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

This get me mad as hell! Looks like I will spend as much money on weapons stockpiling as I can.I won't stop till I can arm my entire neighborhood, and still have a surplus. I will personally rant about this to everyone I talk to, and encourage you all to do the same.If everybody understands what is happening, thing might actually change for once.I think America is NEED of a "color" revolution....lets see how the goverment likes the people taking back thier own power.

Originally posted by Souljah

Where are the Videos of disarming Black Armed People?

I haven't seen any. Just this Poor Old Granny, who was probably VERY Hard to find, considering the pure numbers and probabilites of that event.

This is my fault.

I invited you to this thread in hopes of getting some insight from someone from another country.

I should have known better. You have just used this thread as another lame excuse to try to futher your agenda. The good thing is, it is soooo pathitically obvious to everyone what you are doing. You have trying to take a thread about ALL Americans loosing their rights and turn it into a "Mean old whitey" thread and I will not allow it.

The only racist here is YOU.

You are the ONLY person on this thread who mentions race in EVERY post.

You are the only person that finds it inconceivable that blacks are considered human by us here at ATS.

If you can not stay on topic do not post on this thread any more.

This is your ONLY warning

Amuk

I too have seen this video on O'Reilly's show and I too was disgusted by the way he criticized an old lady for wanting to stay in her home (which wasn't even flooded by the way) and defend it with what looked to be a very chewed up .38 Spcl.

What did I think when I saw her - I wanted to send her a Glock and a few boxes of my screen name ammunition.

What did I think when I saw that cop body slam her - I wondered how anyone in their right mind could watch that and think that it was somehow ok or justified.

What do I think about our firearms - I think that the Liberal masses will use NO as a template for gun confiscation. They believe they have proof that we cannot be trusted with firearms and that we should be made defenceless to avoid "New Orleans happening elsewhere".

Isn't it ironic that when we need our guns the most, that's the moment the government chooses to take them off us.

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Isn't it ironic that when we need our guns the most, that's the moment the government chooses to take them off us.

Isn't just amazing that the actions of a few hundred lawless citizens and/or gang members in NOLA make the government think the the other 99.9% of the population cannot be responsible with guns.

Seems like the government also wants to question if we are responsible enough to own our property and home.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Isn't just amazing that the actions of a few hundred lawless citizens and/or gang members in NOLA make the government think the the other 99.9% of the population cannot be responsible with guns.

I wonder about these numbers

Does anyone have any stats on the actual number of gun incidents?

I would be willing to bet it would be closer to dozens than hundreds. I would not be the least bit surprised to find the numbers being GROSSLY inflated to give more credibility to the gun snatch.

We are living in dangerous times my friends, the gun grab here WILL be used in the future if not challenged this time.


What to stop them from going door to door after a tornado? Earthquake? How about a heavy rain?

Originally posted by Amuk

I wonder about these numbers

Does anyone have any stats on the actual number of gun incidents?

I would be willing to bet it would be closer to dozens than hundreds.

me2

I would not be the least bit surprised to find the numbers being GROSSLY inflated to give more credibility to the gun snatch.

me neither. Where are the numbers?

We are living in dangerous times my friends, the gun grab here WILL be used in the future if not challenged this time.

absolutely. It's the legal precedents thing - as you said out front.

What to stop them from going door to door after a tornado? Earthquake? How about a heavy rain?

nuthin

Originally posted by Amuk
What to stop them from going door to door after a tornado? Earthquake? How about a heavy rain?

Yeah, maybe they will have somekind of "pre-emptive" measures in the future ? For "national security"

The ironic thing is that soon they (gov't) might actually have to do it for their security, if you Americans start to do something about this.

I think swearbear makes an interesting point that bears mentioning, no pun intended.

When institutions are created, they take on some of the properties of organisms by necessity, for example, self preservation. Politicians are engaged in this day in, day out. The logic goes like this: they think they want to help the people, but in order to do that, they have to stay in power. It's a survival issue for them, and it's the same for the government as a whole.

It has a will, a desire, to survive. I can't exactly begrudge it that either.

The government will do whatever it thinks is necessary to continue the status quo, even if that means alienating and even murdering some, or lots, of the citizens that make this country what it is.

The justification of course is the greater good. Always, without fail, this is the logic that leads governments down the path of atrocity. It was no different with the Nazis. They think they're doing good, and no matter how many twisted decisions the powerbrokers make, they rationalize it away as being for the greater good.

As far as Winchester's irrational fear of liberals, I think it behooves him to check the affiliation of the party in power right now, and check his assumptions at the door. It's quite clear to me that the old loyalties are no longer being maintained. The so-called 'conservatives' in power bear absolutely no resemblance to traditional conservatives.

It's interesting, the reaction to this disaster that we're seeing. People are playing right into the government's hands, by complaining about the response. It will be used as an excuse to increase the powers of the feds, and reduce the independence of the states in times of crisis.

I didn't see this initially, because I was so upset by the lack of response. I, like everyone else, was calling for reform. Unfortunately, it's starting to look like this was a garden variety bear trap, and the people of America have wandered into it.

The only hope for any sort of fledgling resistance movement is to engage in asymetrical warfare. Doing the exact opposite of what the state wants you to do is probably the only way to hold off defeat long enough to have any hope of victory.

What people should be doing, I think, is taking care of themselves. If they don't rely on the government, the government loses much of its power and appeal. This is the key to reducing their influence I believe, simply reduce their usefullness, and wean yourself off the favors of the state.

Like I said though, swearbear makes a very interesting point about the self preservation instinct of the state, when it comes to the will of the people. It should serve as a clear sign of trouble ahead when the state sees the people as a threat.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

People are playing right into the government's hands, by complaining about the response. It will be used as an excuse to increase the powers of the feds, and reduce the independence of the states in times of crisis.

I didn't see this initially, because I was so upset by the lack of response. I, like everyone else, was calling for reform. Unfortunately, it's starting to look like this was a garden variety bear trap, and the people of America have wandered into it.

There you have it. That's it, "A garden variety bear trap." We'll get tighter federal control, because we asked for a better response.

What people should be doing, I think, is taking care of themselves. If they don't rely on the government, the government loses much of its power and appeal. This is the key to reducing their influence I believe, simply reduce their usefullness, and wean yourself off the favors of the state.

There's a middle ground, IMO. Ie.: Demand that government represent the people, not the corporate powers.

It should serve as a clear sign of trouble ahead when the state sees the people as a threat.

The "state" has evolved to become a front for corporate interests, which replaced the monarchy as a front for "rule by the financiers." Time to get back to democratic basics.

EDIT: Ahem. Power to the people.

[edit on 17-9-2005 by soficrow]

Dragging people from their homes

1) Many people generally are idiots.
2) Many people down there are poor and are on the government payroll and Medicare/Medicaid
3) The bill for people who get themselves sick will more than likely be on the government in the end, along with the likely thousands of what might soon be known as "Katrina Syndrome" costing the rest of us more intellegent Americans money for as long as these people live.


This is a problem, not because it is a violation of their rights, but as a protection for us.

We should not have to protect ourselves like this really.

If we rid our country of social programs, then we could allow people to accept their rights and say "Too bad" for those who make their own mistakes.

Gun Issue

1) I'm not sure how they were doing it. I know they were going house to house, but were they searching (and if so, without search warrents, or cause).
2) Do you really think the criminals are going to hand them over? No.

Perhaps the idea is good, but how about providing some security overall rather than wasting manpower doing something Unconstitutional.



Overall I am not concerned. I WANT these things to happen.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Overall I am not concerned. I WANT these things to happen.

I got to ask......

Why?

We are drawing closer and closer to an armed revolt against the government that will be bad for all involved. Maybe I am just old and tired but I DONT want to see this happen.

I only read the first 3+ pages of this thread, so I don't know if this was pointed out or not, but this decision to confiscate weapons came from Ray Nagin.

Numerous media sources are reporting on a campaign by New Orleans city authorities to confiscate lawfully-owned firearms from people in the city.
No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. “Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons,”
But that order apparently does not apply to hundreds of security guards hired by businesses and some wealthy individuals to protect property.
We suspect this is a disarm the poor and loot the empty homes of guns rule.
It is legal in the state of La to own any gun and carry it anywhere with you as long as you do not carry it hidden. The State Construction forbids any city from passing its own gun control laws. NO Police are violating the law.
At this time fireman are breaking into all locked homes and not securing them against theft when they leave. Any guns in these homes will likely be stolen by hoods or taken by the police.
www.guncontrolkills.com...

So it was the decision of a rogue mayor. IMO he can be brought up on charges for this, and hopefully will be after the water recedes.

Originally posted by Amuk

We are drawing closer and closer to an armed revolt against the government that will be bad for all involved. Maybe I am just old and tired but I DONT want to see this happen.

Ah, therein lies the difference between us. I am young and PISSED, and DO want something to happen, be it armed revolt, market crash, etc.

Personally, I don't want, like, or advocate violence, but I'm sure many of the founding fathers didn't either.

Sometimes it's time to cut some throats.

Let's just keep things in perspective here. This entire firearm confiscation was a result of the order give by the NOLA Police Chief. He had to have gotten the OK from Ray Nagin. This is as far up the ladder as it goes, as far as I can see, but possibly Blanco knew about it beforehand.

It doesn't surprise me, nor should it surprise you. The NOLA PD was in shambles before this particular incident. Suicides. Mass resignations. Police officers caught looting on camera.
Police looting WalMart

Law and order had totally broken down. Nagin just lost control of his city and, in the bigger picture of total chaos, what's one more little infringement on our rights?

I'll bet he's just hoping that this will all be forgotten in the rush to rebuild the city.

I just hope one citizen walks into his office and says "I want my gun back".

He's got some explaining to do.

Under our Constitution (Slovenia) we do not have the right to bear arms. Weapon possesion and use is regulated by special law and it is very strict. And our society is in majority gun intolerant.

But I can give you my personal oppinion.

IMHO American society is a society of extremes and this videoclip is of no surprise to me. I can also understand very strong resolve of Security Forces to implement law and order in NO. Under our Constitution a large portion of Human Rights and Civil Liberties can be revoked under Martial Law or in special condition (health issues, major natural disaster). But there are some Rights that cannot be revoked and one of them (in old lady's case) is preservation of persons dignity. I guess that your society is not so tolerant, peacefull, free and democratic as you believe or you want us to believe.

I also understand your fears that your Government is slowly taking away your rights. And as mentioned earlier you as a society of extremes want to fight this even with armed insurgency. My suggestion is that you should be more carefull, what kind of Government you elect in the future.

Cheers
yanchek

[edit on 19-9-2005 by yanchek]

[edit on 19-9-2005 by yanchek]

Originally posted by yanchek
Under our Constitution we do not have the right to bear arms.

Wrong, if you're talking about America (?)

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.
usinfo.state.gov...

Originally posted by yanchek
Weapon possesion and use is regulated by special law and it is very strict.

Somewhat true, but aren't firearms laws often diffrent in every state?

www.nraila.org...
www.cnn.com...

Originally posted by yanchek
IMHO American society is a society of extremes and this videoclip is of no surprise to me. I can also understand very strong resolve of Security Forces to implement law and order in NO. Under our Constitution a large portion of Human Rights and Civil Liberties can be revoked under Martial Law or in special condition (health issues, major natural disaster). But there are some Rights that cannot be revoked and one of them (in old lady's case) is preservation of persons dignity. I guess that your society is not so tolerant, peacefull, free and democratic as you believe or you want us to believe.

I agree with your Opinion, yancheck.



But if the Basic Rights, such as Human Rights and Civil Liberties are Revoked - how can some one expect that he will have the priviledge of the Preservaton of Human Dignity?

And I Completly Agree that American Society today is not so Tolerant, Peacefull, Free & Democratic as it actually is.

The Breakdown of a Society is clearly shown in Crisis situations like the Katrina Aftermath - and so has the True Face of American Society been shown to the World as it is...

Originally posted by Souljah
But if the Basic Rights, such as Human Rights and Civil Liberties are Revoked - how can some one expect that he will have the priviledge of the Preservaton of Human Dignity?

Well, it's an ultimate test of how civilized and humane a society realy is.

Even under extreme of circumstances.

PS. The right to be treated with dignity is protected by our Constitution. After restoration to normal condition you can seek for justice on a Court of Law. The sued Party in this case is The Republic of Slovenia. You can also sue for damages the person who directly violated your rights in private civil suit.

[edit on 19-9-2005 by yanchek]

Originally posted by yanchek
Well, it's an ultimate test of how civilized and humane a society realy is.

Forgetting about the government here for a moment.......

Which are you judging our citizens by, the few who raped and shot at people or the THOUSANDS who swarmed to NO to help, only to be turned away by the authorities? The HUNDREDS of thousands who sent money, food, medicine, blankets, etc?

Originally posted by yanchek


PS. The right to be treated with dignity is protected by our Constitution. After restoration to normal condition you can seek for justice on a Court of Law. The sued Party in this case is The Republic of Slovenia. You can also sue for damages the person who directly violated your rights in private civil suit.

[edit on 19-9-2005 by yanchek]

You actually have such a right, "to be treated with dignity"? It seems to be such a subjective topic that it would be impossible to measure. For example, I could say that the fact that you are criticizing my government infringes upon my dignity, no?