More 2nd Amendment violations planned in NOLA - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

mikemover · #1 06-07-2006, 05:07 AM

Police chief boldly says in an interview that if there's another natural disaster in New Orleans, they will seize legally-owned and registered firearms once again, as they did after Hurricane Katrina, in spite of the fact that their doing so is HIGHLY illegal and unconstitutional!!!!!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/5/165303.shtml?s=ic

Gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters: The time to get ANGRY about this crap is long overdue!

The 2nd Amendment does NOT say "...the right to bear arms... unless there is a hurricane".

You guys who live down there, it's time to start writing letters and making phone calls! Show up at his office! Let them know in no uncertain terms that you do NOT approve of such blatant, callous disregard for your constitutional rights.

Mike

Botnst · #2 06-07-2006, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

Police chief boldly says in an interview that if there's another natural disaster in New Orleans, they will seize legally-owned and registered firearms once again, as they did after Hurricane Katrina, in spite of the fact that their doing so is HIGHLY illegal and unconstitutional!!!!!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/5/165303.shtml?s=ic

Gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters: The time to get ANGRY about this crap is long overdue!

The 2nd Amendment does NOT say "...the right to bear arms... unless there is a hurricane".

You guys who live down there, it's time to start writing letters and making phone calls! Show up at his office! Let them know in no uncertain terms that you do NOT approve of such blatant, callous disregard for your constitutional rights.

Mike

Registered firearms?

Isn't one of the anti-gun arguments that registration wont lead to seizure?

B

benzene · #3 06-07-2006, 10:38 AM

I think the 'answer' is for everyone in the area to report their guns as stolen to the police. "You came for my gun? What gun? I reported that thing stolen *ages* ago."

Lebenz · #4 06-07-2006, 10:43 AM

What is a name for a government that repeatedly takes our constitutionally guaranteed rights away in the name of “protecting” us?

benzene · #5 06-07-2006, 10:57 AM

I believe that would be a 'dictatorship', Tracy. If you're a conservative you may also know it as a 'nanny state'.

dannym · #6 06-07-2006, 11:34 AM

The Constitution does not give you the right to own a firearm.

Haven't we been here before?

Danny

Jim B. · #7 06-07-2006, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannym

The Constitution does not give you the right to own a firearm.

Haven't we been here before?

Danny

Uh oh, here we go again.

I want my, I want my RPG

mikemover · #8 06-07-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannym

The Constitution does not give you the right to own a firearm.

Haven't we been here before?

Danny

Yes, we've been there before, and you were wrong. You are still wrong.

Thanks for playing.

Mike

mikemover · #9 06-07-2006, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benzene

I think the 'answer' is for everyone in the area to report their guns as stolen to the police. "You came for my gun? What gun? I reported that thing stolen *ages* ago."

Not a bad idea.

Mike

mikemover · #10 06-07-2006, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Registered firearms?

Isn't one of the anti-gun arguments that registration wont lead to seizure?

B

Actually, the word "registered" did not appear in that particular article, I inadvertently added that. The article merely said "legally owned".

But while we're on that subject: I have no objection to background checks or to minimal documentation ("registration", if you will) of firearm ownership. There are pros and cons to firearm registration, but I think the pros tend to outweigh the cons.

Mike

AustinsCE · #11 06-07-2006, 12:43 PM

Its them frikkin cops! i thought they were only here to collect taxes. Funny, it seems history is repeating itself, anyone want to join me in colonizing a new land mass, and warring with the US? It might last 200 years or so.

dannym · #12 06-07-2006, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

Yes, we've been there before, and you were wrong. You are still wrong.

Thanks for playing.

Mike

Sorry, I forgot your always right.

Quote:

In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units. Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state or private restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

I told you before you were wrong and today your still wrong. The sad part is tomorrow you'll still be wrong.

Danny

Botnst · #13 06-07-2006, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannym

Sorry, I forgot your always right.

I told you before you were wrong and today your still wrong. The sad part is tomorrow you'll still be wrong.

Danny

And from the department of "Can't have It Both Ways":

One may argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" — apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments.

In other words, Danny, if we deflate the definition of the people's right to to refer only to the collective, then the First and Fourth Amendments must be re-interpreted to the same. The result is that only the collective society has a freedom of speech, not the individual, and only the collective has a freedom from unreasonable search and siezure, the individual does not have that right.

So in order to narrowly constrain gun ownership by narrowing the definition of people we would also have to constrain freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and unreasonable search and siezure.

That's a steep price, isn't it?

Bot

Lebenz · #14 06-07-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

So in order to narrowly constrain gun ownership by narrowing the definition of people we would also have to constrain freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and unreasonable search and siezure.

Nicely explained!

KylePavao · #15 06-07-2006, 02:32 PM

2nd Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Hmm I think it is in PLAIN English there...

I don't think there is anyway to say that it doesn't allow us to have firearms.

As mikemover said...you are wrong.