Gun Grab in N.O.

I'm not being facetious here, but it seems to me that there is a lot of news we get here in Australia that is not shown in the US. A similar story was shown here about 6 weeks after Katrina and it was as much as admitted by some bloke in the national Guard that it was to stop the possibility of disgruntled taxpayers taking the law into their own hands.

The way the whole issue was, and is being still handled should be a national disgrace especially in the face of some reporting into the plight of some Chinese earthquake victims.
 
That's what happens when you have too many cops who don't have a brain and the government is asked to micromanage everyone's lives.
I think it's a personal right to stay in your home if you feel that place is the safest place for yourself.
Sometimes the whole "just doing my job" is a pack of crap. I can't believe this happened, yet I'm not surprised it happened. It's the new America. I am very disappointed and saddened at the same time.
 
There were people in perfectly dry areas staying in their homes and they were relocated along with everyone else. And you know they weren't taking good care of any guns they confiscated.

I guess it's just a difference of opinion on one thing. Who do you trust, cops who want your guns, rampant looters, or your armed neighbor? I mean, taking peoples' guns during a crisis like that is the worst time to take them. Gee, there are people running around in groups robbing homes amidst the confusion, let's take away everyone's only protection!
 
It was a disgusting and unconstitutional panic from inept "leaders" that never gave 2 bits about rights, anyway.

Here's my thing: If I told my employee to go to your home and steal your gun, would I not be criminally liable for conspiracy to commit theft? So why are the police chief, the mayor, and the military commanders that ordered the theft of legally owned firearms sitting in jail right now?
 
Absolutely retarded.
I bet the cops didn't like doing it much either but they have to obey orders or else they get fired and their future is ruined because of the nonsense being on their permanent record if they were to tell whomever came up with the dumb idea to got to hell. I'm surprised they didn't try to have the police turn in their firearms as well, would have been just as retarded. Certain politicians would rather all of the criminals have guns but the good people that obey the law are not allowed to.
I know who I'm voting for.

I would say the mayor is appropriate. The military commanders and police chief were most likely following orders. If they were not, then I would say they should be with the mayor or whoever else had the authority to issue that retarded order. Granted you are suppose to follow orders but the key wording in that particular general oder is "Lawful order(s)."
Article 92 in the military is Failure to obey order or regulation, the first requirement to be charged with this is (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation. The problem in the military is that they don't give a whole lot of instruction on how to challenge the lawfulness of certain orders you may have doubts about. As an officer this is difficult too without creating an altercation anyway. Of course, you can take the beef through the chain of command with both organizations but each time you step on someone's toes, you most likely made yourself a new enemy.
 
Last edited:
AikiRooster said:
Absolutely retarded.
I bet the cops didn't like doing it much either but they have to obey orders or else they get fired and their future is ruined because of the nonsense being on their permanent record if they were to tell whomever came up with the dumb idea to got to hell. I'm surprised they didn't try to have the police turn in their firearms as well, would have been just as retarded. Certain politicians would rather all of the criminals have guns but the good people that obey the law are not allowed to.
I know who I'm voting for.

I would say the mayor is appropriate. The military commanders and police chief were most likely following orders. If they were not, then I would say they should be with the mayor or whoever else had the authority to issue that retarded order. Granted you are suppose to follow orders but the key wording in that particular general oder is "Lawful orders."
Click to expand...

Exactly: LAWFUL orders.

Following an order directly contradictory to the Constitution or the BOR should be an illegal act and, as such, punishable by criminal prosecution.
 
I think there is a good chance that people in high places within the New Orleans local government saw this as a good time to "clean out" the affected ward, and knowing that there would be a probable violent backlash thought that it might be wise to disarm those so affected.

Is this type of thing usually done in time of emergency? If so it certainly makes one of the major reasons given on this forum for owning a firearm invalid (self protection and protection of one's property).
 
AZ:
I would suggest though it depends with the person following the orders. Did they know they could challenge the legality of the order? Definitely, the person who issued the order ought to be held accountable. If he/she wasn't sure of the legality of what they were ordering, they should have checked first to make sure they were squared away legally.


Seno:
Or, if it were a common practice which it is not, than it would also justify folks not wanting to register their arms.
 
Last edited:
You all know how many people die because of "self-defense" weapons? In Germany all firearms are highly restricted and our rate of ppl shot down by guns is way below normal- and thats the way i like it, you don't need guns you need police! Its crazy in america. seriously how many ppl could defend themselves against criminals ... they have a gun but don't know how to shoot or even aim- thats nonsense. i know of no story where the heroic shop-owner killed the thieves with his personal self defense pump-gun. And even if he does... taking lives will take its toll on a civilian even if its self defense... let them rob you ... material valours are way below the life of an human being and can be regained (insurance)

but may be for many its the last resort... i don't really know the exact situation in america... i can only speak for germany. But i don't think its a good thing to get more weapons into the world for civilians- its just money making for the big companies- they don't care about you.
 
AikiRooster said:

Seno:
Or, if it were a common practice which it is not, than it would also justify folks not wanting to register their arms.
Click to expand...
A very good point.

I am a law abiding person, however if I was ever to come by an unregistered weapon now in Australia I would gladly break the law to keep it. This change of morality is purely as a result of our draconian firearms enforcement laws.

Some laws do little more than "make" criminals out of otherwise honest citizens.
 
senojekips said:
Some laws do little more than "make" criminals out of otherwise honest citizens.
Click to expand...

It's going that way actually.
You break the law upon drawing the first breath.
The government doesn't jail you automatically but the instant you become an irritation, they come to your home or dig up your history and there will always be a point where you had broken "the law."

There is actually an ancient Chinese story that is very popular in the east that is based on this theme. It is called "Outlaws of the Marsh" (or outlaws in the marsh... can't remember...) and basically the kingdom has so many rules that sooner or later EVERYONE's a criminal and eventually they fight back.

Here's an Amazon link to a translation
http://www.amazon.com/Outlaws-Marsh...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214651029&sr=8-1
 
Last edited:
ObjSRgtLw said:
You all know how many people die because of "self-defense" weapons? In Germany all firearms are highly restricted and our rate of ppl shot down by guns is way below normal- and thats the way i like it, you don't need guns you need police! Its crazy in america. seriously how many ppl could defend themselves against criminals ... they have a gun but don't know how to shoot or even aim- thats nonsense. i know of no story where the heroic shop-owner killed the thieves with his personal self defense pump-gun. And even if he does... taking lives will take its toll on a civilian even if its self defense... let them rob you ... material valours are way below the life of an human being and can be regained (insurance)

but may be for many its the last resort... i don't really know the exact situation in america... i can only speak for germany. But i don't think its a good thing to get more weapons into the world for civilians- its just money making for the big companies- they don't care about you.
Click to expand...



This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion Of National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

The radio went silent and the interview ended.
 
I've spent some time in the backwaters of Louisiana what with family and friends living there. A lot of people who are commercial trappers, fishermen, and hunters depend on firearms of all kinds in the swamps. Being unarmed in a lot of areas could mean sudden and/or a slow death for those who depend on a weapon. Crawdad dredgers often bring up a pissed off cotton mouth in their net. You can't begin to appreciate a .22 pistol or .410 shotgun as when you pull up a trot line with a deadly snake on a treble hook. You can't leave it on the line and bringing it in the boat is not an option. Policemen and soldiers aren't apt to walk up on a gator while running a trapline that provides a living for a family so they weren't very sympathetic to those who do. Disarming a person in Louisiana is not only unconstitutional but is the same as stealing a man's horse in 1800's Western territories. The latter was solved with a short rope and a long drop.
 
ObjSRgtLw said:
You all know how many people die because of "self-defense" weapons? In Germany all firearms are highly restricted and our rate of ppl shot down by guns is way below normal- and thats the way i like it, you don't need guns you need police!
Click to expand...

This is true in virtually every other country in the world, but it appears that there are some in the US who think the rest of the world has it wrong and that they are a special case. It is of no importance that you and everyone else has the proof.

I would like to see comparison as to how many crimes are prevented by "self defence" weapons against how many crimes are committed with those weapons. I think it would make very interesting reading.
 
That's pretty easy in this country. Look at area's like Virginia for example that have easier laws for the law abiding citizens to own and carry concealed. The crime goes down almost immediately and stays low. Many crimes don't take place in Virginia because the hoodlums know the good guys are armed too. Plain and simple.

As for other countries in the world? Who cares really. I would not look at all the other countries in the world when trying to make decisions for here for an internal issue. So many folks from all over the world are trying to get here for a reason. Sometimes this looking at other countries for certain things may be relevant, but most likely, rarely. I also think allowing the general populace that is mentally healthy and non felons, to be armed is good for national security as well. If their was an invasion or terrorist attack somewhere, our armed citizens may sometimes be the ones who get the kill on these bozo's or make the asrrest. Making the kill would be better though as our weak side of the Supreme Court gave the bad guys too many rights a couple of weeks ago, rights they don't deserve..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top