It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gun Rights Suspended under A State of Emergency in North Carolina

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Axis7
 


The last thing the majority of Guardsmen want to do is get into a shootout with an overzealous (and probably drunk) yahoo. If you are minding your own business, they will probably leave you alone. NC guardsmen may have had family in harm's way themselves. Guardsmen from other states are coming over there to help with evacs, emergency supplies, flood protection engineering, potential search and rescue, and security - as in not allowing the looting of private property. Sometimes individuals abuse their power, but in general, these guys are far from stormtroopers.




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Actually the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the ability to regulate what arms are legal. You will notice that the second amendment does not say "the right to keep and bear any and all types of arms". The only thing it says is that you have the right to them.



The Supreme Court is illegitimate than.

They have no authority to rule on what the details of a piece of legislation should or should not be.

Their authority rests in upholding the laws, or declaring them unconstitutional.

The Legislative branch is the one who determines the specifics of details within legislation through consensus.

You can't just throw in 9 guys who weren't even elected and allow them to tell you what the Constitution says and in effect, lessen your rights at every step of the way.

I am calling this Tyranny.
edit on 26-8-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by louieprima
The last thing the majority of Guardsmen want to do is get into a shootout with an overzealous (and probably drunk) yahoo. If you are minding your own business, they will probably leave you alone. NC guardsmen may have had family in harm's way themselves. Guardsmen from other states are coming over there to help with evacs, emergency supplies, flood protection engineering, potential search and rescue, and security - as in not allowing the looting of private property. Sometimes individuals abuse their power, but in general, these guys are far from stormtroopers.


The last thing I want is to be beaten and shot by an overzealous and probably drunk Guardsman. Sometimes civilians abuse their power but in general they are far from drunk yahoos shooting at people trying to help them.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 

Come on, looting is opportunistic for the most part. I have a hard time believing that a majority of the people out looting in any of these scenarios is doing it to survive in the traditional sense. You can't tell me the guy running through flood waters to his knees with a TV in his arms is doing that to survive. Or, that the guys that beat up the young teen in London to steal whatever was in his backpack were doing that to survive.

I know, certainly there are some that are stealing food and water and the like to survive, but for the most part, it is pure lawlessness, greed, and opportunity that fuels the looting.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
It only makes sense that an average citizen cannot have an rpg. But traditional, personal weapons (handguns, rifles, shotguns) should never be taken off the table.
I think this whole thread is a mountain out of a molehill. I can give you 99% garuantee that you will not see cops/guardsmen going house to house looking for guns to take away from people. It's not going to happen.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Lol, the Supreme Court consists of 9 people not 12. And they rule on specific legislation if it's brought before them which set's a precedent for future lawsuits. The case that most pertains to this issue would be United States v. Miller.

Here is a brief synopsis of the ruling:


Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, the last time the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment was in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, Jack Miller and one other person were indicted for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller argued, among other things, that the section of the National Firearms Act regulating the interstate transport of certain firearms violated the Second Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas agreed with Miller. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which reversed the district court. The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U.S. at 178. The Court concluded that the district court erred in holding the National Firearms Act provisions unconstitutional.


www.loc.gov...



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
Kinda makes you think, doesn't it.

Gun owners claim that they buy the guns to "protect themselves in the event of an emergency" but then as soon as an emergency hits, the state prohibits their use.

This was the same after Katrina. Private citizens were banned from using their handguns.

Right to bear arms should only extend to militia, not to private citizens. To have more guns than people in a country is absolutely assinine.


That's asinine.

Criminals don't care about laws. They will still be armed.

How many trillion times do we have to repeat this fact?

Passing laws never stopped criminals from committing crimes.

Why don't you just go pass a law that it's illegal to break the law.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
You don't need a gun to destroy property, cause serious injury, and steal as evidenced by our gun-controlled brethren in Europe. Please lets not turn this in to a nanny-state thread again - every gun thread goes this direction with some yahoo in Europe telling us we don't need weapons we're all just law abiding friendly people and the guns turn us in to violent thugs. If you want to move to the United States and live in your urban city and choose to not arm yourself then by all means do so. Then come back (if you can) and tell us how bad self-defense is and how violence begets violence. We have them because we need them. The locks on the doors are useless, the alarms go off just a wee bit too late, and the police are pointless.
edit on 8/26/2011 by ararisq because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Haha and I called them all guys too even though they are not all male.

Sorry I misspoke I was in a hurry. I have corrected my mistake.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
... they rule on specific legislation if it's brought before them which set's a precedent for future lawsuits. The case that most pertains to this issue would be United States v. Miller.


The simply point is that judicial activism and the setting of law via precedent and court ruling is unconstitutional (and we will always view it that way).



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


Yes so Ron Paul would have us believe.

However it would be inefficient to have the Supreme Court have to rule on 100 cases all involving the same thing now wouldn't it.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Yes so Ron Paul would have us believe.

However it would be inefficient to have the Supreme Court have to rule on 100 cases all involving the same thing now wouldn't it.


I keep thinking you changed your avatar to try to make people agree with you but its not going to happen - though it is distracting.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


Haha you caught me red-handed


Oh well my plan failed apparantly.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by louieprima
The last thing the majority of Guardsmen want to do is get into a shootout with an overzealous (and probably drunk) yahoo. If you are minding your own business, they will probably leave you alone. NC guardsmen may have had family in harm's way themselves. Guardsmen from other states are coming over there to help with evacs, emergency supplies, flood protection engineering, potential search and rescue, and security - as in not allowing the looting of private property. Sometimes individuals abuse their power, but in general, these guys are far from stormtroopers.


The last thing I want is to be beaten and shot by an overzealous and probably drunk Guardsman. Sometimes civilians abuse their power but in general they are far from drunk yahoos shooting at people trying to help them.


When's the last time you involved in a natural disaster or manmade emergency? Generally, people are nothing but overjoyed to see some Guardsmen nearby. It's fun to talk like a big tough guy, but in emergency situations, most citizens fold like a lily and go running for the nearest authority. And in most situations, the authorities help them out. Fantasy can be fun, but unfortunately, my state has a disaster every other year or so. While there are cases of abuse (Danzigger bridge incident, Henry Glover), the vast majority of cops were the good guys. And there are virtually no examples of abusive guardsmen, despite the fact that the NG maintained a law enforcement presence in some capacity until 2009. Read an article about the Guard. They are local citizens who volunteered for service. Not a foreign army of jackboots.
I'm giving people advice about reality as it has and will happen. Not video game fantasy advice.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by louieprima
When's the last time you involved in a natural disaster or manmade emergency? Generally, people are nothing but overjoyed to see some Guardsmen nearby. It's fun to talk like a big tough guy, but in emergency situations, most citizens fold like a lily and go running for the nearest authority. And in most situations, the authorities help them out. Fantasy can be fun, but unfortunately, my state has a disaster every other year or so. While there are cases of abuse (Danzigger bridge incident, Henry Glover), the vast majority of cops were the good guys. And there are virtually no examples of abusive guardsmen, despite the fact that the NG maintained a law enforcement presence in some capacity until 2009. Read an article about the Guard. They are local citizens who volunteered for service. Not a foreign army of jackboots.
I'm giving people advice about reality as it has and will happen. Not video game fantasy advice.


I take it you are one of these guys. The point was to mock your idea that all citizens are drunken yahoos that need to be contained and screamed at by the 'good guys'.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


Not my intention at all. Think we had a misunderstanding, friend. I'm all for gun rights and I think that citizens who help their neighbors exhibit the best America has to offer. There were plenty of armed, responsible citizens around during Katrina.
And no, I am not in the military or law enforement but I do have plenty of experience with the Guard as do many in Louisiana. In general, if they are around, it's to help. I admit that there is always the potential for abuse. In the worst case scenarios of the assumption of a police state, the orders would likely be intitiated by civilian authorities. Be vigilant.
edit on 26-8-2011 by louieprima because: added text



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
You only loose your right to your weapons when you give them your weapons.. otherwise, it's simply someone attempting to remove that right from you. If anyone was disarmed they deserved to be disarmed. Hell, I'd say if anyone was disarmed they shouldn't be allowed to get re-armed .. ever.. they obviously failed the first time.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Why don't you just go pass a law that it's illegal to break the law.


Priceless!

You are NEVER going to convince the haters of freedom to start loving their freedoms.

It seems very simple and obvious to me.

"I am free to do WHATEVER I want and OWN whatever I want just so long as I do not harm or put at risk anyones life,security, or property"!!!!!!!!!!

This is freedom. Do we ALL want this?
The answer is NO!!!! we don't!!!
The question I still struggle with is.......WHY IN THE HELL NOT!?!?!?!?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
And let me guess how they will revoke gun rights, by employing men...with guns! The hypocrisy is deafening. The people should say enough is enough. Katrina should be the example to not let this sort of thing happened, police are finally being charged with murder over an incident in katrina. Martial law will only make things worse following a disaster.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 


Dude, that would have totally been me and my family. No electricity? No problem, we'll build a fire. We are experts at re-adaptation, also, we've usually lived on very little.




top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join