"They disarmed Americans over some bad weather." I offer this quote to Zorro as another example of what I'm talking about. Gun rights folks are the worst at exaggerating and spinning.
About the video, though, I found it over at the fascinating site of Fait of the World. The host of that site, a self-proclaimed Threeper, had this to say.
In case you anti-freedom fucks, both Right and Left, can’t understand this, the government did not give those rights and cannot take them away. Please don’t attempt to do so. It will be resisted with brute force in this home.
Now that's the tough talk I've come to know and love from these guys. What I don't understand is the need some of them have to continually talk like this. At the mere mention of gun banning or gun confiscation, often when it is not even mentioned, they spout off with this adolescent school-yard rhetoric. It's truly fascinating.
More fascinating still, is that I have to agree with Bill O'Reilly. I never thought the day would come, but in this O'Reilly segment I think he made good points. The so-called Katrina gun confiscations have been so often touted as examples of what the evil government does to poor gun owners, like the little old lady in that video, that many have come to believe their own nonsense.
The truth is what O'Reilly said, there was a state of emergency and the local government was blanketing all citizens in order to control the looters and other criminals. The gun rights folks keep spinning that video in order to distort what really happened.
O'Reilly asked about riots like they had in the 60s. Curfews were implemented, the right to assemble was suspended. Were these also examples of "illegal" measures on the part of the government? I don't think so. And I don't think one has to be a government worshipping sheep to feel that way. One of the purposes of government is to keep order in extreme emergency situations, or is that wrong? Are the rough and rugged individualists going to insist on handling everything themselves in every situation with their home arsenals?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDelete"They disarmed Americans over some bad weather." I offer this quote to Zorro as another example of what I'm talking about. Gun rights folks are the worst at exaggerating and spinning.
No "spinning" there, Mikeb--the forcible citizen disarmament was due to unpleasant weather.
O'Reilly gave a piss poor justification, which is to be expected from a big city proto-fascist such as himself. A state of emergency is when you need your gun the most. Especially in an emergency like Katrina where the police tucked tail and ran (or became looters themselves).
ReplyDeleteTaking guns from people who aren't breaking the law does not control looting. Luckily, such an act is now illegal. But if the government decides to break that law by conducting what are essentially home invasions with the intent to rob, may Faitmaker's aim be true and his magazines be full.
You are a true sheep, mikeb.
ReplyDeleteI pity you.
How radically anti-gunowner and out of the mainstream is O'Reilly on this?
ReplyDeleteHere are the results of the 2006 Senate vote to prohibit such a thing from happening again:
"To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law."
Vote Count: YEAs 84
NAYs 16
What else passes with such lopsided majorities? (YEAs included Sen. Obama, D-IL)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00202
It's not exaggeration MikeB.
ReplyDeleteThey were kicking in doors of residents and disarming them, at gunpoint, in their own homes.
No way in hell I'll stand for that in America.
Those guys are no better than a common thug who kicks in your door and steals your private property at gunpoint. That's what was happening.
Mike W., Are you sure you're not basing that entire theory on that one famous video? That would be another example of your doing what you accuse me of, namely developing an entire theory on one anecdotal incident.
ReplyDeletemikeb30200:
ReplyDeletemikey will use one anecdote to construct a theory or, if none is available, cheerfully go on without it.
Zorro:
ReplyDeleteBullshit. The bad weather was the proximate cause of the flooding and infrastructure damage, human suffering and property destruction. Those items were the reason for the forcible disarming--which, btw, I do not approve of.
Your use of that gravatar image is childish in the extreme, but what are we to expect of someone who thinks that teaching his childrent to shoot at likenesses of people whom HE dislikes is good parenting?
Democommie, I don't have any interest in squabbling about the difference between direct causes and indirect ones. I will acknowledge that instead of saying "the forcible citizen disarmament was due to unpleasant weather," I should have said that the unpleasant weather provided the justification used for the confiscations. Seems a pretty minor quibble, to me, but I stand corrected.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that if "emergencies" can be used to justify suspension of fundamental human rights--"New Orleans is too wet, so we're disarming the public," or "King, NC is too snowy, so you can't buy guns or ammo, or carry guns (even with a permit)," what's to stop the government from claiming any "emergency" as such a justification? I suspect all of us have seen "gun violence" referred to as an "emergency," and we know that D.C. sometimes declares "crime emergencies."
Emergencies are when guns can be most useful, and most fully realize their lifesaving potential. To use emergencies as justification to steal the means to survive an emergency is pure evil.
Well since it's my blog you bring up...
ReplyDeleteThere are no justifications for removal of Constitutionally-protected rights. I don't care what "but" you use, you don't get to. There is no provision that "you have the freedom of speech" except for when the President is about to speak. There is no provision that "your house cannot be searched without a search warrant" except when the police feel like it. You just cannot suspend rights because YOU think there is a need to. The very fact that there WERE criminals doing bad things is a GOOD reason to allow law-abiding innocent civilians their weapons to protect themselves. That is what you anti-gun liberals will never understand. YOU can't protect people, so let them have a chance.
And for the record, it is not rhetoric, Mike. I'm just telling it how it is if you come to my house with the intent to disarm me.
I suggest to MikeB, the next time disaster strikes in his area, to post a huge sign on his front yard that says, "THIS HOME IS A GUN-FREE ZONE. ABSOLUTELY NO GUNS ARE ALLOWED ON MY PROPERTY"
ReplyDeleteI'd like to be one of the guys watching from the window of the well-fortified home diagonally across the street, while the looters and rape gangs repeatedly enter his home and have their way with him and his family. Because that is exactly what happened in New Orleans.
You know what they say: "Those who walk around with their heads in the sand are only going to get it in the end." (okay, that's not what they say; I just made that up right now)
Ooooh, I just saw that my comment has to be approved by the blog owner. That's so typical of someone who can't stand the heat, but likes to start fires.
ReplyDeleteOoooh, I just saw that my comment has to be approved by the blog owner. That's so typical of someone who can't stand the heat, but likes to start fires.
ReplyDeleteYup. Not one anti-gunner has a truly open comment section. That includes MikeB.
Wai, By all means bring on the heat. There's very little chance that I'll feel the need to delete your comments.
ReplyDeleteDemocommie, I agree with you totally, it has nothing to do with the weather. Anyone who says it has is exaggerating to make their point.
faitmaker said, "And for the record, it is not rhetoric, Mike. I'm just telling it how it is if you come to my house with the intent to disarm me."
ReplyDeleteIf I come to your house? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? You're responding with bluster and bravado to a threat that you made up.
No, I'm responding with the truth. If THEY came to confiscate MY guns like they did in Katrina, it just wouldn't be that simple. It is an illegal act and I will not be disarmed so that I CANNOT protect my family during an EMERGENCY situation. I don't know how much more real you want it.
ReplyDeletefaitmaker said, "I will not be disarmed so that I CANNOT protect my family during an EMERGENCY situation"
ReplyDeleteI hear ya, man. I've given a name to that attitude, perhaps you've seen me use it already: grandiose victimism. It refers to the delicious fantasy of going down in a blaze of glory against uncountable odds, all to defend your rights.
The only problem with your description of it is it has nothing to do with defending your family. Even those silly cops who disarmed the little old lady in New Orleans, upon which much of this nonsense is based, this hysteria of "if they come for my guns," - even those cops could take you out. Either you'd allow them to disarm you or you'd be dead. If somehow your family survived, who would defend them then?
You see, your idea has nothing to do with defending your family, it has only to do with your idea of defending your gun rights. In fact, if you mean what you say, that you'd fight "them" to the death over a principle, then apparently you care more for that principle than you do for your family.
To me that's wrong.
Even Zorro plays the mindreading game.
ReplyDelete"Emergencies are when guns can be most useful, and most fully realize their lifesaving potential. To use emergencies as justification to steal the means to survive an emergency is pure evil."
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteEven Zorro plays the mindreading game.
Care to explain what I have said that purports any kind of mind reading ability on my part, and whose mind I supposedly claim to read?
Zorro asked, "Care to explain what I have said that purports any kind of mind reading ability on my part, and whose mind I supposedly claim to read?"
ReplyDeleteSure thing.
You said, "To use emergencies as justification to steal the means to survive an emergency is pure evil."
That's not what they did at all. They decided to disarm everybody in order to get to the ones doing the looting and law-breaking. A side-effect may have been what you said, at least in some cases, but it was not the intention of the decision makers. Now I'm mindreading, of course.
I admit after reading your remarks a few more times, you may have meant only what happened, the results, and not at all what the intentions were. If that's so, I apologize, you're right to question what I said.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteI admit after reading your remarks a few more times, you may have meant only what happened, the results, and not at all what the intentions were. If that's so, I apologize, you're right to question what I said.
Correct--I don't claim to know their motivation--just their actions, the consequences of those actions, and how they attempted to justify them.
No apology necessary. If this is as bloody as our exchanges get, we're getting along about as well as can be expected for people separated by an ideological and philosophical chasm as wide and deep as the one that divides us.
Well, since the discussion has turned to what might have motivated the forcible disarmament of the citizenry in post-Katrina New Orleans, it's interesting that a compelling motive has emerged:
ReplyDeleteFormer New Orleans Police Department Lt. Michael Lohman today pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiring to obstruct justice, in connection with one of a string of violent encounters between police and civilians in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Police shot at least 10 people during the week after the storm made landfall. (We have been investigating the shootings, along with our partners the New Orleans Times-Picayune and PBS “Frontline.”)
Lohman’s conviction stems from the so-called Danziger Bridge incident of Sept. 4, 2005. Responding to an emergency call that day, New Orleans police officers shot six citizens—killing two—on and around the span.
If the city government's hired muscle was executing civilians, it kinda makes sense that they'd want those civilians helpless, and unable to resist, eh?
How dare the Oath Keepers refuse to be a part of that "community policing," eh?
ReplyDeleteI'll try one more time. You admit the confiscations happened. Why you keep bringing up the grandma video is beyond me. When you say that, it is as if it was one singular instance that they took guns, but then you comment that they did it across the board (as if that excuses it)
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with if they used violence or not. They confiscated guns. It doesn't matter why they did it. They did it. They violated the 2nd Amendment and Due Process. They did not have the power to do what they did and was a violation of civil rights. It astonished so many people that not only did Louisiana pass a law, even other states passed laws to make it clear that it was illegal, even in places they were sure it wouldn't happen (like Wyoming).
And Mike, if you don't stand for your principles, you fall for anything.
In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current. ~Thomas Jefferson
Care to comment to Zorro's comment about the civilian shootings in which the police then planted evidence so they could get away with it? Those cops murdered those people on the bridge and then covered it up. Yet, you only want cops to carry guns because.. well... we can trust cops, right?
faitmaker, Those were bad cops.
ReplyDeleteThat's why the citizens need to be armed. You just proved the point.
Delete"They decided to disarm everybody in order to get to the ones doing the looting and law-breaking"
ReplyDeleteWell, if you threw the entire population into labor camps and prisons, you could stop all law breaking then too, but it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
It doesn't matter why they did it. They violated the Constitution. As an active Marine, had I been stationed down there, I would have refused any such order as being unlawful. I swore to uphold and protect the Constitution, from threats both foreign and DOMESTIC.
Also, I would dare anybody to take my firearms. I'm not saying I would shoot it out with my fellow brothers in arms who are simply following bad orders, I would just refuse to give them the combination to my gun safe, which is a custom build concrete enclosure built into the foundation of my house in my basement with a 6" thick steel door. The reason I have such an extravagant set-up is I currently own 53 rifles and 14 pistols. Several of those are heirlooms (I own a 9mm Luger my granddaddy took off a dead German officer back in WW2) and several are collector's pieces that have been in my family for generations, and which are valued well into the tens of thousands of dollars for each of those heirlooms. Others are just fun guns, just for me to take out and shoot at the range, but some have serious sentimental value to my family, and I would never give them the combination to that safe until they lugged a thermal lance or plasma cutter down there to cut in.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, Thanks for your comments. Can we agree that the "Katrina confiscations" were a rare and unusual situation? Do you think it's really indicative of a threat to your 2nd Amendment rights?
ReplyDelete[I'm a bit late to this conversation - dropped in via Google search]
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, Thanks for your comments. Can we agree that the "Katrina confiscations" were a rare and unusual situation? Do you think it's really indicative of a threat to your 2nd Amendment rights?
It might not be a categorical threat, and it might've been an isolated incident, but it certainly is unnerving. It indicates a willingness on the part of the authorities to misuse an emergency to abuse the rights of the citizenry.
Look at it from another angle - say the police and military had gone house-to-house in NOLA, making blanket arrests and detentions of anyone they found home, tossing their houses in warrantless searches, with the rationale of looking for looted merchandise. Would that be troubling to you? Why or why not?
Jason, You're never too late.
ReplyDeleteAll of it's troubling to me. But, what I object to is the pro-gun position that what happened during the Katrina crisis is indicative of some "danger" to their rights. That's exaggerated bullshit.
This is the very time when people need their guns the most, to stop looters etc. The troubling thing is not what happened, per se, but the glimpse of what could happen on a larger scale in the future. If government officials think they can simply abridge rights affirmed in the constitution in an emergency, heaven help us. This is what happened with entreatment camps during WWII. God forbid.
DeleteAs long as the government can afford to post an armed guard at my house, then I don't "need" a gun. But it's not about "need" anyway. It's not the government's job (at least not in America) to determine my "need" and then give it to me out of what they take from everyone. It's all of our job to provide for each other what we can. If I want a gun to protect my family, I HAVE that right, it is a right that shall not be abridged. If an ordinance is passed saying that my gun will be taken, I will post at the edge of my property that no one may enter without a specific warrant and violators will be shot. Period.
ReplyDeleteIf an ordinance is passed, that would be the specific warrant. Did you think of that, tough guy?
DeleteAn ordinance does not constitute due process. Now you are just being silly. The State or city does not have the authority to override federal law.
ReplyDeleteWhat I should have said is if an ordinance is passed then warrants would easily be issued.
Delete"The State or city does not have the authority to override federal law." That's an interesting comment in light of the proposed federal AWB. Most gun rights folks disagree with you.