NationStates Jolt Archive

Its been reported on Fox and CNN The federal government is confiscating guns in New Orleans from private citizens. Time to wake up people our government is out of control we will soon have no rights unless we start resisting this facist regime.

:d

And here's the rub. They're confiscating them, not just temporarily holding them and they're NOT confiscating them from private security agencies so the rich people and businesses can protect themselves while everyone else has to rely on the authorities.

The local authorities aren't doing it. That would be bad enough. I heard this news earlier today and it pisses me off more than any of the other news. I still don't know who has ordered it and why. Real crap. I would prefer to see the federal government go in and force local authorities and politicians to leave private citizens alone with their guns. I thought the constitution trumped local laws. Sellouts. This news has me fuming. What do the looters have a lobby now?

Its been reported on Fox and CNN The federal government is confiscating guns in New Orleans from private citizens. Time to wake up people our government is out of control we will soon have no rights unless we start resisting this facist regime.
I agree that your goverment is stup[id and moronic and that is most signified by the fact you allow privet citizens to own guns.

Sounds like a great plan! (sarcasm intended)

Now, they can simply remove all protection from the people who are living there so that when the small percentage of the population who is corrupt go to loot their home or establishment, they will have no way of defending themselves.

Sounds like America to me! (again, sarcasm intended)

The local authorities aren't doing it. That would be bad enough. I heard this news earlier today and it pisses me off more than any of the other news. I still don't know who has ordered it and why. Real crap. I would prefer to see the federal government go in and force local authorities and politicians to leave private citizens alone with their guns. I thought the constitution trumped local laws. Sellouts. This news has me fuming. What do the looters have a lobby now?

Its time to realize we have no constitutional rights this is only the begining I fear this will begin to happen all over the nation. I am going to stock up bullets right now I will die before the government takes my guns.

Its been reported on Fox and CNN The federal government is confiscating guns in New Orleans from private citizens. Time to wake up people our government is out of control we will soon have no rights unless we start resisting this facist regime. :eek: They're confiscating peoples' faces as well? Guns = faces? You have guns for faces? What?

Its time to realize we have no constitutional rights this is only the begining I fear this will begin to happen all over the nation. I am going to stock up bullets right now I will die before the government takes my guns.
Then i expect you to die hard, the fact is that you shouldn't need guns, and why should you? What are you going to use it for, to protect your home? To commit murder? Crime rates have fallen over here since we banned guns.

Its time to realize we have no constitutional rights this is only the begining I fear this will begin to happen all over the nation. I am going to stock up bullets right now I will die before the government takes my guns. Guns in New Orleans could well be justified, but just because you lose your guns doesn't mean you live under a fascist regime you know.

Then i expect you to die hard, the fact is that you shouldn't need guns, and why should you? What are you going to use it for, to protect your home? To commit murder? Crime rates have fallen over here since we banned guns.

Um, not according to quite a few of your papers. Crime rates have little to do w/ gun ownership levels.

I always love the assumtion that a person who legally owns a firearm wants to kill someone.

Then i expect you to die hard, the fact is that you shouldn't need guns, and why should you? What are you going to use it for, to protect your home? To commit murder? Crime rates have fallen over here since we banned guns.
Did you even own a gun before they banned them from your country?

I agree that your goverment is stup[id and moronic and that is most signified by the fact you allow privet citizens to own guns.


Yes, allowing self-protection and the prevention of governmental tyranny is moronic :rolleyes:

Its time to realize we have no constitutional rights this is only the begining I fear this will begin to happen all over the nation. I am going to stock up bullets right now I will die before the government takes my guns.

sssshhh! What's that sound? They're on the roof!!!

Then i expect you to die hard, the fact is that you shouldn't need guns, and why should you? What are you going to use it for, to protect your home? To commit murder? Crime rates have fallen over here since we banned guns.


I suppose you've never heard of the second amendment. Or the fact that it was private citizens with guns who resisted British imperialism and gave birth to the nation you're so smugly insulting with your eurotrash attitude. What, are you upset that we're not part of Europe anymore?

Then i expect you to die hard, the fact is that you shouldn't need guns, and why should you? What are you going to use it for, to protect your home? To commit murder? Crime rates have fallen over here since we banned guns.


Why is your government so distrusting of its own citizenry as to ban guns? Does it somehow fear that it might not represent the will of the people? Does it fear that the people might resist oppressive measures, were they to be implemented? Or is it to "protect the people from crime", which is leading to a reverse effect?

Has anyone thought that they might be confiscating guns to STOP potential looting?
Just because people aren't necessarily poor, doesn't mean they wouldn't attempt to go grab some things on the cheap.

Hell, I know I would.

So really, so long as they confiscate ALL the guns, no one can shoot each other. How is that a bad idea?

And so long as you have money, you can always buy another one later if it's so important to you.

Also, Bush would never ban guns. He's Texan and a Republican. It would be political suicide.

Edit: in reply to the post above, I seriously doubt England or the US would rise up against it's government. Surely your not telling me the reason you think it is right to own a gun is so you can revolt against your government?

The corporations and the man aren't the ones raping, looting, destroying, and killing things. The little man are the one who's responsible for that.

Dumb-fucked yanks.

Why is your government so distrusting of its own citizenry as to ban guns? Does it somehow fear that it might not represent the will of the people? Does it fear that the people might resist oppressive measures, were they to be implemented? Or is it to "protect the people from crime", which is leading to a reverse effect?

One only needs to look to the USA to see why everyone having guns is a bad idea. There are places in america where you are more likely to get shot than in downtown Khabul under the Taliban. Just look at New Orleans... People are shooting at rescuers, helicopters and boats.

It's usually in third world countries where people feel under constant threat that people feel the need to carry big guns...

Has anyone thought that they might be confiscating guns to STOP potential looting?
Just because people aren't necessarily poor, doesn't mean they wouldn't attempt to go grab some things on the cheap.

Hell, I know I would.

So really, so long as they confiscate ALL the guns, no one can shoot each other. How is that a bad idea?

And so long as you have money, you can always buy another one later if it's so important to you.

Also, Bush would never ban guns. He's Texan and a Republican. It would be political suicide.

Edit: in reply to the post above, I seriously doubt England or the US would rise up against it's government. Surely your not telling me the reason you think it is right to own a gun is so you can revolt against your government?

But they're not confiscating ALL the guns. Besides the fact that it's arguable an illegal seizure, only the poor and middle class's are being confiscated.

As for a "revolt", look up the Battle of Athens, TN.

Oh God Almighty... You people make my head hurt.

The guns are being confiscated because the morons are shooting at military personnel, rescue workers, and police. They're lucky they're not being mowed down by automatic weapons fire instead of having their guns taken from them.

Oh, and let's not forget that chances are, alot of these weapons were LOOTED from submerged and abandoned stores in the city.

I'm sorry, but alot of the people still in the city, who REFUSE to leave, are just barely intelligent enough to LIVE, let alone use a firearm.

I seriously doubt England or the US would rise up against it's government.

Yeah, because we've never done anything like that (http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/) before, eh?


I'm sorry, but alot of the people still in the city, who REFUSE to leave, are just barely intelligent enough to LIVE, let alone use a firearm.

Good point. In addition to taking away their right to own a firearm, we should take away that silly right to LIVE too! What a fantastic idea!

One only needs to look to the USA to see why everyone having guns is a bad idea. There are places in america where you are more likely to get shot than in downtown Khabul under the Taliban.

It's usually in third world countries where people feel under constant threat that people feel the need to carry big guns...

And in almost every instance, it's where firearms are heavily restricted and/or there is a prevailance of gangs, drugs, illegal immigration, poverty, etc.

FACT: Crime in the US has decreased while ownership has increased.

more guns /= more crime

Yeah, because we've never done anything like that (http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/) before, eh?

Take away their reality-tv and they turn into a bloodthirsty army all pumped up on cholesterol and sugar!

I suppose you've never heard of the second amendment. Or the fact that it was private citizens with guns who resisted British imperialism and gave birth to the nation you're so smugly insulting with your eurotrash attitude. What, are you upset that we're not part of Europe anymore?
Yeah, that wasnt a tad random or anything, what ur saying has nothing to do with the topic and is just a random attack on the british, nice. :rolleyes:

Yeah, because we've never done anything like that (http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/) before, eh?

Way to bring that up.... again...


Good point. In addition to taking away their right to own a firearm, we should take away that silly right to LIVE too! What a fantastic idea!

Ah why not... what have they got to lose when theyve lost their right to live??? *laughs maniacally*

Then i expect you to die hard, the fact is that you shouldn't need guns, and why should you? What are you going to use it for, to protect your home? To commit murder? Crime rates have fallen over here since we banned guns.

Well I use guns for hunting and shooting skeet as well as protection as it takes forever for the police to come out into the country where I live.
:D Almost all the guns my family owns are for hunting though. We only own a few handguns and those are also for target shooting.

And in almost every instance, it's where firearms are heavily restricted and/or there is a prevailance of gangs, drugs, illegal immigration, poverty, etc.

FACT: Crime in the US has decreased while ownership has increased.

more guns /= more crime

Places where firearm ownership is common, and there is a large sense of community, there is almost no violent crime. Example, the Midwest.

And in almost every instance, it's where firearms are heavily restricted and/or there is a prevailance of gangs, drugs, illegal immigration, poverty, etc.

FACT: Crime in the US has decreased while ownership has increased.

more guns /= more crime

Any American city has at least 300% more crime than any place in scandinavia.
But of course guns aren't the only factor...There are factors like education, employment, social security that actually works and of course, what Americans lack most desperately: Common sense.

Has anyone thought that they might be confiscating guns to STOP potential looting?
Just because people aren't necessarily poor, doesn't mean they wouldn't attempt to go grab some things on the cheap.

Hell, I know I would.

So really, so long as they confiscate ALL the guns, no one can shoot each other. How is that a bad idea?

And so long as you have money, you can always buy another one later if it's so important to you.

Also, Bush would never ban guns. He's Texan and a Republican. It would be political suicide.

Edit: in reply to the post above, I seriously doubt England or the US would rise up against it's government. Surely your not telling me the reason you think it is right to own a gun is so you can revolt against your government?

http://www.afn.org/~govern/guncont.jpg

Places where firearm ownership is common, and there is a large sense of community, there is almost no violent crime. Example, the Midwest.


That's basically true where I live in Michigan. Only time we have any real crime is during the Summer Months when all the people from the cities come up and bring their bastard children with them. Sure from time to time some local moron will steal an ATV or something but it's alot worse in the summer months.

I would just like to say masses of angry people with guns have a habit of pushing tyrants to the fore rather than protecting people from them. A solid set of laws or prehaps the constitution so precious in the USA should be enough to prevent tyranny. The control of guns in New Orleans is not a tyranous act its an attempt at restoring order that should have happend long ago.

I would just like to say masses of angry people with guns have a habit of pushing tyrants to the fore rather than protecting people from them. A solid set of laws or prehaps the constitution so precious in the USA should be enough to prevent tyranny. The control of guns in New Orleans is not a tyranous act its an attempt at restoring order that should have happend long ago.



Yes, because we know a leader aspiring to be our new King would cease his scheming all because a few words on paper said "No." :rolleyes:

Now, it's not that I disagree with the New Orleans thing, although I fail to see how they will implement it without just disarming the law-abiding citizens and failing to take guns away from the criminals, but just think of the precedent this sets...

That's basically true where I live in Michigan. Only time we have any real crime is during the Summer Months when all the people from the cities come up and bring their bastard children with them. Sure from time to time some local moron will steal an ATV or something but it's alot worse in the summer months.

Exactly. There is some crime, but for the most part its dumb ass kids out for a thrill. its not people having there houses broken into while they are there, its not rapes and murders.

I'm begining to think that living in cities drive people insane.

Yeah, because we've never done anything like that (http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/) before, eh?


That wasnt your government, that was us oppressing you :p

So really, you are actually telling me you own guns to rebel against Bush?

(if so, you have my full support).

[FONT=Impact][SIZE=7][COLOR=MediumTurquoise]
o.k we all know my nation is the best and all of urs r crap o.k get over it muhahahahaha :mp5: :gundge: :cool: :headbang: :upyours: hahahaha

Exactly. There is some crime, but for the most part its dumb ass kids out for a thrill. its not people having there houses broken into while they are there, its not rapes and murders.

I'm begining to think that living in cities drive people insane.

I think it does. I mean sure we have some drunk drivings and some people writing bad checks lol, but as for rape and murder... it just doesn't happen. I think there has been 1 whole murder in my 16 years where I live now. A love triangle deal. :D

That wasnt your government, that was us oppressing you :p

So really, you are actually telling me you own guns to rebel against Bush?

(if so, you have my full support).


It WAS our government.

The principle behind gun ownership is, I think, that very thing. I'm definitely not saying we own guns to rebel against Bush or anyone else specifically. Rather, its the last ditch defense against tyranny. As well as thieves, killers and rapists. But there IS a reason why three of the 20th century's biggest dictators wanted their population disarmed. And thats the same reason why gun ownership is a right I support.

An unarmed populace is a helpless one.

But the fact is... with so many americans who think "guns are bad, government guns are good"... I'm not sure enough people would wake up and rebel if it came down to it. But does that mean I'm OK with eliminating the right? No way! Just because everyone will die, doesn't mean suicide is a rational course of action.

Oh yes, oh so many Americans think "guns are bad". If they did, there wouldn't be such a problem.

In fact, it wouldn't have created this problem in New Orleans because then the people wouldn't own guns, so they wouldn't have been confiscated.

Well, I know I wouldn't be sad to see Bush shot, but tbh, I think I'm happy to wait until I can vote my government out thanks.

There is no point comparing the US to a dictatorship. It's just not comparable. Sure, you are hardly "the land of the free", but there is nowhere near the amount of oppression in countries under dictatorship.
Therefore, you should only need the democratic means to deal with the government. If they try to take away those rights, you just protest harder.
But anyway, it just wont happen.

Plus, you dont think the army/government dont have BIGGER guns than the poplace?

But they're not confiscating ALL the guns. Besides the fact that it's arguable an illegal seizure, only the poor and middle class's are being confiscated.

Have any of the Americans here ever lived in a large US city, like New York, Chicago, or L.A.? How about a moderate sized city like New Orleans? Well I have. Chicago was my birthplace and home for 29 years. In Chicago, it's not illegal to own a gun but it is illegal to purchase one within the city limits. There are no gun shop within the city limits. As for the poor, they can own one too so long as they do not live in government housing. Before the poor can move into government, (HUD or Section 8) housing, they must sign a waiver of their rights to bare arms. As a matter of fact, the City of Chicago performs random searches in these homes to locate and confiscate weapons. The point is to keep these weapons out of the hands of a populace that are already disgrunted in an effort to reduce crime. If the government pays for your home you must conform to the governments rules. If you don't like their rules then pay for your own home.

Have any of the Americans here ever lived in a large US city, like New York, Chicago, or L.A.? How about a moderate sized city like New Orleans? Well I have. Chicago was my birthplace and home for 29 years. In Chicago, it's not illegal to own a gun but it is illegal to purchase one within the city limits. There are no gun shop within the city limits. As for the poor, they can own one too so long as they do not live in government housing. Before the poor can move into government, (HUD or Section 8) housing, they must sign a waiver of their rights to bare arms. As a matter of fact, the City of Chicago performs random searches in these homes to locate and confiscate weapons. The point is to keep these weapons out of the hands of a populace that are already disgrunted in an effort to reduce crime. If the government pays for your home you must conform to the governments rules. If you don't like their rules then pay for your own home.

These people haven't waived thier rights. Most of them are not living in Gov't housing. Many of these are legally owned firearms from private homes. We're talking about NO, not Chicago.

I'm also from Chicago. It IS illegal to own an unregistered handgun there and registration stopped in the early 80's. It also has 3/4 of the crime in Illinois and 1/4 of the population.

If there was a button that would magicly make all guns, tanks, missiles, bombs that would be used for non-peaceful purposes, etc. disappear no matter who has them, woud you press it? Sure, you might have to put yourself at risk to hunt sport, but wars would be alot less devestating. You wouldn't have to worry about being shot. You'd be pretty much safe in your car if you had enough gas. Would you press it or would your fear of tyrrany and ingorance of the fact that the government would also be disarmed prevent you from pressing it? I'd press it. No more morons shooting rescuers in NO. No more need to take guns away so people don't get shot. WWII wouldn't have been so bad if there weren't any mines or machine guns or bombs or torpedes. Fewer cassualties.

If there was a button that would magicly make all guns, tanks, missiles, bombs that would be used for non-peaceful purposes, etc. disappear no matter who has them, woud you press it? *snip* Fewer cassualties.

Why don't you ask the hundreds of thousands of Rwandans killed by Gov't troops armed w/ machetes?

They have ordered mandatory evacuation of the city so technically the only people left there are breaking the law and are therefore criminals.

People need to get out of there. Leave only the ones behind that intend to loot and shoot at people trying to rebuild. Then the people in there trying to get stuff fixed won't have to worry about it when they start shooting back at the bastards that are shooting at them.

Gun Control worked great for Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam and pretty much every other dictator with an interest in executing large numbers of unarmed people.


http://www.jpfo.org/

Yes, allowing self-protection and the prevention of governmental tyranny is moronic :rolleyes:

Didn't God say "Blessed are the peacemakers"? Didn't He say "Turn the other cheek"? So, you who advocates no separation between church and state ought to be as anti-gun as they come???

They have ordered mandatory evacuation of the city so technically the only people left there are breaking the law and are therefore criminals.

People need to get out of there. Leave only the ones behind that intend to loot and shoot at people trying to rebuild. Then the people in there trying to get stuff fixed won't have to worry about it when they start shooting back at the bastards that are shooting at them.


I do not see any reason why we should rebuild this city. Why not rebuild it someplace above sea level? Of course, if the swamp dwellers take pot shots, shooting back, even with fragmentation grenades, could be perfectly acceptable.

These people haven't waived thier rights. Most of them are not living in Gov't housing. Many of these are legally owned firearms from private homes. We're talking about NO, not Chicago.

I'm also from Chicago. It IS illegal to own an unregistered handgun there and registration stopped in the early 80's. It also has 3/4 of the crime in Illinois and 1/4 of the population.

Well they don't have to waive their rights during a mandatory evacuation its implied. They're being relocated to government staging areas and shelters. They have no choice in the matter. If they wanted to keep their guns, they had the chance to leave on their own.

Chicago has 3/4 of the crime in Illinois becuase of the high rate of illegal gun possession. You tell me where the majority of that crime is? Its in the sections with the highest government housing, like Cabrini Green and the Robert Taylor Homes, and pretty much everywhere south and west of 35th street. I dare a person of my light complexion to walk the streets around 63rd and Wabash and then tell me gun ownership is not a problem there.

Well they don't have to waive their rights during a mandatory evacuation its implied. They're being relocated to government staging areas and shelters. They have no choice in the matter. If they wanted to keep their guns, they had the chance to leave on their own..

If the Gov't were just tagging and storing them, it would be one thing. They are not. They are confiscating legally owned property only from the poor & middle class. They are NOT confiscating firearms held and wielded by private security. It's another Feinstein/O'donnel situation.


Chicago has 3/4 of the crime in Illinois becuase of the high rate of illegal gun possession. You tell me where the majority of that crime is? Its in the sections with the highest government housing, like Cabrini Green and the Robert Taylor Homes, and pretty much everywhere south and west of 35th street. I dare a person of my light complexion to walk the streets around 63rd and Wabash and then tell me gun ownership is not a problem there.


So in an effort to reduce crime, the city disarmed the "disgruntled masses" and yet you state that crime is highest where there are no legal guns allowed. Which is it?
Gun ownership is not the problem. It's illegal posession that's the problem. Legal owners of firearms rarely commit crimes w/ them. You've stated that the police search the housing and the residents can't have them. Sounds like the police aren't doing their job and yet disarmed citizens are supposed to rely on them for protection.

Well they don't have to waive their rights during a mandatory evacuation its implied. They're being relocated to government staging areas and shelters. They have no choice in the matter. If they wanted to keep their guns, they had the chance to leave on their own.

Chicago has 3/4 of the crime in Illinois becuase of the high rate of illegal gun possession. You tell me where the majority of that crime is? Its in the sections with the highest government housing, like Cabrini Green and the Robert Taylor Homes, and pretty much everywhere south and west of 35th street. I dare a person of my light complexion to walk the streets around 63rd and Wabash and then tell me gun ownership is not a problem there.


Those poor suckers who have to live in these Government run Ghettos, behind gates that are sealed behind them after dark, are not allowed to carry “Metal”. You can not stop “Illegal” gun ownership with “Laws”. Even if they were completely unarmed, these guys can beat a woman to death with their bare hands and it happens every day.

I suggest we stop building ghettos, stop herding people in to them, stop trying to domesticate them by dehorning them and let people live free.

Its been reported on Fox and CNN The federal government is confiscating guns in New Orleans from private citizens. Time to wake up people our government is out of control we will soon have no rights unless we start resisting this facist regime.
They're confiscating perfectly LEGAL firearms? So much for Bush being pro-Gun

Didn't He say "Turn the other cheek"? So, you who advocates no separation between church and state ought to be as anti-gun as they come???
Fallacious logic.
sarcasmAnd I'm sure that a raped woman w/o a gun is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapistsarcasm

I do not see any reason why we should rebuild this city. Why not rebuild it someplace above sea level?


I don't see any reason for rebuilding it either. Leave it there and tear down the levees. The sea life will become abundant in the city.


Of course people who own land there would be awfully pissed.

This shit makes me laugh...we pounce on the government every chance we get. I guess it's just me, but this seems perfectly logical...mass looting, uncontrollable crime, people shooting at rescue helicopters...I do in fact believe this is a step in the right direction. If you've got a gun on you and the police or national guard or whomever see it, they should have every right to confiscate it. New Orleans is a disaster zone that was smothered in total anarchy immediately after Katrina dispersed...they're trying to get the city under control, and if this is what they need to do in order to regain the city, I'm all for it.

This shit makes me laugh...we pounce on the government every chance we get. I guess it's just me, but this seems perfectly logical...mass looting, uncontrollable crime, people shooting at rescue helicopters...I do in fact believe this is a step in the right direction. If you've got a gun on you and the police or national guard or whomever see it, they should have every right to confiscate it. New Orleans is a disaster zone that was smothered in total anarchy immediately after Katrina dispersed...they're trying to get the city under control, and if this is what they need to do in order to regain the city, I'm all for it.

If these firearms were going to be returned to their lawful owners upon return and it applied to everyone, I would be as well.

This, however, is not the case.

The government confiscating guns is the precise reason that we are allowed to own them.

You can take the citizen's guns when you take away the firearms from the police officers. A badge does not make you a saint and there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON that anyone should not be able to bear the exact same arms as a cop.

period.

The government confiscating guns is the precise reason that we are allowed to own them.

You can take the citizen's guns when you take away the firearms from the police officers. A badge does not make you a saint and there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON that anyone should not be able to bear the exact same arms as a cop.

period.

I'm one of the most pro-firearm individuals on this board.

I agree w/ violent felons etc. not being allowed to legally own though.

They have ordered mandatory evacuation of the city so technically the only people left there are breaking the law and are therefore criminals.

People need to get out of there. Leave only the ones behind that intend to loot and shoot at people trying to rebuild. Then the people in there trying to get stuff fixed won't have to worry about it when they start shooting back at the bastards that are shooting at them.

Dumbest post I've read all day. So poor people who had no access to transportation prior to the disaster are now criminals. What a maroon.

Of course people need to get out of there. What if the cops don't let you leave?

http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/556/556_04_RealHeroes.shtml

Here's a quote from about halfway down the page:

As we approached the bridge, armed sheriffs formed a line across the foot of the bridge. Before we were close enough to speak, they began firing their weapons over our heads. This sent the crowd fleeing in various directions.

But the rest of your post is so clear and logical. Leave only the shooters and the people rebuilding can simply shoot everyone they see...m'kay.

:rolleyes:

If these firearms were going to be returned to their lawful owners upon return and it applied to everyone, I would be as well.

This, however, is not the case.

To be fair, it's improbable to ask that the government keep all the firearms in a safe and the names of all the owners they were confiscated from; and it's improbable to mail the firearms back to their owners. It's also improbable to continue to allow the open threat on rescuers lives via firearms to take place.

The government confiscating guns is the precise reason that we are allowed to own them.

You can take the citizen's guns when you take away the firearms from the police officers. A badge does not make you a saint and there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON that anyone should not be able to bear the exact same arms as a cop.

period.

Wrong. We're talking about a total breakdown of local government-absolute anarchy, state of emergency, a disaster zone. Any other time and I'd agree with you; believe me, I see a gun purchase very close in my future, and I support the people's right to have them. But this confiscation is not unwarranted...people are hampering the rescue effort! Murders, rapes, armed looting...even if the firearm is registered (which would be difficult to prove in the first place considering power's out, there aren't any computers to check, and registration papers are probably under water) the national guard/police/army shouldn't have to be bothered with such trivial details. I hardly consider this a violation of the Constitution because of the particular circumstances.

So in an effort to reduce crime, the city disarmed the "disgruntled masses" and yet you state that crime is highest where there are no legal guns allowed. Which is it?
Gun ownership is not the problem. It's illegal posession that's the problem. Legal owners of firearms rarely commit crimes w/ them. You've stated that the police search the housing and the residents can't have them. Sounds like the police aren't doing their job and yet disarmed citizens are supposed to rely on them for protection.

I thought you said you live in Chicago. If that's true then you know very well what goes on when the guns are found. First, they're given the opportunity to voluntarily turn in the weapons without reprocussions. If weapons are found during a search, then the residents are evicted for breach of contract. Though they usually just reapply for government assistance under an alias. I agree with you that illegal possession is the problem, but I fail to understand your logic that by legalizing the weapons that crime will drop in the highest crime rated areas.

Understand, I'm not against legal gun ownership. I also agree with you that "legal owners of friearms rarely commit crimes w/them." The problem lies in places like Louisiana, and New Orleans where gun laws are so relaxed that legal ownership is undefined. There are no registration laws there. A person could take a gun into a shop, commit a crime, drop the gun and there would be no way to trace the gun back to the owner. How is that legal in any sense? And your assertation that the confiscations are only occurring with the poor and middle-class is off. They're being confiscated by anyone that has remained in New Orleans regardless of their economic status.
Scroll through this page to find out more on Louisiana's lax on gun laws. (http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=la#preemption)

Wrong. We're talking about a total breakdown of local government-absolute anarchy, state of emergency, a disaster zone. Any other time and I'd agree with you; believe me, I see a gun purchase very close in my future, and I support the people's right to have them. But this confiscation is not unwarranted...people are hampering the rescue effort! Murders, rapes, armed looting...even if the firearm is registered (which would be difficult to prove in the first place considering power's out, there aren't any computers to check, and registration papers are probably under water) the national guard/police/army shouldn't have to be bothered with such trivial details. I hardly consider this a violation of the Constitution because of the particular circumstances.

I am not unreasonable and definately see what you mean... thing is, it is a slippery slope. If we grant exceptions, then more exceptions become acceptable. To me, that is not even an option.

I suggest we stop building ghettos, stop herding people in to them, stop trying to domesticate them by dehorning them and let people live free.

We don't "heard" them to these ghettos. They flock there. They are masters of the system and by no means ignorant. The opportunities are there for them to get out on their own. I just checked the Chicago Job Bank and they list of 26 thousand available jobs. That's a good starting point to look.

I thought you said you live in Chicago. If that's true then you know very well what goes on when the guns are found. First, they're given the opportunity to voluntarily turn in the weapons without reprocussions. If weapons are found during a search, then the residents are evicted for breach of contract. Though they usually just reapply for government assistance under an alias. I agree with you that illegal possession is the problem, but I fail to understand your logic that by legalizing the weapons that crime will drop in the highest crime rated areas.]

I never said that. What I stated was that making them illegal doesn't necessarily lead to a drop in crime

Understand, I'm not against legal gun ownership. I also agree with you that "legal owners of friearms rarely commit crimes w/them." The problem lies in places like Louisiana, and New Orleans where gun laws are so relaxed that legal ownership is undefined. There are no registration laws there. A person could take a gun into a shop, commit a crime, drop the gun and there would be no way to trace the gun back to the owner. How is that legal in any sense? And your assertation that the confiscations are only occurring with the poor and middle-class is off. They're being confiscated by anyone that has remained in New Orleans regardless of their economic status.
Scroll through this page to find out more on Louisiana's lax on gun laws. (http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=la#preemption)

Check again. Private security is not being disarmed.

Citing the Brady Campaign to prevent gun ownership isn't a good arguement. I could post quite a few instances where they blatanly lie about firearms. The majority of states do not have firearm registration and many w/ even more "lax" laws have lower crime than NO. Vermont has "no license" concealed carry and has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.



The problems lie in gangs, poverty, drugs, etc. Not w/ legal ownership.

I am not unreasonable and definately see what you mean... thing is, it is a slippery slope. If we grant exceptions, then more exceptions become acceptable. To me, that is not even an option.

I'm glad to see my reasoning hasn't fallen on deaf ears, and I definitely understand where you're coming from. I guess that's where our opinions differ though, on the matter of one exception leading to more. Personally, I'm doubtful that other instances like the special ones employed in Louisiana would ever be put into place elsewhere without good reason (such as a natural disaster of catastrophic proportions); the people wouldn't let it happen.

Then i expect you to die hard, the fact is that you shouldn't need guns, and why should you? What are you going to use it for, to protect your home? To commit murder? Crime rates have fallen over here since we banned guns.

That's nice. I visited your country once. I enjoyed it. I found it to be different than what I'm used to. I didn't like all the things though.

However, notice this...

I don't come on here and tell you how to run your country. Perhaps you could return the favor.

I will remind you that our gun ownership is what ran you yokels out of here last time...

:mp5:

I suppose you've never heard of the second amendment. Or the fact that it was private citizens with guns who resisted British imperialism and gave birth to the nation you're so smugly insulting with your eurotrash attitude. What, are you upset that we're not part of Europe anymore?


No, all those notions of American "Independence" and "Freedom" have spoiled our damn country. I wish we could be conquered :( It would do the world so much good.

No, all those notions of American "Independence" and "Freedom" have spoiled our damn country. I wish we could be conquered :( It would do the world so much good.


Naturally, I mean our haughty attitude and idiotic customs and culture.

<snip>
Fallacious logic.

Not really. Devout Christians should be utter pacifists. That's why (among other reasons) I'm not a Christian.

Not really. Devout Christians should be utter pacifists. That's why (among other reasons) I'm not a Christian.


Man guys I'm only gone for 5 days and the forum deteriorates to this? Wow.

The Police and NG are confiscating arms from law abiding citizens who are staying at their homes. They will not get those arms back or ever see them again. IF they were forcibly removing people and taking info on the owners so they could get their arms back, it wouldn't be such a bad idea, although it's still not a good one.

I am a christian, although by no means am I a pacifist. Christ certainly wasn't a pacifist-when someone defiled his fathers' temple he tore the place up. He overturned tables, chased out the merchants, and asked them "WHy have you turned my fathers' house into a den of theives?"

Luke 22:36 states if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. I took that litterraly-I sold one of my suits so I could buy my first rifle.

This is another reason why Federal help is not always a good thing, and why FEMA needs to be shutdown and re-organized.

No, all those notions of American "Independence" and "Freedom" have spoiled our damn country. I wish we could be conquered :( It would do the world so much good.


"You cannot invade America. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass"

-Japanese general

It would never happen. We may have slacked off on our gun ownership over the years, but with the NO Situation ownership is going to skyrocket. I'll contribute to that myself, as I'm purchasing an Armory Receiver for my Romanian AIM kit in December.

Naturally, I mean our haughty attitude and idiotic customs and culture.

I think you mean YOUR haughty attitude and idiotic customs. You know, like wishin the US was CONQUERED just because it doesn't conform to your image of a perfect nation.

I never thought I'd say this, but... don't like it? Go somewhere else. Maybe you'll get to goose-step your way back to conquer America in the name of goodness.

I think you mean YOUR haughty attitude and idiotic customs. You know, like wishin the US was CONQUERED just because it doesn't conform to your image of a perfect nation.

I never thought I'd say this, but... don't like it? Go somewhere else. Maybe you'll get to goose-step your way back to conquer America in the name of goodness.

Hehehe..go getem' boy :D

As a military student I hate to tell you what happens when an armed populace goes against government troops.

But hell, guys, don't let that put you off! I mean, seriously, you don't see the whole New Orleans things as a tad worrying? Federal troops moving in, civilians being shot by government soldiers... now you're being disarmed. What happens next? Theres going to be a big budget shift towards federal disaster teams and - you guessed it - the military. Its a perfect way to shoehorn in more gun control laws as well, although that will only be for "emergencies". Like, say, terrorist incidents? It'll be open season for the ATF or FBI - anyone with a couple of guns and an independent attitude will become another Randy Weaver.

The bureaucrats must be having a field day. I bet that all the inquiries are going to reveal failings at the level of state and local authority. More power will be dragged towards Washington to control state spending for local projects, but also eventually taxation of a state. Next thing you know, your senators will be puppets, your congressmen pawns and and your political safeguards trampled. Then it'll be All Hail His Royal Majesty Liberal Douchebag the First or whoever else the Bureaucrats nominate as the President.

Or you could be being your normal paranoid american selves, living in your rich-but-still-post-colonial state, still crying over the fact that despite "leading the free world" you can't trust your government or your judges and your country is being led by lobbyists for every millionaire who wants a tax break. Whoop-de-frickin doo. :D

Great music though.

As a military student I hate to tell you what happens when an armed populace goes against government troops.

But hell, guys, don't let that put you off!

I won't. I know a lot of military vets who, oddly enough, are against gun control. What you're talking about is not the wet dream of government versus people, it's just plain civil war. The authoritarians versus the libertarians, perhaps.

your senators will be puppets, your congressmen pawns and and your political safeguards trampled.

That about sums up the direction this is all headed in... if not the actual reality currently.

Man guys I'm only gone for 5 days and the forum deteriorates to this? Wow.

The Police and NG are confiscating arms from law abiding citizens who are staying at their homes. They will not get those arms back or ever see them again. IF they were forcibly removing people and taking info on the owners so they could get their arms back, it wouldn't be such a bad idea, although it's still not a good one.

I am a christian, although by no means am I a pacifist. Christ certainly wasn't a pacifist-when someone defiled his fathers' temple he tore the place up. He overturned tables, chased out the merchants, and asked them "WHy have you turned my fathers' house into a den of theives?"

Luke 22:36 states if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. I took that litterraly-I sold one of my suits so I could buy my first rifle.

This is another reason why Federal help is not always a good thing, and why FEMA needs to be shutdown and re-organized.


"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)

"But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,"

"Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke 6:28-31. King James Version)

Not sure that blowing a perp away constitutes turning the other cheek. Of course, this highlights another problem with the Bible: contradictions. Do we do what Jesus says, or what he does? But this is off topic.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)
"But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,"

"Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke 6:28-31. King James Version)

Not sure that blowing a perp away constitutes turning the other cheek. Of course, this highlights another problem with the Bible: contradictions. Do we do what Jesus says, or what he does? But this is off topic.

Turning the other cheek is a response to pride, not imminent physical danger.

Turning the other cheek is a response to pride, not imminent physical danger.

Evil is evil. Thieves and murders are evil, no? So why buy a gun? Surely you don't plan on resisting those evil people. Once more: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person." (Mt 5:38ff)

Turning the other cheek is a response to pride, not imminent physical danger.

Where does the bible tell you to mow down imminenet physical danger with an automatic lazer-sighted extension of your penis?

I am a christian, although by no means am I a pacifist. Christ certainly wasn't a pacifist-when someone defiled his fathers' temple he tore the place up. He overturned tables, chased out the merchants, and asked them "WHy have you turned my fathers' house into a den of theives?"

Luke 22:36 states if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. I took that litterraly-I sold one of my suits so I could buy my first rifle.


Taking things out of context, eh? Here is Luke 22:36 and 37:
"36 He [Jesus] said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors' (see Isaiah 53:12); and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." "

Further on in Luke 22, we read where one of the disciples actually uses a sword that he had.

"49 When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

51 But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him."

The conclusion that I have reached based on this and other Bible studies I have undertaken is that a true Christian will not kill or injure others intentionally. As for Jesus' behavior in the temple, He did express His anger and rebuked the people accordingly. However, I do not read where anyone ever suffered any physical harm by the Hand of Jesus. Quite the contrary, I have read where Jesus is the Lord of Life, not of death, and of His many miracles curing many ailments, problems, and diseases.

Its been reported on Fox and CNN The federal government is confiscating guns in New Orleans from private citizens. Time to wake up people our government is out of control we will soon have no rights unless we start resisting this facist regime.My goodness. Here's someone defending someone elses right to own a fire arm in a city that's A) under martial law, B) had plenty of instances of violent crime due to recent events, and C) had a helicopter shot at. New Orleans is one of the best examples of why guns should not be allowed to remain widely distributed. :rolleyes:

No with a few exceptions more guns generally mean less crime. No guns in the UK rising gun homicide rate, no guns in Austrailia rising guns murder rates???


Then i expect you to die hard, the fact is that you shouldn't need guns, and why should you? What are you going to use it for, to protect your home? To commit murder? Crime rates have fallen over here since we banned guns.

And how many of those crimes where commited with legal firearms. NO is the best reason to have civilians keep private weapons. One man should never EVER depend on another for his safety or that of his family. The goverment has shown it's inabilty to do so time and again.

My goodness. Here's someone defending someone elses right to own a fire arm in a city that's A) under martial law, B) had plenty of instances of violent crime due to recent events, and C) had a helicopter shot at. New Orleans is one of the best examples of why guns should not be allowed to remain widely distributed. :rolleyes:

Rebuke the guy raping your wife. :rolleyes:

I can go throught the Bible and justify damn near any assinine thing or another.


Tihland']Taking things out of context, eh? Here is Luke 22:36 and 37:
"36 He [Jesus] said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors' (see Isaiah 53:12); and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." "

Further on in Luke 22, we read where one of the disciples actually uses a sword that he had.

"49 When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

51 But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him."

The conclusion that I have reached based on this and other Bible studies I have undertaken is that a true Christian will not kill or injure others intentionally. As for Jesus' behavior in the temple, He did express His anger and rebuked the people accordingly. However, I do not read where anyone ever suffered any physical harm by the Hand of Jesus. Quite the contrary, I have read where Jesus is the Lord of Life, not of death, and of His many miracles curing many ailments, problems, and diseases.

And how many of those crimes where commited with legal firearms. NO is the best reason to have civilians keep private weapons. One man should never EVER depend on another for his safety or that of his family. The goverment has shown it's inabilty to do so time and again.Prove to me that those guns weren't legally owned in the first place before the hurricane struck.

You ...you have issues.

Where does the bible tell you to mow down imminenet physical danger with an automatic lazer-sighted extension of your penis?

Read the writings of the Founding Father PLEASE! The 2nd amendment is specificaly a provision for the violent overthrow of the government.


Has anyone thought that they might be confiscating guns to STOP potential looting?
Just because people aren't necessarily poor, doesn't mean they wouldn't attempt to go grab some things on the cheap.

Hell, I know I would.

So really, so long as they confiscate ALL the guns, no one can shoot each other. How is that a bad idea?

And so long as you have money, you can always buy another one later if it's so important to you.

Also, Bush would never ban guns. He's Texan and a Republican. It would be political suicide.

Edit: in reply to the post above, I seriously doubt England or the US would rise up against it's government. Surely your not telling me the reason you think it is right to own a gun is so you can revolt against your government?

Now, IF you could keep ALL guns out of the "new" New Orleans, the violent crime rate, including murders, would plummet and the city would probably be one of the safest in America. However, that is not likely to happen.

This is a no brainer to me, and apparently just another way to take pot shots at the government's job thus far with Katrina.

The Police and NG are confiscating arms from law abiding citizens who are staying at their homes. They will not get those arms back or ever see them again. IF they were forcibly removing people and taking info on the owners so they could get their arms back, it wouldn't be such a bad idea, although it's still not a good one.

You know, it's incredibly easy to say something without thinking-you've just proven that with this post. First of all, explain how it's a bad idea-what part of state of emergency don't you understand? Do you read the papers? Mass anarchy has been prevailing in New Orleans since Katrina hit, and though the government is just now getting their shit together there's still a multitude of brainless thugs shooting at rescue helicopters, looting, murderering, and raping. How do you stop shit like that? Take away the guns. This is no "violation of the Constitution" like so many of you have made it out to be. It's a necessary safety precaution being taken in order to help spare the lives of the rescue workers, the police force, and the remainder of New Orleans' populace. How do you propose the weapons of these law abiding citizens be returned? Mailed? Take their names down? How do you distinguish criminals with firearms from the "armed law abiding citizens"? You can't! In the end, there's only two logical things you can do. Let everybody have guns (to shoot each other and steal with) or take them all the fuck away. Black and white. Which would you rather have?

I get the feeling you're still going to refute this.

Oh yes, oh so many Americans think "guns are bad". If they did, there wouldn't be such a problem.

In fact, it wouldn't have created this problem in New Orleans because then the people wouldn't own guns, so they wouldn't have been confiscated.

Well, I know I wouldn't be sad to see Bush shot, but tbh, I think I'm happy to wait until I can vote my government out thanks.

There is no point comparing the US to a dictatorship. It's just not comparable. Sure, you are hardly "the land of the free", but there is nowhere near the amount of oppression in countries under dictatorship.
Therefore, you should only need the democratic means to deal with the government. If they try to take away those rights, you just protest harder.
But anyway, it just wont happen.

Plus, you dont think the army/government dont have BIGGER guns than the poplace?



It would have been pretty hard to "vote" our government out, without us having a representative in parliament ;)

Didn't God say "Blessed are the peacemakers"? Didn't He say "Turn the other cheek"? So, you who advocates no separation between church and state ought to be as anti-gun as they come???


It's hard to turn the other cheek when your head gets blown off because you can't defend yourself.

What color (colour) is the sky in your world ?

Now, IF you could keep ALL guns out of the "new" New Orleans, the violent crime rate, including murders, would plummet and the city would probably be one of the safest in America. However, that is not likely to happen.

Didn't God say "Blessed are the peacemakers"? Didn't He say "Turn the other cheek"? So, you who advocates no separation between church and state ought to be as anti-gun as they come???

No, he didn't. "God" never said anything of the sort.

Luke 22:36 states if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. I took that litterraly-I sold one of my suits so I could buy my first rifle.


Are you going to get jesus to heal the ear of the first person you shoot?

alright, you made my brain ache....

#1- why is there so much fuggin discussion about the bible when this is a post about the federal government, under martial law ordered in the NO area , taking away guns?

#2 - ahem, martial law - "the control and policing of a civilian population by military forces and according to military rules, imposed, e.g. in wartime or when the civilian government no longer functions" ((http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861693401))

#3 - IMHO, guns shouldn't be legal in the united states anyways at this point. Seriously. I can understand why it was placed into the constitution, and it helped our country along for the past 200+ years, but enoughs enough. It's been proven time and time again that countries without the right to bear arms law have an incredibly lower level of violent crimes, as well as gun deaths. And before you say 'if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them', consider this: If this country had no guns, where would criminals be able to get them, with the possible exception of foreign import? Think of the last ten gun shops you saw. All a group with somewhat malicious intentions has to do is find someone with no criminal record, who might already own a gun, send them into all of those ten gun shops, or maybe even just one, and have them buy two or three guns. Do that every two to four months, and within a year, they'd be able to outfit a group of twenty with their own weapons. Or, find ten people with clean backgrounds, send them one apiece into the stores, have them buy two guns each, and bingo, same outcome. Enoughs enough. In the words of the movie Head Of State - Vice President - " well, that's for the people to decide"
Chris Rock - " The people can't decide. The people are too busy gettin' shot in the ass!"

now that i've said all that, if they aren't taking all the guns away from everyone (minus rescue, police, and military), then something is definately not right, and it should be fixed immediately. Either all can have them, or none. This double standard B.S. the goverment has been employing as of late leaves a bad taste.

1st of it would be unconstitutional as illegal seizeure without due process.
2nd Do you think for a second the criminals will surrender their guns, or just the law abiding citizens?


This is a no brainer to me, and apparently just another way to take pot shots at the government's job thus far with Katrina.



You know, it's incredibly easy to say something without thinking-you've just proven that with this post. First of all, explain how it's a bad idea-what part of state of emergency don't you understand? Do you read the papers? Mass anarchy has been prevailing in New Orleans since Katrina hit, and though the government is just now getting their shit together there's still a multitude of brainless thugs shooting at rescue helicopters, looting, murderering, and raping. How do you stop shit like that? Take away the guns. This is no "violation of the Constitution" like so many of you have made it out to be. It's a necessary safety precaution being taken in order to help spare the lives of the rescue workers, the police force, and the remainder of New Orleans' populace. How do you propose the weapons of these law abiding citizens be returned? Mailed? Take their names down? How do you distinguish criminals with firearms from the "armed law abiding citizens"? You can't! In the end, there's only two logical things you can do. Let everybody have guns (to shoot each other and steal with) or take them all the fuck away. Black and white. Which would you rather have?

I get the feeling you're still going to refute this.

You are niave and your logic unsound, crack is banned in the US but can be purchased in any urban center. If it didn't work with drugs what the hell makes you think it will work with guns? Guns never solved anything ..except ending slavery in the US, stopping Facism, helping lower crime. Yes more guns mean lower crime ..ther are a few exceptions but the rule is more guns in the hands of law abiding civilians less crime...if you think banning guns is a crime panacea look at gun crime rates in the UK and Austrailia where guns are effectively banned.



alright, you made my brain ache....

#1- why is there so much fuggin discussion about the bible when this is a post about the federal government, under martial law ordered in the NO area , taking away guns?

#2 - ahem, martial law - "the control and policing of a civilian population by military forces and according to military rules, imposed, e.g. in wartime or when the civilian government no longer functions" ((http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861693401))

#3 - IMHO, guns shouldn't be legal in the united states anyways at this point. Seriously. I can understand why it was placed into the constitution, and it helped our country along for the past 200+ years, but enoughs enough. It's been proven time and time again that countries without the right to bear arms law have an incredibly lower level of violent crimes, as well as gun deaths. And before you say 'if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them', consider this: If this country had no guns, where would criminals be able to get them, with the possible exception of foreign import? Think of the last ten gun shops you saw. All a group with somewhat malicious intentions has to do is find someone with no criminal record, who might already own a gun, send them into all of those ten gun shops, or maybe even just one, and have them buy two or three guns. Do that every two to four months, and within a year, they'd be able to outfit a group of twenty with their own weapons. Or, find ten people with clean backgrounds, send them one apiece into the stores, have them buy two guns each, and bingo, same outcome. Enoughs enough. In the words of the movie Head Of State - Vice President - " well, that's for the people to decide"
Chris Rock - " The people can't decide. The people are too busy gettin' shot in the ass!"

now that i've said all that, if they aren't taking all the guns away from everyone (minus rescue, police, and military), then something is definately not right, and it should be fixed immediately. Either all can have them, or none. This double standard B.S. the goverment has been employing as of late leaves a bad taste.

What color (colour) is the sky in your world ?
The colour of my sky is the same as always......beautiful. :D

Yes more guns mean lower crime ..ther are a few exceptions but the rule is more guns in the hands of law abiding civilians less crime.
Could you please provide proof?

It's not illegal seizure during martial law, since they don't have to abide by the constitution during this situation.

As for my unsound logic, you're using two examples. What about some of the other countries. If you prefer me to say 'on the whole' so that all cases fit, I shall. Simply put, take into account every country out there (if possible, I understand it's not) and view them as countries that have gun legalization, and those that do not, and view their cime rates, especially violent crimes. you should see that, with exception to the two you mentioned and perhaps a few more, the remaing countries have lower rates.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir&int=-1

a graph showing per capita murder with firearms, altho it doesn't show me which ones have legalization vs. non legalization, which tonight i'm a bit too tired to find, and I beg forgiveness

Could you please provide proof?

I think he is talking about these:

Kates Article, 513-14 & n. 2; 526-27 & n. 42-43 (citing Samuel Walker, Sense and Nonsense About Crime and Drugs: A Policy Guide chs. 10 and 13 (1994); Gary Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (1991); Gerald D. Robin, Violent Crime and Gun Control (1991); James D. Wright, et al., Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America (1983); James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (1986); Chris W. Eskridge, Zero-Order Inverse Correlations Between Crimes of Violence and Hunting Licenses in the United States, 71 Soc. & Soc. Res. 55 (1986); Hans Toch & Alan J. Lizotte, Research and Policy: The Case of Gun Control, in Psychology and Social Policy (Peter Suedfeld & Philip E. Tetlock eds., 1992); James D. Wright, Second Thoughts About Gun Control, 91 Pub. Interest 23 (1988); David J. Bordua, Firearms Ownership and Violent Crime: A Comparison of Illinois Countries [sic], in The Social Ecology of Crime (James M. Byrne & Robert J. Sampson eds., 1986); Steven B. Duke & Albert C. Gross, America's Longest War: Rethinking Our Tragic Crusade Against Drugs 113 (1993); Colin Greenwood, Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales (1972); Don B. Kates, Jr., Handgun Banning in Light of the Prohibition Experience, in Firearms and Violence 139 (Don B. Kates, Jr. ed., 1984); Gary Kleck, Handgun-Only Gun Control: A Policy Disaster in the Making, in Firearms and Violence 167 (Don B. Kates, Jr. ed., 1984); Gary Kleck, The Relationship between Gun Ownership Levels and Rates of Violence in the United States, in Firearms and Violence 167 (Don B. Kates, Jr. ed., 1984); David Kopel, The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Control of Other Democracies? (1992);

Personally, I take no position about the efficacy of gun ownership. I just happen to think that it is a right of a free citizen. Make of them what you will.

again? :rolleyes: It's been posted on every single gun control thread EVER at this point you are in denial if you need to see it again but if you must I'll post it tomorrow look in the Guliani thread it posted in there as a matter fact I think you replied to some of them. I'm going to bed soon and don't feel like looking now if somebody else doesn't post them I'll get them to you tomorrow.

Could you please provide proof?

Let's look at the real world on these and not in a vacume. South Africa enacted strict gun laws in 1999...Crimals still have illegal guns. Columbia and Thailand have armed insurancies bad examples. US....despite having rampant gang violance area of the nation that have right to carry tend to have lower gun grime rates while cities with have higher rates. There are exceptions to the rule Richmond is a right to carry area but has out of control gang and drug violence while NYC has dropping rates despite gun control, both buck the trend. I'm looking looking for stats about homicides commited with legally obtained guns.


It's not illegal seizure during martial law, since they don't have to abide by the constitution during this situation.

As for my unsound logic, you're using two examples. What about some of the other countries. If you prefer me to say 'on the whole' so that all cases fit, I shall. Simply put, take into account every country out there (if possible, I understand it's not) and view them as countries that have gun legalization, and those that do not, and view their cime rates, especially violent crimes. you should see that, with exception to the two you mentioned and perhaps a few more, the remaing countries have lower rates.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir&int=-1

a graph showing per capita murder with firearms, altho it doesn't show me which ones have legalization vs. non legalization, which tonight i'm a bit too tired to find, and I beg forgiveness

again? :rolleyes: It's been posted on every single gun control thread EVER at this point you are in denial if you need to see it again but if you must I'll post it tomorrow look in the Guliani thread it posted in there as a matter fact I think you replied to some of them. I'm going to bed soon and don't feel like looking now if somebody else doesn't post them I'll get them to you tomorrow.
No I am not in denial. Those in denial are those that believe that if everyone is running around with guns, then the world would be a better place to live. The US has a passion for firearms and the results speak louder than words.

No I am not in denial. Those in denial are those that believe that if everyone is running around with guns, then the world would be a better place to live. The US has a passion for firearms and the results speak louder than words.
The results do speak louder than words. The US has 3 more murders and forty-three few rapes per 100,000 citizens a year than Canada.One less burglary. One les car theft. One-half more assaults. There is more crime overall in the US, but it is most non-violent property crime and drug-related offenses.

Of course there will be more crime in a nation with 10 times as many people when the "per 100,000" are pretty close.

The results do speak louder than words. The US has 3 more murders and forty-three few rapes per 100,000 citizens a year than Canada.One less burglary. One les car theft. One-half more assaults. There is more crime overall in the US, but it is most non-violent property crime and drug-related offenses.
Where are you getting your figures from? The US murder rate is 3.3 TIMES higher than Canada's.

US murder rate = 6.3 per 100,000

Canada murder rate = 1.9 per 100,000

Of course there will be more crime in a nation with 10 times as many people when the "per 100,000" are pretty close.
For every ONE Canadian that is murdered, 33 Americans are murdered.

For every ONE Canadian that is murdered, 33 Americans are murdered.

3.3, not 33. (As per your statistics).

3.3, not 33. (As per your statistics).
Number wise, 33 Americans are murdered to every one Canadian. Ratio wise per 100,000, it is 3.3 to 1.

Number wise, 33 Americans are murdered to every one Canadian. Ratio wise per 100,000, it is 3.3 to 1.
Okay, 2 more murders per 100,000 a year.

Okay, 2 more murders per 100,000 a year.
Fairly significant huh?

Like it or not, Bush and his cronies, can pry my gun from my cold dead fingers.

Until then, I'm keeping them; I'm shooting them; and so help me, if ANYONE breaks into my house, they get one warning - Hey! Girl with gun pointed at head. Stop now or I'll shoot - and I have very good aim.

If they decide to persue the break in and/or don't stop, I shoot. Let God sort 'em out.

And Re the lower gun crimes in countries without guns.. What are the statistics on people being stabbed/beaten to death? I'm betting they are higher.

Sorry, but take away one method, if you wanna kill somone bad enough you'll find a different way.

Fairly significant huh?
Actually, not nearly as ignificant as the rhetoric portraying the US as a quarter of a billion strong free-for all shoot-out suggests. The gun crazy Americans stereo-type and propaganda is rampant and ,for the most part, bull-shit. Canada has a higher suicide rate among younger age groups, but isn't a huge youth death-cult.

Actually, not nearly as ignificant as the rhetoric portraying the US as a quarter of a billion strong free-for all shoot-out suggests. The gun crazy Americans stereo-type and propaganda is rampant and ,for the most part, bull-shit.
There is no rhetoric involved. In 2002, 149 Canadians were murdered with a firearm. In 2003, 335 Virginians were murdered with a firearm.

Canada popultaion: 32,000,000

Virginia population: 7,000,000

Shootem up cowboy. :rolleyes:

Fairly significant huh?

No, not considering how many deaths Canada has caused with it's blatant use of fossil fuels.

With Canada having nearly double the per capita rate of rapes as the US, Canadians are sexual predators by default.

She was asking for it, wasn't she? No, means hold me down and go ahead, right?

No, not considering how many deaths Canada has caused with it's blatant use of fossil fuels.
Irrelevant to say the least. If you want to start a thread about greenhouse gases, and environmental concerns, be my guest.

With Canada having nearly double the per capita rate of rapes as the US, Canadians are sexual predators by default.

She was asking for it, wasn't she? No, means hold me down and go ahead, right?
Perhaps you are confusing sexual assault (3 levels) in Canada with rape in the US? Besides, it is off topic.

Perhaps you are confusing sexual assault (3 levels) in Canada with rape in the US? Besides, it is off topic.
It does illustrate my earlier point about the invalidity of using these crime statistics to spew looking down your nose, holier than thou, bullshit. And no I'm a comparison of statistics. And sexual assault and sexual battery are different charges from rape in the US as well as Canada.

It does illustrate my earlier point about the invalidity of using these crime statistics to spew looking down your nose, holier than thou, bullshit. And no I'm a comparison of statistics. And sexual assault and sexual battery are different charges from rape in the US as well as Canada.
This is the funny part. It is the gunoholics that look down the barrel at those that are trying to make the world a tad safer. The crime stats detail the numbers and from all that I have read, it appears that the countries with the more stringent gun laws are the ones with the lower murder rates. Slice it and dice it however you want but I don't think the facts are on your side.

As far as rapes are concerned in Canada and the US, a small percentage are committed with a firearm, and thus are irrelevant to this topic.

I always love the assumtion that a person who legally owns a firearm wants to kill someone.

Why else would they have one ? Guns serve no other purpose than to be fired upon something. If you threaten someone with a gun, you are threatening to kill them. All "other uses" eventually boil down to something that has to do with killing, except for silly uses like "it's a hammer" - for which better tools exist.

Why is your government so distrusting of its own citizenry as to ban guns? Does it somehow fear that it might not represent the will of the people? Does it fear that the people might resist oppressive measures, were they to be implemented? Or is it to "protect the people from crime", which is leading to a reverse effect?

To turn the question around: why are the American people so distrusting of their own government as to insist on owning guns? Do they somehow fear that the government might not represent the will of the people?

Then why call yourself "land of the free" ?

1st of it would be unconstitutional as illegal seizeure without due process.

Martial law? State of Emergency? Did you read my post? Skim through it, you mightlearn something.

2nd Do you think for a second the criminals will surrender their guns, or just the law abiding citizens?

It's not a question of people surrendering their guns-if a gun is seen on a man or woman, it's getting seized. Chances are if I'm a criminal with a gun and armed police men tell me to fork it over, I'm gonna do it. I don't understand why this has turned into such a big issue.

Why else would they have one ? Guns serve no other purpose than to be fired upon something. If you threaten someone with a gun, you are threatening to kill them. All "other uses" eventually boil down to something that has to do with killing, except for silly uses like "it's a hammer" - for which better tools exist.

"Fired upon something" does not mean "killing a man."

"Possessing a firearm" does not mean "threatening someone with a gun."

You are not succeeding in establishing a motive that all gun owners have a desire to kill people, try as you might, because frankly it's bullshit.

"Fired upon something" does not mean "killing a man."

"Possessing a firearm" does not mean "threatening someone with a gun."

You are not succeeding in establishing a motive that all gun owners have a desire to kill people, try as you might, because frankly it's bullshit.

I think it's safe to say that gun owners (I have to use the third person because I'm not one - yet) have a desire to kill rather than be killed.

"Fired upon something" does not mean "killing a man."

"Possessing a firearm" does not mean "threatening someone with a gun."

You are not succeeding in establishing a motive that all gun owners have a desire to kill people, try as you might, because frankly it's bullshit.

If you are not ready to fire the gun and thereby risk killing somebody, what's the point in getting the gun anyway?
That would be like joining the army, but not being ready to shoot at people...

Do you think people especially criminals might hide their guns?


Martial law? State of Emergency? Did you read my post? Skim through it, you mightlearn something.



It's not a question of people surrendering their guns-if a gun is seen on a man or woman, it's getting seized. Chances are if I'm a criminal with a gun and armed police men tell me to fork it over, I'm gonna do it. I don't understand why this has turned into such a big issue.

Yes, since the introduction of stringent gun control laws in the UK the gun murders per year have really shot up haven't they? According to Map & Graph:

Definition: Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.

Country Description Amount
1. United States 8,259 (1999)
2. United Kingdom 62 (1999)
Total 8,321
Weighted Average 6,868

Note: You have chosen to view this stat with only two countries matching. You can view it for all countries too.

Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

Here's the URL: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir&int=-1&id=uk&id=us

Or how about only murders:

Definition: Total recorded intentional homicides, completed. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.

Country Description Amount
1. United States 12,658 (1999)
2. United Kingdom 850 (2000)
Total 13,508
Weighted Average 10,654.23

Note: You have chosen to view this stat with only two countries matching. You can view it for all countries too.

Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

URL: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur&int=-1&id=uk&id=us

Or do you want the per capita figures? Here's murders per capita: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap&int=-1&id=uk&id=us , and here's gun murders per capita: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap&int=-1&id=uk&id=us

Somehow the UK looks safer in total, but the gun murders are the same rate, even though the US has so many legal firearms to protect themselves with. Makes ya think, doesn't it?

More accurately I would say most gun owners are taking personal responcibility for their own protection rather than worry if the government will do it for them.


I think it's safe to say that gun owners (I have to use the third person because I'm not one - yet) have a desire to kill rather than be killed.

More accurately I would say most gun owners are taking personal responcibility for their own protection rather than worry if the government will do it for them.

And the difference between that and the anarchy of a vigilante system is... ?

Its been reported on Fox and CNN The federal government is confiscating guns in New Orleans from private citizens. Time to wake up people our government is out of control we will soon have no rights unless we start resisting this facist regime.
Oh my God, not your guns! WHAT KIND OF MONSTERS?!?

Its been reported on Fox and CNN The federal government is confiscating guns in New Orleans from private citizens. Time to wake up people our government is out of control we will soon have no rights unless we start resisting this facist regime.


Good no doubt 2/3s of them belong to the stores they were looted from anyways. :D

Um, not according to quite a few of your papers. Crime rates have little to do w/ gun ownership levels.

I always love the assumtion that a person who legally owns a firearm wants to kill someone.

The point is that is you are mad at someone, and you have a gun you are more likely to kill him then if you don't; It's a lot harder killing someone with a knife or a club then just pulling a trigger(see: the story of the boy who rang a bell and then ran and got shot for it)

Also it is stupid to have guns for your own protection AND a government to protect you: lose one of both
(I vote against the government)

Gun control only works if you believe in fairies and magic. If you magicly make all guns disapear everywhere. If not only the law abiding give their guns away the criminals are still armed. That also leaves people at the mercy of their government, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Bosnia, Darphor, Rwanda are all examples of governments trying to kill off those of its citizens it deemed unwanted. The 2nd amendment is a sheild against this.


No I am not in denial. Those in denial are those that believe that if everyone is running around with guns, then the world would be a better place to live. The US has a passion for firearms and the results speak louder than words.

Also it is stupid to have guns for your own protection AND a government to protect you: lose one of both
(I vote against the government)

That is like saying it is stupid to have a burgler alarm on your house and having windows. You can only have one.. :rolleyes:

and Canada has more than double the per capita rape rate than the US.


There is no rhetoric involved. In 2002, 149 Canadians were murdered with a firearm. In 2003, 335 Virginians were murdered with a firearm.

Canada popultaion: 32,000,000

Virginia population: 7,000,000

Shootem up cowboy. :rolleyes:

and Canada has more than double the per capita rape rate than the US.

Link? Oh, and numbers?

And also and explanation of the relevance of that.

You miss my point. I own a gun and a fire extinguisher in an emergancy I'd like to be prepared does that mean I wouldn't call the fire department or police? No but that is not always an immediate option. If somebody breaks in I'd like to defend myself ditto for civil disorder or other unforeseen circumstance, if I start a fire cooking I'll put it out myself if I can If I can't I will at least given my family more time to get out. A gun is the personal safety equivilent of a spare tire, you learn how to change tires you practice as often as you like but pray you never have to do it for real.


And the difference between that and the anarchy of a vigilante system is... ?

Its been reported on Fox and CNN The federal government is confiscating guns in New Orleans from private citizens. Time to wake up people our government is out of control we will soon have no rights unless we start resisting this facist regime.

'Bout time. Hopefully this will start a trend of taking away the gun-nuts' weapons so that the rest of us can start feeling a bit safer.

You miss my point. I own a gun and a fire extinguisher in an emergancy I'd like to be prepared does that mean I wouldn't call the fire department or police? No but that is not always an immediate option. If somebody breaks in I'd like to defend myself ditto for civil disorder or other unforeseen circumstance, if I start a fire cooking I'll put it out myself if I can If I can't I will at least given my family more time to get out. A gun is the personal safety equivilent of a spare tire, you learn how to change tires you practice as often as you like but pray you never have to do it for real.

The difference between a fire and an intruder is that the fire is inanimate. By putting out the fire, you only put your own life at risk.

Rape (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap_cap)

Murder (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap)

Manslaughter

(http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_man_cap) Murder by Gun (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap)


Perception of safety (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_per_of_saf_wal_in_dar)


Police per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_pol_cap)



Link? Oh, and numbers?

Then i expect you to die hard, the fact is that you shouldn't need guns, and why should you? What are you going to use it for, to protect your home? To commit murder? Crime rates have fallen over here since we banned guns.

now i may be a simple backwood redneck but most people who legally owns guns in the U.S use them for sporting such as hunting or shooting targets and wat not, just because the average american gun owner is seen as either a deranged sniper or some gang banger doesnt mean thats some of us actually have a use for them....

handguns and automatics are specifically designed for killing people, not hunting. i suspect a large proportion of the guns in USA are handguns.

guns dont kill people, people do. but it sure makes it easier if you have a gun.

police officers get killed with their own guns, and many children die playing with hanguns that have not been safely stored.

i have a lot of respect for your constitution, i have no problem with hunting guns and rifles, but hanguns should be banned..

the british are highly likely to invade you now are they.

I'm a left wing democrat in the US. Most of my fellow party members want to band guns. I don't. Why?

THe second amendment it there to prevent, get this: A TYRANNICAL REGIME. That's right, we can own guns so that if the government becomes oppressive, we can fight back. Furthermore, confiscating private citizens' weapons won't do anything but make us less safe. Am I for keeping convicted rackateers and murderers from getting weapons? Absolutely! Can we prevent them from using the black market and getting the weapons anyway? No! An armed populace is actually a benefit to the police force. Would you rob someone if they had a gun they legally owned? How about if they didn't have one because it's illegal, but you had one you got illegally?

So I should just allow people to break in and hurt or kill my family? NO! if you break into my house one of 2 things will happen you will lie face down and wait for the police to arrest you while I or my wife hold you at gun point or you will die.


The difference between a fire and an intruder is that the fire is inanimate. By putting out the fire, you only put your own life at risk.

How many rapes were prevented my firearm?


And also and explanation of the relevance of that.

I think it's safe to say that gun owners (I have to use the third person because I'm not one - yet) have a desire to kill rather than be killed.

If it's a choice between the two, obviously yes. That last phrase is a rather essential part of it, though.

Besides... do non-owners really have a desire to be killed rather than kill?

If it's a choice between the two, obviously yes. That last phrase is a rather essential part of it, though.

Besides... do non-owners really have a desire to be killed rather than kill?

I can only speak for myself, not for other non-gun owners, but yes. I would rather be killed than taking somebody elses life.

So in your house it's all ...Ok rape murder and rob me but for shame anything should happen to you Mr Evildoer. WTF what a bullshit martyr complex what if they want to kill your children too. Is that ok too?


I can only speak for myself, not for other non-gun owners, but yes. I would rather be killed than taking somebody elses life.

So in your house it's all ...Ok rape murder and rob me but for shame anything should happen to you Mr Evildoer. WTF what a bullshit martyr complex what if they want to kill your children too. Is that ok too?

I don't have children nor would I want any :rolleyes:
I never said I wouldn't try to defend myself, but I will never ever risk killing anybody.

I must say,
I am a fierce pro gun person,
I do think it is necessary for the troops
to take the guns away in this situation.
The soldiers are removing people from the
homes so that they dont get sick form the water,
or get hurt from looters, or a number of things that
could happen during a time of crisis.
The funniest, (and yet dumbest) thing I saw was
an older woman was being asked to leave her home
by about a half dozen armed police officers and national guardsmen
with M-16s, and she produced a revolver and waved it towards
the officers. On TV! so she got tackled and arrested.
Normally the government has no right to evict people from
their homes, but in this case of such a massive disaster
and the health and safty issues that are with it, it is in their intrest to
hand over thier guns for now, and get out.
I dont blaime them. (the soldiers) Idiots were shooting at rescue boats and helicopters when they were trying to rescue others in need.

Tihland']Taking things out of context, eh? Here is Luke 22:36 and 37:
"36 He [Jesus] said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors' (see Isaiah 53:12); and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." "

Further on in Luke 22, we read where one of the disciples actually uses a sword that he had.

"49 When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

51 But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him."

The conclusion that I have reached based on this and other Bible studies I have undertaken is that a true Christian will not kill or injure others intentionally. As for Jesus' behavior in the temple, He did express His anger and rebuked the people accordingly. However, I do not read where anyone ever suffered any physical harm by the Hand of Jesus. Quite the contrary, I have read where Jesus is the Lord of Life, not of death, and of His many miracles curing many ailments, problems, and diseases.

The reason Jesus healed the man's ear was not because he was against weapons-it was because Peter was trying to to keep Jesus from being executed on the cross. He was interfering with the Prophecy.

I don't have children nor would I want any :rolleyes:
I never said I wouldn't try to defend myself, but I will never ever risk killing anybody.

By no means am I trying to sound like a neanderthal, but if somebody is trying to break into my house and rape my wife or in general cause mayhem and mischeif, I will be sure to make sure you don't live long enough to do it. Simple enough. My family and my life would come over an intruder, anyday. And plus I'd be doing the world a favor-one less scum bag out there to prey on the citizenry.

Like it or not, Bush and his cronies, can pry my gun from my cold dead fingers.

Until then, I'm keeping them; I'm shooting them; and so help me, if ANYONE breaks into my house, they get one warning - Hey! Girl with gun pointed at head. Stop now or I'll shoot - and I have very good aim.

If they decide to persue the break in and/or don't stop, I shoot. Let God sort 'em out.

And Re the lower gun crimes in countries without guns.. What are the statistics on people being stabbed/beaten to death? I'm betting they are higher.

Sorry, but take away one method, if you wanna kill somone bad enough you'll find a different way.

Bush ain't taking away any guns. The Republican Party isn't exactly known to be a gun-grabbing lot in general. You're more likely to find gun grabbers on the other side. YOu do have "RINOs" though, but they tend to be few and far between. Good democrats are people such as Mel Martinez and Zell Miller....their constituents are very well served by them.

once again,
soldiers are taking guns away from
people in N.O. so they dont go and
shoot the cops when they have to leave a disaster zone.

Here is the letter I am sending to my congress person (Slightly changed)


As a lawful member of the voting public I am incensed by the forcible eviction of people and the confiscation of legally owned firearms from law abiding citizens of the United Stated by officials in New Orleans. We are fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan to install, protect and uphold individual rights and freedoms, one right might I ad allows 1 AK-47 per household, to be kept for protection. Do Iraqi's have more rights then US Citizens? Is New Orleans more lawless then Baghdad? As the Governor of this great state of Texas you must stand up and fight for our constitutional right to bear arms to protect ourselves and our property. You must fight this grave injustice. You cannot let this order to disarm and forcibly evict law abiding people stand, period! I implore you DO SOMETHING NOW! Order all Texas agencies helping in the relief effort to disobey any order or commander that compels them to violate the constitution, and the inalienable rights of those in New Orleans. Follow this to the end. Those who gave these illegal orders and those that carried them out must be held accountable. If they are not then we the people will hold those who did nothing to stop this travesty, accountable at the ballot box

Its been reported on Fox and CNN The federal government is confiscating guns in New Orleans from private citizens. Time to wake up people our government is out of control we will soon have no rights unless we start resisting this facist regime.

This pissed me off as well. Those citizens have justification to shoot them.

Its been reported on Fox and CNN The federal government is confiscating guns in New Orleans from private citizens. Time to wake up people our government is out of control we will soon have no rights unless we start resisting this facist regime.


Ummmmmm... yeah?

There were people shooting a medical convoys. The only way to make it safe for people is to take all guns away, so they have to come to the military who will protect them. Strandard emergency procedure.

This pissed me off as well. Those citizens have justification to shoot them.
Justification to shoot federal troops? Hmmmm.

Here is the letter I am sending to my congress person (Slightly changed)


As a lawful member of the voting public I am incensed by the forcible eviction of people and the confiscation of legally owned firearms from law abiding citizens of the United Stated by officials in New Orleans. We are fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan to install, protect and uphold individual rights and freedoms, one right might I ad allows 1 AK-47 per household, to be kept for protection. Do Iraqi's have more rights then US Citizens? Is New Orleans more lawless then Baghdad? As the Governor of this great state of Texas you must stand up and fight for our constitutional right to bear arms to protect ourselves and our property. You must fight this grave injustice. You cannot let this order to disarm and forcibly evict law abiding people stand, period! I implore you DO SOMETHING NOW! Order all Texas agencies helping in the relief effort to disobey any order or commander that compels them to violate the constitution, and the inalienable rights of those in New Orleans. Follow this to the end. Those who gave these illegal orders and those that carried them out must be held accountable. If they are not then we the people will hold those who did nothing to stop this travesty, accountable at the ballot box
Your facts about what Iraqis can and cannot have in regards to weapons may be in error?

WEAPONS CONTROL (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20031231_CPAORD3_REV__AMD_.pdf)

I am sure the Governor will have fun trying to get two points as he tosses your letter in the circular file?

You are confusing Afghanistan with Iraq, the Afganis are allowed 1 AK per household (or one per male member of their house hold I forget).



Here is the letter I am sending to my congress person (Slightly changed)


As a lawful member of the voting public I am incensed by the forcible eviction of people and the confiscation of legally owned firearms from law abiding citizens of the United Stated by officials in New Orleans. We are fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan to install, protect and uphold individual rights and freedoms, one right might I ad allows 1 AK-47 per household, to be kept for protection. Do Iraqi's have more rights then US Citizens? Is New Orleans more lawless then Baghdad? As the Governor of this great state of Texas you must stand up and fight for our constitutional right to bear arms to protect ourselves and our property. You must fight this grave injustice. You cannot let this order to disarm and forcibly evict law abiding people stand, period! I implore you DO SOMETHING NOW! Order all Texas agencies helping in the relief effort to disobey any order or commander that compels them to violate the constitution, and the inalienable rights of those in New Orleans. Follow this to the end. Those who gave these illegal orders and those that carried them out must be held accountable. If they are not then we the people will hold those who did nothing to stop this travesty, accountable at the ballot box

The reason Jesus healed the man's ear was not because he was against weapons-it was because Peter was trying to to keep Jesus from being executed on the cross. He was interfering with the Prophecy.

Peter was not interfering with prophecy. He was helping Jesus fulfill prophecy by being numbered with the transgessors.

The Bible is referred to as stronger than the double-edged sword in the Bible. That is really the only "weapon" one should use. If you were to point a gun at someone, the very least emotion they would be feeling is love, or at least, I would imagine that the very least emotion they would be feeling is love. They'd feel more fear or even hatred. And what does the Word of God have to say about love?

Romans 13:10 "Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
Matthew 22:37-39: "37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39A nd the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
1 John 5:3 "This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,"
I would imagine that owning a gun is a burdensome proposition. You have to make sure the safety lock is on when it's not in use, make sure no one is going to use it against you, make sure there is sufficient bullets. Am I right? My only desire is for you to have peace, happiness, and joy in your life.

John 15:11 "I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete."
Proverbs 29:18 "Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; but blessed is he who keeps the law."

Psalm 119:165 "Great peace have they who love your law, and nothing can make them stumble."

It is important to follow His commandments. I hope the portions of the Bible I have posted are stronger than a "double-edged sword" that you have gone out and purchased.

1 John 2:3-4 "3 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4 The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

First, I read the topic as "Gay Confiscation in New Orleans". Interesting thought!

Give us your guns and be defenseless. OH SURE!!!! If the citizens didn't have guns the Police would be Shit outta luck ;)


"Police officers were asking residents to give up any firearms before they evacuated neighborhoods because police desperately needed the firepower"



New Orleans Cops Ordered to Stop Looters

Thursday September 1, 2005 5:01 AM


AP Photo LADM112

By KEVIN McGILL

Associated Press Writer

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - Mayor Ray Nagin ordered 1,500 police officers to leave their search-and-rescue mission Wednesday night and return to the streets to stop looting that has turned increasingly hostile as the city plunges deeper into chaos.

``They are starting to get closer to heavily populated areas - hotels, hospitals, and we're going to stop it right now,'' Nagin said in a statement to The Associated Press.

The number of officers called off the search-and-rescue mission amounts to virtually the entire police force in New Orleans.

Amid the turmoil Wednesday, thieves commandeered a forklift and used it to push up the storm shutters and break the glass of a pharmacy. The crowd stormed the store, carrying out so much ice, water and food that it dropped from their arms as they ran. The street was littered with packages of ramen noodles and other items.

Looters also chased down a police truck full of food. The New Orleans police chief ran off looters while city officials themselves were commandeering equipment from a looted Office Depot. During a state of emergency, authorities have broad powers to take private supplies and buildings for their use.

Managers at a nursing home were prepared to cope with the power outages and had enough food for days, but then the looting began. The home's bus driver was forced to surrender the vehicle to carjackers.

Bands of people drove by the nursing home, shouting to residents, ``Get out!'' Eighty residents, most of them in wheelchairs, were being evacuated to other nursing homes in the state.

``We had enough food for 10 days,'' said Peggy Hoffman, the home's executive director. ``Now we'll have to equip our department heads with guns and teach them how to shoot.''

At one store, hordes of people from all ages, races and walks of life grabbed food and water. Some drove away with trunkloads of beer. At one point, two officers drew their guns on the looters, but the thieves left without incident.

One young man was seen wading through chest-deep floodwater, carrying a case of soda, after looting a grocery store.

Police officers were asking residents to give up any firearms before they evacuated neighborhoods because police desperately needed the firepower: Some officers who had been stranded on the roof of a hotel said they were being shot at overnight.

``It's really difficult because my opinion of the looting is it started with people running out of food, and you can't really argue with that too much,'' Nagin said. ``Then it escalated to this kind of mass chaos.''

Gov. Kathleen Blanco said she has asked the White House to send more people to help with evacuations and rescues, thereby freeing up National Guardsmen to stop looters.

Bob Mann, an aide to the governor, said dozens of law officers are being brought in from around the country and Canada to help stop the looting. Officials said they hope the 4,000 National Guard troops already in New Orleans, who have been engaged in search and rescue, will be available for police actions.

``We will restore law and order,'' an emotional Blanco said at a news conference. ``What angers me the most is that disasters like this often bring out the worst in people. I will not tolerate this kind of behavior.''

John Matessino, president of the Louisiana Hospital Association, said he had not heard of anyone breaking into the hospitals, but he added that thieves got into the parking garage at one hospital and were stealing car batteries and stereos.

New Orleans' homeland security chief, Terry Ebbert, said looters were breaking into stores all over town and stealing guns. He said there are gangs of armed men moving around the city. At one point, officers stranded on the roof of a hotel were fired at by criminals on the street.

Authorities said an officer was shot in the head and a looter was wounded in a shootout. The officer and looter were expected to survive.

Tihland']Peter was not interfering with prophecy. He was helping Jesus fulfill prophecy by being numbered with the transgessors.

It was prophesied that christ would be hung on a cross by his own people right?

The Bible is referred to as stronger than the double-edged sword in the Bible. That is really the only "weapon" one should use. If you were to point a gun at someone, the very least emotion they would be feeling is love, or at least, I would imagine that the very least emotion they would be feeling is love. They'd feel more fear or even hatred. And what does the Word of God have to say about love?

How can you explain Luke 22:36? Christ tells his followers to buy a SWORD.


Romans 13:10 "Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
Says nothing about Justifiable homicide on a rapist....I try to be kind to everyone I meet, however those who try to harm me or my family don't get that.

Matthew 22:37-39: "37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39A nd the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
1 John 5:3 "This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,"

I would imagine that owning a gun is a burdensome proposition. You have to make sure the safety lock is on when it's not in use, make sure no one is going to use it against you, make sure there is sufficient bullets. Am I right? My only desire is for you to have peace, happiness, and joy in your life.

Maybe for yourself. Not for me, however. www.cabelas.com has wolf ammunition for sale in bulk quantities, so keeping my cabinet stocked is not a problem. Someone grabbing my long gun and trying to take it away from me is a concern, yes. That's why I need to get a handgun. I desire peace, happiness, and joy in my life too, and for my family (when I get married), and nothing would ruin that more than having a pedophile,rapist, or a burglar shatter that dream. I own guns because my commitment to my family to keep them safe is something I want to keep.

John 15:11 "I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete."
Proverbs 29:18 "Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; but blessed is he who keeps the law."


I keep the law. I pay my taxes, I stop at stop signs and I obey the laws, even unjust laws regarding firearm ownership.

Psalm 119:165 "Great peace have they who love your law, and nothing can make them stumble."

I follow the law, and have no plans to stray outside of it as my faith demands I do so. Only time I will ever directly rebel against the government is when it begins to..well...do what Gov's do best, violate the rights of the people.

It is important to follow His commandments. I hope the portions of the Bible I have posted are stronger than a "double-edged sword" that you have gone out and purchased.

They are indeed far sharper, as well they should.

1 John 2:3-4 "3 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4 The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

I sold a coat and bought a sword. I'm good! :D

Its time to realize we have no constitutional rights this is only the begining I fear this will begin to happen all over the nation. I am going to stock up bullets right now I will die before the government takes my guns.

When you purchased your gun, did you have to register it? If so, they will know exactly what you own. The point is to stockpile as many unregistered arms as possible. Registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation, no matter what the politicians promise. Another question: How many family members and neighbors know you have guns? Because if any of them are like the anti-2nd Amendment refugees-to-be on this thread, THEY WILL NOT HESITATE TO RAT YOU OUT.

As far as the Blackwater mercs are concerned, God knows I respect their training facilities and their operations in Iraq, but if they are in fact confiscating guns, then their rent-a-cop badge means nothing, and I recommend a nice .50 caliber round through their body armor. At that point, they are neither cops, nor soldiers nor private citizens.

And besides, they're mercenaries anyway. If you kill a few, they'll take their last paycheck and run off. They knew the risks when they signed up.

From what I understand, the gun confiscations have stopped because of the pressure. I certainly hope Washington realizes that just because they have the NRA's boy in the White House, that gunowners are not going to just roll over and watch the stormtroopers roll in. They floated the gun sweeps as a test case to see how Americans will react and I hope they realized that it will not be another Waco, but another Vietnam.

Gunowners:
Don't even try to argue with the prohibitionists. For whatever reason, they have chosen their path and will be the ones running around asking the government to "do something" when the next disaster hits. You have no obligation to try to persuade or convince them. They have made up their minds, they are set in their ways and they will not change. Their views do not matter, because they cannot gather or organize enough political clout to exert pressure on legislators like we do.

If you are in the US, sign up for the NRA's legislative email updates. Write up a polite form letter addressed to your local representative and save it in your harddrive. When you get an alert about an upcoming anti-gun bill, put it in the form letter and mail it to your whores in parliament. If he or she has voted against guns in the past, let them know that YOU know their track record and will let all your friends, family and coworkers know come next election day. As long as politicians know there is an alert, dedicated movement watching his every legislative move, he won't want to rock the boat and turn a minor issue into a political liability. I've known Assemblymen and city councilmen and this is exactly how they think. Even Tom Daschle from South Dakota is smart enough to not touch the issue of guns.

I'm not going to bother debating the utility, hazards or social costs of guns. The reality is that 80 million Americans own more than 300 million guns AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU, WASHINGTON D.C., OR THE UNITED NATIONS CAN DO ABOUT IT WITHOUT RISKING AN INTRACTABLE GUERRILLA CONFLICT. Just drop the issue and go research the sociological origins of violence instead of having futile daydreams of magically teleporting every firearm from every closet.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=389933

Sad state of affairs.

When you purchased your gun, did you have to register it? If so, they will know exactly what you own. The point is to stockpile as many unregistered arms as possible. Registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation, no matter what the politicians promise. Another question: How many family members and neighbors know you have guns? Because if any of them are like the anti-2nd Amendment refugees-to-be on this thread, THEY WILL NOT HESITATE TO RAT YOU OUT.

As far as the Blackwater mercs are concerned, God knows I respect their training facilities and their operations in Iraq, but if they are in fact confiscating guns, then their rent-a-cop badge means nothing, and I recommend a nice .50 caliber round through their body armor. At that point, they are neither cops, nor soldiers nor private citizens.

And besides, they're mercenaries anyway. If you kill a few, they'll take their last paycheck and run off. They knew the risks when they signed up.

From what I understand, the gun confiscations have stopped because of the pressure. I certainly hope Washington realizes that just because they have the NRA's boy in the White House, that gunowners are not going to just roll over and watch the stormtroopers roll in. They floated the gun sweeps as a test case to see how Americans will react and I hope they realized that it will not be another Waco, but another Vietnam.

Gunowners:
Don't even try to argue with the prohibitionists. For whatever reason, they have chosen their path and will be the ones running around asking the government to "do something" when the next disaster hits. You have no obligation to try to persuade or convince them. They have made up their minds, they are set in their ways and they will not change. Their views do not matter, because they cannot gather or organize enough political clout to exert pressure on legislators like we do.

If you are in the US, sign up for the NRA's legislative email updates. Write up a polite form letter addressed to your local representative and save it in your harddrive. When you get an alert about an upcoming anti-gun bill, put it in the form letter and mail it to your whores in parliament. If he or she has voted against guns in the past, let them know that YOU know their track record and will let all your friends, family and coworkers know come next election day. As long as politicians know there is an alert, dedicated movement watching his every legislative move, he won't want to rock the boat and turn a minor issue into a political liability. I've known Assemblymen and city councilmen and this is exactly how they think. Even Tom Daschle from South Dakota is smart enough to not touch the issue of guns.

I'm not going to bother debating the utility, hazards or social costs of guns. The reality is that 80 million Americans own more than 300 million guns AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU, WASHINGTON D.C., OR THE UNITED NATIONS CAN DO ABOUT IT WITHOUT RISKING AN INTRACTABLE GUERRILLA CONFLICT. Just drop the issue and go research the sociological origins of violence instead of having futile daydreams of magically teleporting every firearm from every closet.

Amen to that. Some of my guns are registered but alot have been passed down through the generations from family. I would love to start up an underground gun manufacturing shop and make my own guns but I need more money and know how.

As far as the Blackwater mercs are concerned, God knows I respect their training facilities and their operations in Iraq, but if they are in fact confiscating guns, then their rent-a-cop badge means nothing, and I recommend a nice .50 caliber round through their body armor. At that point, they are neither cops, nor soldiers nor private citizens.

And besides, they're mercenaries anyway. If you kill a few, they'll take their last paycheck and run off. They knew the risks when they signed up.
So, you are advocating that murder is okay?

They would never get me or my guns . Not alive .

They would never get me or my guns . Not alive .

That's the spirit ! :) What free men are not willing to pay for in blood they cannot keep ;)

BTW, did you qoute me in your sig? Sounds like something I said a while back on one of my terrorist-bashing threads.

Amen to that. Some of my guns are registered but alot have been passed down through the generations from family. I would love to start up an underground gun manufacturing shop and make my own guns but I need more money and know how.

Do a search at Amazon for "homemade 9mm", you will see several books. The one by P.A Luty is widely regarded as good, but I have only read a few pages. A little web-searching will yield a lot, and the book can be downloaded as a pdf at some websites.

I believe that Luty was imprisoned for ownership of an illegal firearm, so you must be sure to follow the law of the land if you make firearms. Unregistered automatic weapons are illegal without permit in the US, and probably unspeakably so in Europe. Personally, I'd like to know how to make them - just in case, but won't because of the law.