to many accounts) the Oklahoma City bombing.


April 28, 1995


A Message from the National Chairman of the Democratic National
Committee....


In the aftermath of the Oklahoma tragedy, Americans are asking how
our society became so violent, how we can build more peaceful
communities, and how such a horrifying act could have been
committed against so many innocent people.

I am writing to you because there are organized efforts in this
country that spread hatred and encourage violence in our
communities. These purveyors of hate are working nonstop to
intimidate law enforcement efforts and create a climate of
lawlessness.

Just recently, the national talk show host and Watergate felon G.
Gordon Liddy instructed his radio listeners how to kill federal
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms officials. He urged his audience to
"kill the sons of bitches" by shooting them in the head.
(Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 2/24/95)

In addition Liddy told his listeners how to construct a bomb using
ammonium nitrate, diesel fuel and dynamite. He specifically said:
"And that would do enormous work; the work would either take out a
wall of a quarry, or take out that building." (Dallas Morning News,
4/20/95)

In San Francisco, radio listeners on KSFO recently heard talk show
hosts speak of "lynching a few liberals" and encouraging listeners
to "shoot illegal immigrants who come across the border."
(Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 2/24/95)

And radio talk show host Chuck Baker called for "an armed
revolution" against the government weeks before one of his
listeners fired nearly 30 bullets at the White House. (Minneapolis
Star-Tribune, 2/24/95)

These are just a few examples of some of the venom spewed on the
airwaves. Other organized groups also are spreading hatred and
encouraging violence. (See the attached document for further
examples.)


In a recent letter appealing for contributions, the National Rifle
Association likened federal law enforcement agents to Nazi
stormtroopers and implied that citizens need to arm themselves
against the government. The NRA said: "Not too long ago, it was
unthinkable for Federal agents wearing Nazi bucket helmets and
black storm trooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens."

This sort of violent speech should be repugnant to all Americans.
And there is clearly a connection between such hateful diatribes
and the escalation of violence that our country has experienced.


But as we scan the AM dial and it's successor of outrage the Internet today... it's more like something in-between measured reason (finally) and a pious defense of abject tyranny.

Why it's the most reasonable thing in the world for the government to disarm it's citizens in a crisis and throw them off their own property if "deemed necessary to do so." Yay government authority! Viva la gun control. Simply bizarre.

The empty war of words emanating from Frank Luntz RNC focus groups as reason #1, #2 and #3 to vote "neo-conservative" is now officially gone with the wind just like New Orleans.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by RANT]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Good Lord. This is outrageous! What in God's name made that fat bastard trample over a fraile old lady?!

I can understand if she was aiming her gun at them but she was clearly holding it in a non threatening way.

And since when was using machine guns necessary to use on american citizens?

Is a glock not good enough? Even mace perhaps?

My husband calls everyone on here a bunch of idiots and libtards, because of the name he thinks that people on here actually believe they have all this 'top secret' information, you can bet he's a republican, he voted for bush twice. Not even thinking about what he's doing, not thinking about his track record and not thinking about the preservation of constitutional rights and the continuous abolition of them, and not thinking at all unless it's right sided thoughts about the left, indeed it's one of his hobbies.

I thank my lucky stars there are people out there like me who see these obvious injustices and crimes against everything this country stands for.


You can compare this to making weapons of mass destruction, it really isn't necessary in warfare, hell our ancestors used to settle disputes with an axe to the head or a sword in the gut, and maybe even a cannon up the ass. Just because technology gives us the opportunity to advance weaponry doesn't mean we as human beings have come along way.

And this wasn't even a war and they're using machine guns!
The government and their corporate owned media want us to fear everything and anything, except our own government. And those who watch fox won't even think about the injustices this government is doing to it's citizens like these two points amuk let us know about,

rather they will have their partisan sunglasses on and automatically think it's ok because as seekerof said, THEY WERE ALL LOOTER'S AND GANGSTERS ANYWAY.

Yeah, the granny looked like she was about to cap someone's ass and trail her butt down to the nearest wal mart to lift some tv's and sell them on the streets of deserted n.o.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
It's about time that people started seeing the parties for what they are; population-control mechanisms. People had better see that liberal Clinton (Wasn't a liberal in action) and conservative Bush (I assure you, being "right wing" is NOT the same thing as being conservative) serve the same masters, and both sides, regardless of who is representing them in the White House, aren't in the least bit afraid of slamming a grandmother to the floor in dragging her out of her house. Neither side is particularly in love with the notion of citizens holding guns, either. Why? Because they are afraid of you, that's why.

The extremely disturbing thing is how they have thugs who'll do their bidding, who'll slam little elderly ladies to the floor for having the audacity to want to stay in their homes.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser
Some thoughts:

On the gun thing, I still have trouble understanding the US fixation on the second amendment. I'm prepaired, however, to accept it as a cultural differance, but I still see it as the main source that led to "the culture of fear" and thus to the very easy take over of the government.
All the guns in the US didn't stop Bush from being re-elected, nor the war in Iraq, nor the dissolution of civil rights.
Fear did all that.
Someone who's not afraid, doesn't need a gun.
But as I say, it's a cultural thing... and userping civil liberties (questionable liberties or not) is not a good thing.



The US Constitution
Article the fourth [Amendment II]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


This Admendment is to regulate the governemnt we have.

This is what we call the reason that there is no 1 world governement. Providing it actually exists. Also if you have noticed that I am thinking America is going down the same road Hitler did in the late 30's early 40's.. The only reason we dont have Consintration camps in this country right now is Because of that Admendment.



Originally posted by BitRaiser
On the removal of people from NO:
There's still alot of businesses with salvagable capital in the affected area. People staying put are a threat to that since there's no law enforcment to keep thives at bay. It's privet sector companies that seem to have brought in Darkwater.
There's also the issue of the reported BioLab in the area. If these people are exposed to some of the nasty, but slow reacting bugs that may have been released there's a real threat of contagion. Even without a breach in the biolab that threat still exists from all the crap (litterally, for a portion) that's floating around.
Finally, there's the issue of image. If there people AREN'T removed, they could be deemed abandoned. Yes, pragmaticly it's their choise to remain, but counter spinners would still use it as ammunition against the administration (like they really need anymore!). Realisticly, there can't be any hope of restoration of basic utilities for a loooooong time.

SO;
In my view, there doesn't need to be any hidden agenda going on here. You needn't involved NWO theories, or wild speculation when there are more mundane explinations that certain people still don't want hung out in plain view.


Now on this, the removale of people in NO.. its an interesting quote that was made by someone, take a look at this..


Originally Made by Barbara Bush
What I'm hearing which is sort of scary is that they all want to stay in Texas. Everybody is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this (chuckle) – this is working very well for them.


And how about this one.. This one is really interesting tho..


Originally made by Wolf Blitzer from CNN
You simply get chills every time you see these poor individuals...many of these people, almost all of them that we see are so poor and they are so black, and this is going to raise lots of questions for people who are watching this story unfold.


This is starting to look at lot more racist to thinking about it.. ehh??

Here is a little more on this..


Originally made by Rep. Richard Baker (R-LA)
We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did.


Now if you as me if this was anywhere else like FL or some crap like that.. this wouldnt even happen. They would let the people stay and clean up the mess.. The governement would help out as little as possible.. But since these people are Mostly black and most of them didnt have a car.. and dont probably have any money. These people are screwed on whatever they do. From what the census states 120,000 people didnt have a car..

Also about this they are screwing with another Amendment that you failed to realize.


The US Constitution
Article the seventh [Amendment V]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation


What is wrong with this picture?????????????

Also on another note about this... I think they are going to cover up alot of things from us on this.. like the death toll... An educated guess would say that from 450,000 people who were poor, and 120,000 of them didnt have a car. I would guess about 35,000 to 45,000 people to be dead... They are sitting there claiming 10,000 or less... Thats bs.

Not to mention that there are alot of no bid contracts going around right now.. and guess who is in the running for this??? You guessed it Haliburton.. One thing we have learded from that company The Carlye Group and Controlled Domolition is, When there is a Conspircy they are always there..


[edit on 9/13/2005 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 9/13/2005 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 9/13/2005 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

So is this the official conservative Republican position on gun control? It's only a problem if a democrat is president?

I've been looking to conservative sources of late for the prerequisite outrage one might expect for the disarming of law abiding citizens in order to disarm whatever criminal element they may be defending themselves from, and frankly find it lacking. Even defensive as cited above.


This is not the stance of the REAL Conservative party, the Libertarians.

Here is their response

www.lp.org...




As a press release from the Gun Owners of America noted, there have been many reports of gun owners defending themselves against armed intruders and looters -- many of whom were released from local prisons by so-called public servants.

Using their constitutional right to own and bear arms, these people protected themselves rather than relying on a police force that was in disarray.

And how are they thanked by bureaucrats in the city of New Orleans? They find themselves vilified by a police state intent on criminalizing those who defend themselves.



I requested Rant and TC to come here because I dont know of ANY two people futher apart in their political views just to prove that this is not a Republican/Democrat issue but an AMERICAN issue.

Where is the OUTRAGE?

How many grandmothers have to be beaten down before people will admit our government is out of control?

[edit on 13-9-2005 by Amuk]





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join