Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bush calls for the Military to be in charge when Natural Disasters occur.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Ill give you one better a video

www.gunowners.org...




posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   
You want news, WestPoint?



NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 8 - Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police officers began confiscating weapons, including legally registered firearms, from civilians in preparation for a mass forced evacuation of the residents still living here.

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," he said.


NY Times.

Lets see. You let guy keep his shotgun. When a looter comes, he can defend himself and his property. When he tries to shoot the military when they are storming his house to rescue him, he inevitable ends up dead. And most people wouldn't do that, and the ones who would shouldn't have a gun license.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   
That is a bit unnerving about the gun confiscations, but were there any details omitted from that?

Still, that's the second amendment being stomped right there. Not that surprised though.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   
multiple sources of course, you would realize that a vast majority of 'news stories' concerning the aftermath of Katrina were false and rumors where being reported as fact.

No one who had a gun legally and did not miss use it did not have it taken away.

[edit on 28-9-2005 by ferretman]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Funny stuff, Sheep will agree with anything the government does,
Everytime something happens the government uses it as an excuse to take away our freedoms, and always say its whats best for us, and some of you believe this bs, Hahahahaha....

And to those saying the right to bear arms isnt being taken away, Ask anyone in California, New Jersey, ect..

They are ripping apart our rights slowly but steadily, Have they officialy said, you no longer have the right to bear arms?
No, but they are slowly changing laws, to limit what you can own, where you can own it ect, Banning certain parts of weapons, ect, just wait till they make some law that says guns have to have a 30inch barrel, Thatll pretty much get rid of eveything on the market without ever banning the right to bear arms... or when they ban ammo sales... but the sheep dont care they will support it all....

Because the government in washington, does whats best for us, When they pass laws they are thinking about whats best for the people, and not whats best for the special interets, or themselves..





Originally posted by ferretman
No one who had a gun legally and did not miss use it did not have it taken away.


www.prisonplanet.com...

[edit on 28-9-2005 by C0le]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman
multiple sources of course, you would realize that a vast majority of 'news stories' concerning the aftermath of Katrina were false and rumors where being reported as fact.

No one who had a gun legally and did not miss use it did not have it taken away.

[edit on 28-9-2005 by ferretman]

Watch the video legally owned guns were confiscated.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
In a time of emergency, in order to protect public health and safety, weapons temporarily can be confiscated and people can be forced to evacuate, never the less, the government did not violate their constitutional right to do those things.

Just like freedom of speech has limitations placed on it by manner, time, and place so do most of the other amendments. Does this mean we enjoy those limitations? No. Are they legal? Yes.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   
WestPoint23,

I imagine you will love totalitarian governments, with the way you favor civil rights abuses.

But then again the use of arms are for the defense of property. Right? so if is not property then is not need to use them. Right?

If the government tells you what is good for you then you don't need to protect yourself from the government. Right?

I favor to have our national guard to do what they are supposed to do, be there to help during a national disaster.

But our active military are not for that purpose, and by the way "Who is going to be in charge of the military"? during the time that they will be handling a disaster, FEMA? or . . . I get it "Home Land Security"

What a joke.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
In a time of emergency, in order to protect public health and safety, weapons temporarily can be confiscated and people can be forced to evacuate, never the less, the government did not violate their constitutional right to do those things.


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, [COLOR=red]shall not be infringed[/COLOR]


The second amendment was infringed

What part of that doesnt make sense to you?


NO is one of many situations when the second amendment is needed..
But with your logic, Our rights only apply when we dont need them, but when we do need them, the government can suspend them and thats ok

how much are they paying you anyway?

[edit on 28-9-2005 by C0le]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
[edit on 28-9-2005 by UFObeliever]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
In a time of emergency, in order to protect public health and safety, weapons temporarily can be confiscated and people can be forced to evacuate, never the less, the government did not violate their constitutional right to do those things.

Just like freedom of speech has limitations placed on it by manner, time, and place so do most of the other amendments. Does this mean we enjoy those limitations? No. Are they legal? Yes.


Our founding fathers were not idiots they knew the greatest threat to the liberty of a man is a tyrannical government.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
--George Washington

If they can do what you say they can then the better expect alot of lead coming their way. Gun confiscations and people being forced to leave their homes is 100% illegal. I don't know why it's even a disscusion. If you don't like what this country was made for which is freedom and liberty then maybe you should goto the UK where you don't have to worry about guns. Our founding fathers are probly rolling in their graves because of what the government is doing.

Like Cole said are you getting paid or do you just not want freedom?



[edit on 28-9-2005 by UFObeliever]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
In a time of emergency, in order to protect public health and safety, weapons temporarily can be confiscated and people can be forced to evacuate, never the less, the government did not violate their constitutional right to do those things.


Can you provide some sort of reference to support this statement of 'fact'?



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Not knowing when someone is either gonna try to kill you or your family during and after a disaster. It would in fact be a very dumb move to confiscate weapons from a person who is CERTIFIED to carry a weapon. Would you want a person with a clean history standing beside you with a gun or knife or do you want the crazed ex-con instead???



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Forgive me for my delay between posts but I do have life outside ATS, now, I will post more on this tomorrow but for now I will just say this.

The first amendment says you have the right to free speech, but if you go outside your home in the middle of your block at night and start yelling through a megaphone your getting arrested if you refuse to stop. But it was free speech right? Sure, you have the right to say what you want, but like I said its all about the circumstances.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The first amendment says you have the right to free speech, but if you go outside your home in the middle of your block at night and start yelling through a megaphone your getting arrested if you refuse to stop. But it was free speech right? Sure, you have the right to say what you want, but like I said its all about the circumstances.


In your example, the freedom of speech exists as long as it does not infringe on the freedoms of another. I'm not sure how your example is relevant. A related example would be the government taking away your megaphone before you even used it, citing that you may wake up your neighbors with it.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
i could have sworn i posted this yesterday...

anyway, why on earth will you need martial law if people cooperate? in case of disaster i imagine they'd love to be evacuated, if they don't let them sign a weaver and rescue someone else, it's their life people should decide, not the military or anyone else.

martial law == dictatorship, i don't see any reason to support it unless you're the proposed dictator



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
i could have sworn i posted this yesterday...

anyway, why on earth will you need martial law if people cooperate? in case of disaster i imagine they'd love to be evacuated, if they don't let them sign a weaver and rescue someone else, it's their life people should decide, not the military or anyone else.

martial law == dictatorship, i don't see any reason to support it unless you're the proposed dictator

I was beginning to think I was the only one that felt that way!


BTW WestPoint23, I'm still waiting to see the references for:

In a time of emergency, in order to protect public health and safety, weapons temporarily can be confiscated and people can be forced to evacuate, never the less, the government did not violate their constitutional right to do those things.

This is not a 'dig' at you, I'm truly interested as I don't know of any such laws and would really like to know about them before they are used against myself, my family and my friends.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Martial law is the system of rules that takes effect (usually after a formal declaration) when a military authority takes control of the normal administration of justice.

Martial law is instituted most often when it becomes necessary to favor the activity of military authorities and organizations, usually for urgent unforeseen needs, and when the normal institutions of justice either cannot function or could be deemed too slow or too weak for the new situation; e.g., due to war, major natural disaster, civil disorder, in occupied territory, or after a coup d'état. The need to preserve the public order during an emergency is the essential goal of martial law. However, declaration of martial law is also sometimes used by dictatorships, especially military dictatorships, to enforce their rule.

Usually martial law reduces some of the personal rights ordinarily granted to the citizen, limits the length of the trial processes, and prescribes more severe penalties than ordinary law. In many countries martial law prescribes the death penalty for certain crimes, even if ordinary law does not contain that crime or punishment in its system.

In many countries martial law imposes particular rules, one of which is curfew. Often, under this system, the administration of justice is left to military tribunals, called courts-martial. The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is likely to occur.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   
gimmefootball400, you could very simply have posted this link, as this is exactly what you posted and I have to assume it's where you got it.

My question is: what's was your point in posting this? I assume most others agree with me in saying that we don't want to read a definition quoted from another site, we want to hear your opinions and views on the subject.

[edit on 12-10-2005 by Jaryn]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman
multiple sources of course, you would realize that a vast majority of 'news stories' concerning the aftermath of Katrina were false and rumors where being reported as fact.

No one who had a gun legally and did not miss use it did not have it taken away.

[edit on 28-9-2005 by ferretman]


I guess you didn't see the clip of the elderly woman bein tackled in her own home to take away her gun, then dragging her from her home.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't force them to drink.

The best thing I have seen is only you and Westpoint23 are the only ones here that think this is a Good idea. I think WP23 isn't the only one here on the governments payrole.

BTW I don't think it would be a good idea to give military powers to the President to use on our own soil against our own citizens during times of natural/national emergencys. The other terms for this are police state, matial law.

We haven't Needed these powers for the President since 1878, why do we need them now?? The Katrina fiasco was because of incompetent leadership, not the size or scope of the disaster, and you have the President to blame for this.

With RoveGate{Treason against the USA} I personally feel this President doen't deserve anymore Executive privallages, or can be trusted with anymore powers than he allready has.

peace





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join