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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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, shall not be infringed


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]

[edit on 28-9-2005 by UFObeliever]

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]

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'?

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???

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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