What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Never in america?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
NY Times

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 weapon.

no offence to Wolf and Copper but i really think the NO Police should attempt to take the guns from the Blackwater employees, could make for interesting TV, those boys take their jobs very seriously. anyone else see some potential bloodshed here?
 
There is no way that I would give up my guns. NO WAY!! If I was in that situation, where you had hoodlums running around raping and stealing people's property, they would have to take my guns by force. I would not give them up. I think that is completely a violation of a law abiding citizens constitutional rights.
It's like the song by Charlie Daniels says "If you don't want trouble then you better just pass me on by."
 
Ha! So the rich can protect themselves and their property with guns, but not the poor. Welcome to America, 2005!!!

Capslock
 
yah know whats really F'ed up? Even Iraqi households are permitted to have an AK-47 and one magazine - to protect themselves in the absence of effective law enforcement. I guess we can infer that our government trusts Iraqis more than American citizens, and that our military personnel in NOLA need more protection against armed civilians than our troops fighting in Iraq. Bizarre to say the least!
 
The last flippin' thing NO needs is more guns. IMO

Let me get this straight...y'all get pissed when people with guns do what people with guns do, i.e., shoot at other people and objects,...yet you want more people to have guns? You can't have it both ways.  IMO.

In this case, I trust National Guard guy with his gun a lot more than I trust Joe  Blow with his. After all, it's not the national guard who are holding people up at gunpoint, shooting and looting..it's Joe Blow.  Too freaking bad, whiners...you temporarily lose your firearms.  How ever shall you survive? Boo Hoo Hoo. IMO.

Blackwater employees should not have guns, ever.  What an evil company. IMO
 
april, do you have any clue how many ppl are just protecting their family and property and are not out shooting and looting? the Mayor of New Orleans is stomping on the constitution with this idiocity. the second amendment is in place so that Joe Blow can defend himself, his family and his property from murderers, theves and the government. that is what the founding fathers intended the second amendment for, nothing more nothing less. England and Austrailia have proved that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is the best way in the world is the best way to raise the violent crime rate. in all reality i firmly believe that the national guard should hand out a 12 gauge and 20 rounds of buckshot to all those who want to stay and protect their property. the looting and murder by the scum who are getting away with it at present would stop quite quickly if a bunch of good ppl were armed.
 
Indeed, the right to bear arms is as important in guarding against the government as against common criminals and thieves. I don't want to start a huge debate here, but the actions of the local and federal governments in response to the hurricane likely cost hundreds of lives, and those now in the "custody" of the National Guard have some harrowing tales to tell about how much they are being and have been "helped."

I've never owned a gun, and generally don't like gun culture. But this disaster has changed my mind. I feel like I can no longer trust the government to do its job. The level of incompetence and ill-intent is just too high. I now know I have to take care of myself.

Capslock
 
actually given most of the info i have seen im more peved at the Louisiana gov't and NO's leaders than anything. the feds could have been there earlier but the Mayor and Governor refused to sign the paperwork allowing the Gov't to step in. the federal government couldnt just come in without being asked as it would be considered a hostile invasion and unconstitutional as all heck. i hate to say it but i think the local gov't has more to answer for than the federal in this disaster.
 
Actually, the feds can step in without the consent of the local officials. Second, the local officials, including the mayor and governor BEGGED for federal help, I saw it live on TV in the days following the hurricane. Not that they are without blame - this disaster took a LOT of people blowing it and not doing their jobs. Clearly the local resources were overwhelmed in the aftermath, and it should have been easy to airlift some bottles of water and food to those who needed them.

And it turns out the guys in charge of the federal agency charged with disaster management for all 300 million of us were just campaign cronies with no disaster management experience. Sorry, but nobody gets off the hook on this one. None of them can be trusted. This changes a lot more than 9/11 did in my book.

Capslock
 
  • #10
[b said:
Quote[/b] (rattler_mt @ Sep. 10 2005,12:38)]England and Austrailia have proved that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is the best way in the world is the best way to raise the violent crime rate.
Aaaah..no! In Europe (and UK is in Europe) we have about HALF the rate of murders you got in you great god blessed kindom of firearms! (irony mode...).
 
  • #11
So the upsetting "Never in America" thing is about police taking guns to restore order, not corpses floating in the streets after the poor were abandoned??? Only in America.
 
  • #12
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Quote (rattler_mt @ Sep. 10 2005,12:38)
England and Austrailia have proved that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is the best way in the world is the best way to raise the violent crime rate.

Aaaah..no! In Europe (and UK is in Europe) we have about HALF the rate of murders you got in you great god blessed kindom of firearms! (irony mode...).

Nothing ironic about that Jan, it's true as far as I am aware.
Rattler Mt where do you get a statement like that from, any actual figures or is it just wishful thinking?
I would honestly like to see some facts to back up that statement.

I shudder when I read articles like the one you have posted and I vervently hope Australia and Europe never go down that road.
 
  • #13
[b said:
Quote[/b] (JanW @ Sep. 10 2005,3:29)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (rattler_mt @ Sep. 10 2005,12:38)]England and Austrailia have proved that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is the best way in the world is the best way to raise the violent crime rate.
Aaaah..no! In Europe (and UK is in Europe) we have about HALF the rate of murders you got in you great god blessed kindom of firearms! (irony mode...).
Not in Australia either, I can guarantee you of that. I have never known anybody who owns a handgun and never known anybody who has been in a position that they should need one. I feel perfectly safe when I sleep at night without one.

I shake my head and cringe when I hear some of you guys rant on about your guns. You can't keep them far enough away from me.
 
  • #14
Interesting...you may be correct Rattler Mt.
I try and have an open mind about things so I thought I'd do some looking around to see what I could find and most articles I found say are along the lines of the one here:

Article on Australia vs USA crime rates

This article has actual figures but there are plenty saying similar things.

Cheers, Troy.
 
  • #15
You should be very skeptical about gun control "statistics" because it's easy to twist them to mean what you want. They may not take into account how big the population is, population growth etc.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Other numbers are often not factored into discussions. For example, in Australia knives are 2-3 times as likely to be used in robberies as a firearm.

The numbers of legal versus illegal firearms, in areas with laws legislating proper gun ownership, are also glossed over. For example, 90% of all firearm related homicides in Australia are committed with unregistered firearms (since the 1995 & 1996 regulations)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control
 
  • #16
Well our department along with all other departments in the US recieved a desparate SOS from Lousianna two days after the incident. They asked for all available and willing LEO's to come down and serve for a week to try and restore order. I just got back from a week down there, and wow it was wild. While I normally believe that we as a country are more safe by allowing non-felon citizens of the US to legally purchase, own, and carry firearms, this situation is slightly different. In the wake of all the destruction ( and I am referring to human destruction, not natures destruction) It is paramount that order is restored quickly. W/O the use of electricity it makes it virtually impossible to check to see if a person legally owns and can legally carry the firearm that we as LEO's encounter them with. So the safest, and quickest way to restore order is to remove all firearms and then give back those that were legally purcased and carried. There is no way of knowing if the person you encounter is legally carring there firearm or not, so in an attempt to make it slightly more safe for the LEO's we require that they all must be relenquished. It may not be the best way to go, and it certainly is not making everyone happy but we are more worried about saving lives at the moment. Whether the public likes they way we go about saving lives will have to be dealt with after the fact.

Wolf
 
  • #17
Capslock the key is they asked and begged for federal help AFTER the hurricane hit.

On Friday night before the storm hit Max Mayfield of the National Hurricane Center took the unprecedented action of calling Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco personally to plead with them to begin MANDATORY evacuation of NO and they said they'd take it under consideration.This was after the NOAA buoy 240 miles south had recorded 68' waves before it was destroyed. President Bush spent Friday afternoon and evening in meetings with his advisors and administrators drafting all of the paperwork required for a state to request federal assistance (and not be in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act or having to enact the Insurgency Act). Just before midnight Friday evening the President called Governor Blanco and pleaded with her to sign the request papers so the federal government and the military could legally begin mobilization and call up. He was told that they didn't think it necessary for the federal government to be involved yet. After the President's final call to the governor she held meetings with her staff to discuss the political ramifications of bringing federal forces. It was decided that if they allowed federal assistance it would make it look as if they had failed so it was agreed upon that the feds would not be invited in.

Saturday before the storm hit the President again called Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin requesting they please sign the papers requesting
federal assistance, that they declare the state an emergency area,
and begin mandatory evacuation. After a personal plea from the
President, Nagin agreed to order an evacuation, but it would not be
a full mandatory evacuation, and the governor still refused to sign
the papers requesting and authorizing federal action. In frustration
the President declared the area a national disaster area before the
state of Louisiana did so he could legally begin some advanced preparations. Rumor has it that the President's legal advisers were looking into the ramifications of using the insurgency act to bypass the Constitutional requirement that a state request federal aid before the federal government can move into state with troops - but that had not been done since 1906 and the Constitutionality of it wascalled into question to use before the disaster.

Throw in that over half the federal aid of the past decade to NO for
levee construction, maintenance, and repair was diverted to fund a
marina and support the gambling ships. Toss in the investigation that will
look into why the emergency preparedness plan submitted to the federal
government for funding and published on the city's website was never implemented and in fact may have been bogus for the purpose of gaining additional federal funding as we now learn that the organizations identified in the plan were never contacted or coordinating into any planning - though the document implies that they were.

The suffering people of NO need to be asking some hard questions as
do we all, but they better start with why Blanco refused to even sign the
multi-state mutual aid pack activation documents until Wednesday which further delayed the legal deployment of National Guard from adjoining states. Or maybe ask why Nagin keeps harping that the President should have commandeered 500 Greyhound busses to help him when according to his own emergency plan and documents he claimed to have over 500 busses at his disposal to use between the local school busses and the city transportation busses - but he never raised a finger to prepare them or activate them.

as far as guns, violent crime has be steadily rising in Britain. it used to be a proud comment that your police had no need to carry firearms, now you guys have some of the strictest gun laws on private citizens in the world and your police are now having to carry handguns. what sence does that make? im glad you feel safe but im afraid of any government that fears my guns. states such as Florida who has some of the loosest gun laws in the states has a declining violent crime rate amoungst its residents. California with some of the strictest has amoung the highest. im sorry but its a good 10 minutes OR MORE for a police officer to get to my house, i would be stupid not to own a gun for the protection of myself and my family if i take their wellfare seriously. alot of damage can be done to an unarmed family by a doped up psyco with a baseball bat, ive seen the pics of the aftermath of just such an encounter.
 
  • #18
sorry Wolf but i was typing my last post while you were posting.

sorry you feel that way, but im more worried about Joe Blow being able to protect himself while your trying to restore order elsewhere. who cares whether they can or cant own a fire arm if there sole plan is to man the fort and protect their family? i really dont see the logic behind you argument

BTW, thanks for vollenteering your time to go down there. if i wasnt half the US away i would be volenteering what time i could to help.
 
  • #19
Well I can see his point.I would hate to get shot while trying to help someone,that is the way I see it.Yes I agree everyone has the right to own a gun,but in a case like this I think there has to be an exception.And yes Rattler,I agree with you about defending youself also,but this is a messed up situation.
confused.gif



Jerry
 
  • #20
EVERYONE? I don't think druggies or felons or something have the right to own guns. Call it unconstitutional or whatever, I don't care they should NOT be allowed to carry guns.
 
Back
Top