Oh how the chickens come home to roost. If you live in a swing State like I do, you are familiar with the National Rifle Association (NRA) propaganda in both print and television in election years, saying that Democrats want to take away your guns, Democrats want to destroy the second amendment, etc... Well your guns are now being taking away, but not by Democrats, but by Republicans! National Guard troops are now going door to door in New Orleans taking away residents of any and all firearms. Can somebody please wake up Charlton Heston and tell him to move to New Orleans...quickly. Let's see if he really means that "cold, dead hand" saying.
Now I know that firearms are being taken away for the protection of the troops and rescue services in New Orleans, but this is a first step that all you NRA members should look at very carefully. I favor strict gun control laws. If you want a pistol to protect your home, or a rifle to go hunting on the weekends, I respect that and have no problem with it. But can't we all get together and make the gun with the grenade launcher, or the gun that can destroy a tank from a mile away, not available for the public to buy? Granted, I've never been hunting and don't plan on going anytime soon, but from what I hear of it, you don't need a gun with a grenade launcher to kill a deer. And these type of extreme weapons, often fall into the hands of foreign forces, (organized and unorganized) and used to shoot at our very own troops.
This administration likes to use the Constitution when it works in their favor, but in this case they are dangerously close to denying second amendment rights and you better keep an eye on the third amendment also. These two amendments, in particular, were put into the Bill of Rights for this very purpose, a militia occupying a civilian area. New Orleans has been turned into a military state in less than a week and no date on when citizens can return. I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but looking at the Bush crime family record, this following one isn't all that hard to believe.
Article comments
1 - JELIEL
oh boy...
< looks for FLAME repelant >
But dude, we needs 50mm armor peircing snipper riffles to hunt dem vermin wabbits
2 - John Bil
>>>But can't we all get together and make the gun with the grenade launcher, or the gun that can destroy a tank from a mile away, not available for the public to buy?<<<
No rifle can destroy a tank, let alone from a mile. Grenades are illegal. Your argument is based on ignorance.
3 - Right Democrat
I understand the reasons for the gun roundup but do view this as a disturbing situation. As a Democrat who believes in the right to keep and bear arms, I have serious problems with any attempt to restrict gun rights. The only thing that is unique about the New Orleans is that the city is under forced evacuation. I am uncomfortable with the government confiscating guns from law-abiding U.S. citizens under any circumstances. An article in the Washington Post the other day pointed out how residents in a hurricane damaged area of coastal Mississippi have formed a neighborhood patrol that is keeping away the looters. Law-abiding citizens need to have guns to protect themselves and their property in the aftermath of a diaster like Katrina.
4 - tomwright
Dude, WRONG!
The order to confiscate came from the Democratic Mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nero, er, Nagin.
The N.G. has not been Federalized and is still under the control of the Democratic Governor of Louisianna.
So this is all being done under the authority of Democrat politicians.
That is right, Democrats, the so called party of the small guy, is going door to door, with armed paramilitary and military troops, and forcibly removing poor American citizens at gun-point, in chains if need be. Confiscating private property and disarming otherwise defenseless people who present no harm to anyone not trying to loot the homes they are trying to save. Homes that are all these people have in the world.
So go ahead and dance with glee on another dead part of the Constitution. Just remember to take the credit that is your due.
Tom Wright
5 - Dave Nalle
>>But can't we all get together and make the gun with the grenade launcher, or the gun that can destroy a tank from a mile away<<
Um, those particular weapons have been illegal for at least 30 years. Right now our gun rights are extremely restricted, in total violation of the spirit of the 2nd Amendment which was specifically framed to allow us the right to have military grade weapons in private hands so that we could overthrow the government by force if needed. Of course, that also presupposed that we would have no standing army, which was supposed to be addressed in the bill of rights, but ended up being omitted.
Dave
6 - Lee Richards
Dave,
The right to have military-grade weapons in private hands, yes (although, of course, both weapons and the nation are vastly changed since the 1700s.) But could you cite some evidence from the Framers or Supreme Court decisions to support the next part of your statement-- "so that we could overthrow the government by force if needed?"
7 - John
No where in The Second Amendment is there anything that allows The local Gestapo the power to disband The Second Amendment. Allowing P. Edwin Adolph Hitler Compass III, the superintendent of police to get away with this, only will empower other dictators to do the same.
8 - Dave Nalle
Sure, Lee.
Noah Webster in a pamphlet explaining the Bill of Rights to the voters of Pennsylvania in 1787:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
Richard Henry Lee of Virginia writing about the Virginia Constitution:
"to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
George Washington's First Inaugural Address:
""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."
Dave
9 - Craven Moorehead
Thomas Jefferson said "The beauty of the second ammendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
George Washington said " Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's Liberty Teeth and the keystone under independence. To insure peace, security, and hapiness the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference, they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.
10 - John
I don't believe the second ammendment says anything about deer or hunting. I'm not a hunter at all. And I don't ever want to use a firearm against a person either. However I believe the second amendment was written by a group of men who had just overthrown an oppressive government and realized any government could turn bad. The 2nd amendment was written to provide a means for the people to defend themselves against such an oppressive government. Don't worry about what the law abidinig citizens such as myself have, worry about the criminals who are going to have whatever they want regardless of law.
For what its worth the rifle I own with a grenade launcher isn't an extreme weapon at all. Its less powerful and accurate than anything the US military carries. Its actually a surplus relic from yugoslavia. I also don't see what me having one in my house has to do with foreign forces with them but thats a different point.
11 - GlockSpiel
Why am I not surprised that someone who readily admits he doesn't hunt can so confidently decide what hunters need? A grenade launcher on a rifle requires grenades to be in any way useful. If they were available, one would have to pay a $200 tax stamp for each grenade. There is no such thing as a rifle that can destroy a tank, much less from a mile away. I should add that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do homeland defense, so that grenade launcher could come in handy (if I were allowed to have one) to protect myself from communists who want to destroy our nation, such as yourself.
What any of this has to do with the deplorable situation in New Orleans, I don't know except to point out that you are in favor of stupid gun control laws.
The illegal confiscating of weapons from the citizens of New Orleans is indeed a dangerous precedence and a very real threat to the constitution. It has nothing to do with protecting the police or National Guard from violent criminals, but is a ploy to make it easier for them to illegally roust the unarmed citizens from their homes. The state, National Guard and the police are still under the control of the Democratic Governor, not the federal government. I fully expect every politition Democrat and Republican to denounce this practice. I hope it causes a political shitstorm that will pale the superbowl tit, but I don't think it will get much attention.
12 - Dave Nalle
>>here is no such thing as a rifle that can destroy a tank, much less from a mile away. <<
Now hold on. Technically a tank gun with a rifled barrel is a rifle, and if it's firing a DU shell it can probably pierce the armor of another tank...so...
But on the main point, there's not going to be any complaining from politicians about the NO gun grab. There's a state of martial law there. We're only going to start getting serious complaints if the guns aren't given back when order is fully restored.
Dave
13 - Arquebus
So what if a particular firearm is inappropriate for deer hunting? The 2nd Amendment is not about deer hunting, it's about freedom. And even though I find the notion of a suburban white-collar white guy who proudly owns and shoots a laser equipped, flashlight laden, bayonet compatible, futuristic gee-whiz legal rifle modelled after something that he saw on CNN that gets used exclusively for shooting cardboard boxes and some general posturing laughable, it's a right guaranteed in this country to do just that. You really want to get concerned with the public health, go on a crusade after stupid drivers, industrial safety, exhausted/distracted health care providers, ladders, booze, tobacco, and fatty foods, any of which are statistically far more dangerous.
The "Guns are Bad" bugaboo has just about run it's course in this country... it had a hell of a run, but a pervasive and ongoing campaign by hand-wringing bedwetters is finally being disassembled by basic truths, logic, and fact.
14 - GlockSpiel
>>Technically a tank gun with a rifled barrel is a rifle, and if it's firing a DU shell it can probably pierce the armor of another tank...so...
<<
Sorry, I was unaware that tank guns and DU shells are available for the public to buy.
The constitution doesn't provide for confiscation during Martial Law or even "State of Emergency" that they are actually working under. This is illegal in every sense.
Even if they get their guns returned, which I seriously doubt will happen, where are they storing them? In what condition?
15 - tim mark
Grenade launchers are illegal, and there is no gun that can destroy a tank from a mile away. And not all NG soldiers are Republican.
16 - Dave Nalle
>>Sorry, I was unaware that tank guns and DU shells are available for the public to buy.<<
My point is that they should be if we're to take the 2nd amendment as it was intended.
>>The constitution doesn't provide for confiscation during Martial Law or even "State of Emergency" that they are actually working under. This is illegal in every sense. <<
Of course it is, but in a state of emergency, people will put up with it.
>>Even if they get their guns returned, which I seriously doubt will happen, where are they storing them? In what condition?<<
I do wonder about the confiscation procedures. It's a good question.
Dave
17 - molon labe
This is not at all about public safety. This is only about fear. the fear that the left has for gun owners. gun owners are seen and portrayed (the NRA bears the brunt of the media wrath) as anti-abortion, pro-hunting, hick rednecks, vast right-wingers. The left FEARS an armed populace because if it ever came to armed revolt, who would be doing the revolting? But honestly, cancer, car wrecks, and bad diet choices alone in each of their respective categories kill far more americans per year than guns do. Cars, food, cigarettes/cigars etc... are NOT protected by the constitution, so why do they not go after those items? They would save more lives. Mainly due to fear, and also that fear is cleverly weilded by politicians to further their agenda. Remember when the assault weapons ban expired? From the sound of it, you'd think the sky was falling! Not true at all and "Assault weapons" still account for a small number of gun crimes. It's all the politics of fear, one the left and the media are all too willing to sell you...