would you give up your guns?

Umm, look who you were dealing with. Law-abiding citizens were not out randomly killing people. That's a load of shit. They were defending there property from looters and thugs. It was the gangs who most likely did not have legal firearms. Therefore the legal gun owners were stripped of their Constitutional rights to defend themselves from a "death sentence."

 

Law-abiding citizens suggests that there is a semblance of "law."

Law was not in order in the 9th Ward. In order to restore it, that meant a complete disarmament. Total. Everyone.

Why?

Because when you're a home/business owner, and there are thugs and looters running around wearing the uniforms of the cops they murdered, you don't have a lot of trust of police.

Because when you're a cop, and your buddies are getting executed on a daily basis, and someone points a weapon at you -- you don't ask to see their license.

And that's how people unnecessarily die.

And, unless you made any kind of personal trips to the Ward following Katrina you'd like to share, I suggest you defer to those of us who have; who worked closely with the police and military and security. When I have a question about Constitutional violations with reference to YouTube clips, I'll defer to you.

I feel sorry for the people who's guns were taken away as part of an overreaching disarmament. But no one says they cannot own one now.

 

i have guns that hold sentimental value . .guns from family members who are no longer around and are worth more to me than anyones life who try to take them.

 

I'm sure the good guys turned theirs in; left for the wolves that did not.

So you're gonna be a wise ass now? Piss off.

No you don't. You said it was tough shit.

 

That sounds like the 9th Ward of New Orleans anytime of year.....

We were leaving N.O. one time and accidentally strolled through the Magnolia Projects, and I'm pretty sure we saw (as we floored it to get out of there) 4 drug deals, 10+ counts of public prostitution, and a gang murder. And this was in 2000.

 

Buy all the ammo you can. I really think they know they cannot take our guns so they will price ammo so high that only the wealthy will be able to buy ammo to shoot.

 

I stand corrected. It was in my original draft and was unfortunately edited out.

But I will from here state that no one is telling people in New Orleans (even the 9th Ward) that they cannot own a firearm. If people had their rights temporarily suspended, it is a small price to pay for overall security and further loss of life.

As for the smart-ass thing. Better get used to it.

 

That is so true.

The 9th Ward is an awful place anytime. Throw in mass catastrophe, hunger and desperation, and people will resort to anything. Even formerly law-abiding ones.

I've been a lot of places and seen a lot of shit, and outside of Africa (where I will not even begin to describe the atrocities) the 9th Ward following Katrina was one of the most horrific places I've witnessed.

 

I was not there and that may have been the only way to deal with the situation in NO. However, it is an example of citizens' rights being stripped; albeit temporarily in that case. As I said before, it happened then and can happen again.

 

This is what burns me up the most about the whole "2nd Amendment" argument.

In New Orleans, it was absolutely the right thing to do. But that case is the outlier. It's an extreme circumstance.

But 2nd Amendment advocates see it as an opportunity to cry foul and attack the workings of a government which is just trying to limit the further loss of life and property.

I understand that there are whole lot of people out there who would like nothing better than to ban all guns -- and they're crackpots, too -- but there needs to be an understanding that these things are isolated incidents and should be looked upon in a case-by-case basis.

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that the government is going to summarily revoke a right bestowed upon the people of the United States since its inception is off his/her rocker. The vast majority of people in this country actually use common sense and realize that this is not only absurd, it's also impossible to implement.

Instead of screaming "They're coming for our guns!!" I would think that the passionate guns rights activists would recognize the opportunity to illustrate how with background of respect and responsibility for gun ownership, situations like this can be avoided.

I also understand that it is not how the modern media works, and so hoping for rational discussion is like hoping for a naked Marisa Miller in my bed when I get home.

 

I can't help but imagine that the "patrolling" was significantly more effective than the "disarming". Are you saying registered gun owners were running around looting and shooting? Or was it really that looters that stole guns were looting and shooting? The latter makes an awful lot more sense, and I can't imagine how that would be helped by removing guns from the former... While it would make total sense for the patrols to excuse the confiscation and also put an end to the disorder.

In either case, the fact that the confiscated weapons are still being held is what is completely inexcusable, whether or not they made the right call during the disaster.

The other comment I'd make is that most logical gun owners do not fear an immediate end to gun ownership, but rather a slow erosion like you see in Great Britain. Events like gun confiscation during Katrina, whether or not they were warranted, are definitely a precedent.

 

An interesting post. Have you noticed that some rights, are slowly weakened and eroded over time. Little by little, law, by law, they whittle away until the right no longer exists!

Case in point, my home state of California.

They are proposing a law which would make open carry illegal.

There is another bill which makes gun shops finger print me when I buy ammo in quantities equal to or greater than 50 rounds.

When does it end? I'll give you a hint... When guns are illegal.

 

I don't always agree with Crom has to say, but a very good point and post. And it is the truth.

Just like the Patriot Act put into place by G.W. Bush, and is being extended by Obama.
And many other laws trying to restrict our rights, I now hear they are trying to use the FCC to regulate the internet. So they can charge you for using it, or even controlling it's content. Not good at all.

 

It was less either of those than the rampant confusion between police, thug and law-abiding citizen.

If you read my statement above, there were several incidents where police and lawful gun owners opened fire on each other due the fact that no one could tell the other apart. Several people died this way, with no interaction between thugs and looters. So in to restore order and law, all gun ownership had to be forfeited until it was clear who was a thug, and who was a lawful citizen. Again, it was an extreme circumstance, but it kept a lot of innocent people from getting shot. (Myself included)

I see your point, but the demographics of Great Britain are vastly different than those of the Colonies. Most of GB is comprised of urban metropolises, where firearm use is vastly greater in illegal activities than not. Great Britain has also undergone a much, much deeper history of domestic terrorism (with the whole IRA and whatnot) than the US, prompting the enacting of much more stringent gun control.

 

This is a good point to a degree, but also somewhat disingenuous. It wasn't necessarily "uniforms of the cops they murdered" - New Orleans police committed crimes themselves, as reported in dozens of stories during the hurricane.

 

If I had any guns, there would be no f_ _ _ _ n way I would give them up. When that happens, and I belive that it will, it will be the last straw for our country. It pains me to live in it now with all the recent changes. I would not be able to llive in the society that would exist at the time that would happen.

To quote Denzel Washington in "Training Day" you are either a sheep or a wolf. I know what I am, what are you?

cbreeze

On second thought, If I had any guns, I would give them up. They are taking everything else away. Why not?

 

This is very true. But it didn't do any wonders for the building citizen/police relationships. I was trying to keep my post at a somewhat tolerable length.

Which just further illustrates the point that when the Guard came in, they needed overriding authority to clean everything up. No one was easily categorized into a definite bin. The lines were (and always will be) blurred.

So, if you're a National Guardsman or Army solider tasked with restoring order and law, with the constant threat of coming under fire; the best way to make sure that the make sure the guy pointing a gun at you is a bad guy is to make EVERYBODY pointing a gun at you a bad guy.

Again, a temporary, extreme solution to a temporary, extreme problem.

 

You're extrapolating extremes.

I don't know anything about the CA law, and I don't currently have time to read it (I will, but later), so I can't comment on that.

The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution says you have the legal right to own a weapon. It does not give you the legal right to fire that weapon, intimidate with it, or use it in whatever way you think is appropriate.

If you are a law-abiding citizen, and a citizen who exercises their right to own a firearm, I would think that you would want to make sure that your right is not taken advantage of by others who would wish to do harm with it.

Guns are made for one reason: to kill whatever they are pointed at. Be that a target, animal or human being. To argue otherwise is lunacy. As a responsible gun owner, I would do everything in my power to assure that my gun is used with the respect and responsibility it deserves, by myself or anyone else.

 

Well, I think we've come a long way today in solving the gun debate. I'm outta here. Good work everybody!

 

.."they can have my gun, when they pry it from my cold dead hands!"