Disarming of citizens in NO

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 04:42 AM
link   
I just saw footage on the local news of US soldiers going house to house in NO with weapons drawn to disarm and detain people. They were all in fresh uniforms with pristine brand new M4's with all the assortments and optional extras.

I found it very surreal, this happening in a US State. After all the proclamation of how there is a right to bear arms in the US, seeing the military going into houses disarming and handcuffing citizens made me think twice.

Is your 2nd Ammendment subject to exceptions? These people weren't criminals. They were relatively wealthy neighbourhoods, some of the houses looked like mansions. The people were allowed to stay but all their firearms were confiscated.

What are American's thoughts on this?

Link

(You need to be a NYT member. I'm not, so can't quote the article)



[edit on 9-9-2005 by cargo]




posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:06 AM
link   
i think its rediculous. after all, arent the looters shooting back? that means you wouldnt be able to disarm theeeemmm.

i think rescues could have been expidited if more of the big easy packed more than party beads.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by cargo
I just saw footage on the local news of US soldiers going house to house in NO with weapons drawn to disarm and detain people. They were all in fresh uniforms with pristine brand new M4's with all the assortments and optional extras.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Link

(You need to be a NYT member. I'm not, so can't quote the article)



[edit on 9-9-2005 by cargo]


I saw on TV, i think a similar scene- but these navy-blue uniforms- ALL drew their sidearms as they entered the house enmass...is that the same
news clip your citing? or are those M4 's rifles?

(-)

on that (NYT) link,
i'm one who has a personnal acct, so i read it...
but i think you can 'paraphrase' some things without copyright infringement

--------------------------------------------
===EXPANSION ITEM=========
--------------------------------------------

I think that Rooting Out & Disarming the New Orleans' Holdouts is
the larger questionable issue!




source:
www.livescience.com...

Tiny unmanned surveillance planes are being pressed into action
for reconnaissance over Katrina-ravaged New Orleans
in what defense contractors call the biggest civilian deployment ever
for the technology...


then

The battery-powered Evolution planes (UAVs)
which can stay aloft for two hours, are circling at a low altitude- -
500 to 1,000 feet- - to capture finely detailed images
with their miniature cameras. They also have infrared capabilities
for night missions...


Whoa !...is this a 'DeJaVu' from one of the "Terminator" movie scenes??
where the 'resistance' being hunted down by the mechanistic, dispassionate
NWO-esque Forces???



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
It's a violation of Second Amendment rights, plain and simple. Most of the "looters" were people who were trying to get food and necessary supplies.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Here is another article mentioning the violation of the second amendement right in New Orleans.



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.

But that order apparently does not apply to hundreds of security guards hired by businesses and some wealthy individuals to protect property. The guards, employees of private security companies like Blackwater, openly carry M-16's and other assault rifles. Mr. Compass said that he was aware of the private guards, but that the police had no plans to make them give up their weapons.

LINK



edited link size


[edit on 9-12-2005 by worldwatcher]



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Those were NOT US army they are National guard or Police the US Army is not participating in the removal of citizens from NO. Still it is a violation of the Con. to just up and disarm citizens who are just protecting their property!



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   
I've seen a couple articles on this this morning, and it absolutely pisses me off!!!! The powers that be keep using their powers that are to test their powers that should not be.

I am supposed to love, but I am really beginning to hate the leadership this country has now. They should NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO THIS!!!

However, they are, they will continue, and they will win, because there is nothing we can do about it now. The gov't is now much more powerful than the people - something that was never meant to be.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Most of the "looters" were people who were trying to get food and necessary supplies.

Sorry but this statement is wrong because acording to the survivors who spoke of this the bad looters were gangs who robbed and raped there own people and actually started looting when the first citizens started leaving before the storm. Nobody I know questions any of the people of any race for taking things for survival.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by cargo
I just saw footage on the local news of US soldiers going house to house in NO with weapons drawn to disarm and detain people. They were all in fresh uniforms with pristine brand new M4's with all the assortments and optional extras.

I found it very surreal, this happening in a US State. After all the proclamation of how there is a right to bear arms in the US, seeing the military going into houses disarming and handcuffing citizens made me think twice.

Is your 2nd Ammendment subject to exceptions? These people weren't criminals. They were relatively wealthy neighbourhoods, some of the houses looked like mansions. The people were allowed to stay but all their firearms were confiscated.

What are American's thoughts on this?

Link

(You need to be a NYT member. I'm not, so can't quote the article)



[edit on 9-9-2005 by cargo]


Um, yeah....why dont they take a few more shots at police
do we all have amnesia and dont remember aid workers being shot at? They are disarming a bunch of idiots, whom IMO should not be able to purchase weapons anymore.I think it funny that alot of people here on ATS are against 2nd Admendment rights until it comes to these people in NO shooting at government workers. Do i sense some hypocrisy amongst this crowd?
(PS. Im not picking on you or any thing cargo, you had the opening post and i thought it appropriate to use it as a starting point
)



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I think one of the pretexts that they are operating on is that a lot of the firearms they were attempting to confiscate were stolen in the first place, but how can they prove that? If i were an honest person who had legally purchased my firearms and just had it confiscated by heavily-armed government agents, I'd be pretty pissed right now. Besides, how is it that it's okay for the government to walk around with a heavy arsenal, but not private citizens? This looks and smells like police-state fascism to me.
---Ryan



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rikimaru

Um, yeah....why dont they take a few more shots at police
do we all have amnesia and dont remember aid workers being shot at? They are disarming a bunch of idiots, whom IMO should not be able to purchase weapons anymore.I think it funny that alot of people here on ATS are against 2nd Admendment rights until it comes to these people in NO shooting at government workers. Do i sense some hypocrisy amongst this crowd?
(PS. Im not picking on you or any thing cargo, you had the opening post and i thought it appropriate to use it as a starting point
)


What the hell are you talking about...did you even read the previous posts. These weapons are being illegally confiscated from LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. NOT....I REPEAT...NOT...LOOTERS. In other words Shut Up and Read Up, ya fricken troll!

[edit on 9-9-2005 by Imperium Americana]



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
*Edit- Dbl. Post? WTF?

[edit on 9-9-2005 by Imperium Americana]



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Is this real or surreal?

As a resident of Southern California, who has long-since prepared for the inevitable "Big One," -- the eventual large-scale rupture along the San Andreas which is a long-established matter of geological record, and for which we are long overdue -- our insurance is up-to-date, we have adequate emergency supplies to last 2-3 weeks without electricity or running water, etc... In short, we are as prepared as anyone can be.

NOW... I find myself questioning this very frightening precedent unfolding before our very eyes in new Orleans.

Should -- no, strike that... when the San Andreas experiences a major rupture, I imagine we will experience some temporary isolation from the "outside world." I've seen it happen before, with the Northridge Quake, the Loma Prieta Quake, and the Cedar Fire in 2003, and now, to a never-before seen level of isolation in the wake of Katrina's destruction.

So when the "Big One" strikes, it is not too difficult to imagine that some degree of similar "temporary isolation" will be inevitable in SoCal. But if we're adequately prepared, and we can easily hold out for 2-3 weeks without electricity/running water, is it not a violation of my constitutional rights for any member of civil or military law enforcement to demand I surrender my firearms for no reason?

I can understand and even defend the act of disarming a criminal. But in no way can I see nor defend the act of carte blanche disarmament of our citizens!

Meanwhile, the same article states how civilian, privately contracted security personnel guarding individual business interests are being allowed to maintain possession of their automatic weapons -- why the dual standard?!?

I can honestly say I hope and pray I will not be able to find any corroborating stories elsewhere in the media and that this comes to pass as another example of of NYT fabrication...
I never thought I'd find myself even remotely hoping for such a thing, but it sure as hell beats the alternative... that this is the truth!

Has anyone seen this story picked up elsewhere? I first saw it in our local paper -- front page -- but it was a carry of the NY Times article...

Call your congressmen! DEMAND an answer based on the allegations put forth in this article! Call your local news station and request a follow-up! We do NOT have to passively sit and be relegated to just watching this unfold!



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   
sdrumrunner--I'd say that means get out of California. Because as I said in another thread, FEMA predicted what would be the three worst disasters in America ONE MONTH before 9/11:

--Terrorist attack (done).
--Major hurricane hitting NOLA (done).
--Major earthquake along the San Andreas Fault.

I just hope the troops/whoever confiscating weapons realize that they are breaking the law!



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
If this is true, then this is total BS, I hope, any Law abiding citizen in NO, refuses to turnover there weapon/s.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I've hoestly never understood the American fixation with guns.

Why must, at all costs, the American public feel that they have to be armed against their own people and/or government??

It seems to me to be the root of the scociaty of fear which has alowed "the powers that Be" to so easily manipulate and mislead the public.

Why not just put down the firggin guns and start looking at each other as fellow human beings?

How's this for an idea:
Say a band of looters is heading your way. Rather than shooting 'em, try inviting them to merge what they have with what you have? Try forming a community and HELPING each other.
Is it such a stretch to imagine that maybe if you extend your hand in friendship that maybe the guns aren't required?

The way I see it, the Second Amendment (and things like the inserection act) are part of the problem and in no way can ever be part of the solution. These are manifestations of paranioa that happen to be constitutionally endorsed.

Isn't it time to just GET OVER IT?



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Sorry people but if you want a faster better stronger reaction to things like this you will have to give up some rights . You can't have your cake and eat it too.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser
I've hoestly never understood the American fixation with guns.

Why must, at all costs, the American public feel that they have to be armed against their own people and/or government??

It seems to me to be the root of the scociaty of fear which has alowed "the powers that Be" to so easily manipulate and mislead the public.

Why not just put down the firggin guns and start looking at each other as fellow human beings?

How's this for an idea:
Say a band of looters is heading your way. Rather than shooting 'em, try inviting them to merge what they have with what you have? Try forming a community and HELPING each other.
Is it such a stretch to imagine that maybe if you extend your hand in friendship that maybe the guns aren't required?

The way I see it, the Second Amendment (and things like the inserection act) are part of the problem and in no way can ever be part of the solution. These are manifestations of paranioa that happen to be constitutionally endorsed.

Isn't it time to just GET OVER IT?



You obviously have never been in jail Bit



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Bit, that's a beautiful and ideal thought but thanks to the many inequities people from various races and even inside of a race, such things wont always occur. especially after a tragic event and having been felt abandoned by your own country on your own soil, your mental state is not one of a person from the outside looking in.

back to topic
this is horrible. we are being conditioned to allow the federal government to take away our right to protect ourselves (from them) in a case of a disaster.





posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   
There is a fundamental difference when Sweden is given the right to bear arms and Americans. Can anyone give me an answer to this?

Regardless, it's a consitutional right that has been wavered for no reason other than distrust from the Goverment, and though this can be debated, it still remains that these orders go against the second ammendment and it's actions seem specific against citizens only. Why bussiness owners are allowed to hire private forces to guard their properties and home owners are not to secure thier property is just blatantly obvious.

Luxifero





new topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join