Katrina tragedy, detrimental or beneficial to the 2nd?

Glock 31

New member
To start off, i'm not making light of the tragedy that occured in the southeast last year. So don't noone get their bandoliers in a twist.

Though certainly justifiable, it seems to me that the old arguments of, what if i'm mugged, what if someone breaks in, what if this, what if that, are sounding a little hollow and over used when it comes to defending the second amendment rights of the citizens of this country. I mean I am no political expert and haven't seen any publicized court cases or debates regarding the second and it justifications personally. But haven't we been using the same arguments for years while anti-gunners come up with some new BS every time a gun crime is committed?

My question is, did the results of the Katrina tragedy, the looting, the pillaging, the raping, and the murdering. And subsequently, the confiscations. Did they or didn't they give the NRA and like minded groups new ammo to use in the defense of our second amendment rights? If so, just how ardently is this "ammo" being used? Thoughts and opinions welcome.:cool:

P.S. I would really like to see some examples of people defending the second on a personal level in the responses to this thread if there are any out there.
 

tjhands

New member
Yes, the actions of the mayor and the chief of police in N.O. revealed what had been predicted for a long time, so it will forever serve us as an undeniably valid point when "they" say that it would never come to taking our guns away.

To your other point about the constant citing of reasons why we need to keep our guns: the truth is the truth. It never changes. When people have to keep changing their reasoning, like the antis do, it indicates a fallacy.
 

MicroBalrog

New member
”Wayne LaPierre said:
Of any news story since New Orleans became the first venue in America to disarm its peaceable citizens house by house--at gunpoint--nothing brought home the sheer terror of it all more than two broadcast video segments: one on ABC News and another on Fox News Channel.
Opening with scenes of police and Oklahoma National Guardsmen entering homes on a block-by-block search, you cannot watch the ABC piece without fear and anger. Everybody I've spoken with who has seen it had the same reaction--the Constitution has been trashed. This was supposed to be a humanitarian effort, not a shoot-to-kill military operation.
If friends might think shoot-to-kill is overblown, tell them to imagine having a locked and loaded M16 or M4 carbine leveled at them by a youthful guardsman with fear in his eyes. Then imagine someone shouting, "He has a gun!"
This is the worst case for honest gun owners come true. But I promise you, when all is said and done by NRA, these scenes will become a nightmare for the gun-ban crowd, because they give lie to their false promises that forced gun confiscation would never happen in America.
With images of police and guardsmen clearing rooms, shouldered M16s at the ready, the ABC reporter explained that they enter homes "with guns drawn with instructions to disarm anyone inside." Then the New Orleans police chief says, "No one will be able to be armed. We're going to take all weapons." Remember, this has always been the endgame of New Orleans politicians who were first in line to take a crack at suing the firearm industry out of existence.
In the ABC broadcast, young men are sitting on a curb with arms handcuffed behind their backs, surrounded by heavily armed police. They could be any of our college-age kids. Their crime as explained by the ABC reporter: "[H]omeowners had armed themselves to protect their mansions. Residents were handcuffed on the ground, and in the end, police took their weapons but let them stay in their homes."
In the close of the ABC footage, a very young guardsman says, "Walking up and down these streets you don't want to have to think about the stuff you are going to have to do. If somebody pops around the corner . . . ." Off camera, the reporter interrupts and says, "You mean shoot an American."
The Americans this young man might shoot are not looters; they are not criminals. They are brave people who simply refused to obey an order by the same local authorities who indefensibly failed to protect them.
Keep in mind, those officials--who ordered every decent citizen of their city to be forcibly disarmed--also sent tens of thousands of residents whose homes were destroyed to endure the living hell of the Superdome and the Convention Center; where people died or were murdered; where bodies rotted; where medical practitioners were frightened away; where gang members killed, robbed and raped at will. All of this with virtually no police presence for a week.
For citizens in neighborhoods spared the flooding and wind damage from the hurricane, the evacuation order made no sense. And arming themselves to protect their persons, families, homes and communities from roving criminal predators made perfect sense. Self-protection is the most basic human right of all.
To see the National Guard troops in this ABC segment is to see them on a war footing. They are edgy. Fearful. But this isn't war. This is a natural disaster involving innocent Americans whom are victims of nature. These are Americans who chose to be armed so that they would not further become victims of criminal violence.
Many of these people who stayed in their relatively unscathed neighborhoods couldn't bring themselves to abandon their pets, their possessions. They feared leaving more than staying. Think of being disarmed at gunpoint by the very people who you thought had come to help.
For any level of government--state, local or federal--to disarm these good people in their own homes using the threat of imminent deadly force is unthinkable.
The Fox broadcast brought that message home with incredible force. Seeing a burly police officer body slam a frail, elderly woman who was showing officers her home protection gun--a little Colt Police Positive--is beyond imagination. (See Marshall Lewin's powerful story on p. 72). Her gun was taken, and she was hauled out of her home.
Law enforcement? No. Tyranny. Clear and simple. And it is a tyranny that must be stopped--never to happen again.
NRA is committed to ensuring that innocent Americans always have the means to defend themselves in their homes and neighborhoods. We will do so by enacting laws to prohibit state and federal authorities from seizing firearms from innocent citizens under a state of emergency due to a natural disaster or terrorist attack.
Self-defense is and must remain the bedrock principle of the Second Amendment.
Posted: 9/20/2005

Here.
 

steelheart

Moderator
Did they or didn't they give the NRA and like minded groups new ammo to use in the defense of our second amendment rights? If so, just how ardently is this "ammo" being used? Thoughts and opinions welcome.

"They" - "The Government" - gave the NRA, GOA, Second Amendment Foundation and JPFO a ton of ammunition. "They" did what we have feared all along; "they" did what we have all been called tin-foil hat wearers for worrying about.

"They" sent military troops house-to-house and disarmed lawful citizens at gunpoint with no due process. "They" physically attacked and disarmed people who wanted nothing more than to be left alone and to guard what was left of their homes.

Never again can "They" claim, "We don't want to take your guns - that's not our goal."

As far as what has been done, IMO the NRA has done an outstanding job of speaking out, calling a spade a spade and letting the world hear the truth. The NRA took Ray Nagin, socialist scumbag mayor of New Orleans to court and forced him and the city of New Orleans to agree to return the guns "They" confiscated. This was accomplished after Nagin tried to deny that any guns were confiscated!!

Ray Nagin apparently thinks he and his edicts are above the law and supercede the Constitution. He and his lap dog police chief who ordered his police force to confiscate guns should NEVER AGAIN hold public office or power of any kind.

It wouldn't surprise me to someday see the Democrat/socialist party run them both for the House of Representatives, the Senate or President and Vice President.:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:
 

Cowman

New member
To the average person, Katrina is only a memory. In a year, the public will pretty much forget. It won't matter to the general public, only a handfull of us will still remember it.
 

XavierBreath

New member
I believe hurricane Katrina had a huge effect on gun ownership and gun rights. In the past six months I have had more requests from novices to teach them how to shoot than I recieved in the past six years. Gun sales have skyrocketed. Gun ownership is up. Conceal carry legislation is being passed. Laws are being passed to prevent any further confiscations in the event of a natural disaster in many states.

More than anything, however, a question was answered by many law enforcement officers from around the country.

Gun owners had long speculated whether law enforcement officers and military, if ordered by seemingly legitimate authority, would conduct confiscations of legally owned weapons. That question was huge, and had never been answered until September 2005 in New Orleans. It was answered in New Orleans with an affirmation that can never be denied.

It is true that not all law enforcement and not all military seized weapons in New Orleans. No officer, not one officer, however, lifted a hand to prevent the illegal seizures of legally owned weapons that people needed to protect themselves. Every law enforcement and military officer in New Orleans either participated in the confiscations or stood idly by and allowed the constitution to be violated.

Only a restraining order issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana stopped the confiscations. Who demanded the restraining order? The NRA. If you have some reason for not joining the NRA, it's time to re-evaluate your priorities. When the time came, the NRA acted quickly and effectively. The NRA has not finished, indeed they have hardly begun on the Katrina issue. It's time to support them.

More.
 

Glock 31

New member
Thanks MicroBalrog for the article quote, I hadn't heard that piece yet. I caught only bits and pieces of news relating to this issue as it was happening and never heard anything about it after the fact.

XavierBreath,
To true, incidentally I am an NRA member. Though all I ever hear from them is requests for more money for the ILA. Which, unlike the lottery, is a very worthy organization. I'm not rich, so I give what I can.

But I have to wonder, or worry. The new legislation that is being, or has been, passed to prevent incidents such as Katrina confiscations. Is this legislation anymore powerful than the constitution itself? The constitution is like the Bible of America. If the anti's disregarded America's bible, what makes us think they'll pay anymore attention to "just another bill, or amendment, on, or to, the books"?

And who is determining what constitutes a natural disaster. Though I realize that is kind of an obvious question, my meaning is this. I heard of a story, mind you a "story". But a story I heard from a member of the Minuteman Project, about a New Mexican town that was taken over and held hostage for one week by the mexican military as they funneled a shipment or two of drugs across the border.

Now I know this isn't on par with a hurricane, but it constitutes the same kind of threat to our rights. Especially for guys like me who live in New Mexico. I find it hard to believe that a town, no matter how small, could be taken over for a week without some kind of authority agency being aware of it. Then again if it was small enough and secluded, who knows. The point i'm trying to make is, just because we pass a bill for natural disasters or situations of the sort. Does that cover everything that anti's could use to try to enact more confiscations?:cool:
 

XavierBreath

New member
Is this legislation anymore powerful than the constitution itself? The constitution is like the Bible of America.
No, but it is much more specific, removing any grey areas and room for interpretation that might jeopardize a person's right to keep and bear arms.

Just like the Holy Bible is subject to interpretation, so is the second amendment. Consider the 6th commandment and all the various interpretations of it today in light of war, abortion, self defense, and many other situations. Some say the commandment says thou shalt not kill. Others say it means thou shalt not murder. Some allow wiggle room, others refuse to eat meat.

I don't want to throw this thread off track, but all these interpretations of the second amendment are a problem, and honestly, many of them have some validity, or they would not be a problem. The new laws being put in place to protect the 2nd amendment will make a skewed interpretation all but impossible in a disaster.
 

Baba Louie

New member
Does that cover everything that anti's could use to try to enact more confiscations?
Hardly.
Martial Law, emergency disaster and protection of Emergency Response Personnel will be the trump card ANY Gov't can & will use to ensure compliance of their demands when it suits the moment's perceived needs. They can then deal with the aftermath later, and deny any wrongdoing while agreeing to give back those items which happened to come into their hands during said "emergency", should they get caught... at least for now.

I envision something like this happening in NYC, Chicago, LA, Newark, Baltimore, etc. in the future with zero negative response or backlash to that particular gov't agency, or perhaps even with their state Gov't's full blessing and backing... or perhaps along our southern border...

As long as the Federal gov't, or Congress specifically, does nothing to impede on "the people's RKBA" the claim can be made that "We did NOTHING to violate ANY or the people's rights". But why worry about that? Should Federal FEMA/DHS troops act upon confiscation during a "declared emergency", you'll find that the powers granted to them during the emergency effectively make anyone with a firearm, anyone who resists, some form of criminal and thus, OK to manhandle or possibly terminate, ala Vicky Weaver or Koresh.

As for that pesky 4th & 5th... because the moments emergency demands they act... (their interpretation) they'll be able to sleep peacefully at night knowing full well that they only did what they did to protect "Their" Nation, "Their" State or "Their" City's Gov't.

We are, it is said, "A Nation of Laws". If a gov't agency need violate a law, they'll change said law or suspend it for the duration (see Lincoln, habeas corpus, Civil War) to allow continued action, where said action is deemed successful and necessary to the continued operation of that government.

A place in the country, a few guns and a dog or two is looking better and better in an effort to avoid most forms of government.

yeah. right, baba. :rolleyes:
 
Top