Some Justice for New Orleans Gun Owners

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Dragoon68, Sep 24, 2005.

  1. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now we have the force a US District Court behind the fact that the New Orleans confiscation of weapons owned by residents was indeed illegal as well as stupid. Now the Mayor and Chief of Police can understand that NOT "only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons" but so are the residents. This is a victory over arrogance in government. It's another example of the good work the NRA does to help protect our rights. Who has the guns that were stolen by the police? When and how will they be returned to their rightful owners?


     
  2. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Sounds like the locals wanted to impose martial law for no good reason other than a power grab. They prove how frightful the expression is, "I'm from the government and I am here to help you."

    In this case, the government had sided with the criminals openly.
     
  3. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    It sure pointed out to the haters of private gun ownership, how easy the confiscation of guns will be in the future if they (social engineers) need to disarm us for their agenda/s.

    The NRA members nearly to a man will declare how it would be impossible for the neighborhood sheriff to take their guns.
     
  4. OCC

    OCC
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I have a question. Is it ok for criminals to shoot at rescue workers and police officers? If they didn't have guns they wouldn't have been able to shoot at them. How can police and rescue workers do their jobs when they are being shot at? Rescue workers have no guns, police have limited ammunition.

    dragoon, I respect your opinion but find it a bit humourous. If you believe that the government wants to take everyone's guns away in order to have power over them, wouldn't that make you a conspiracy theorist?
     
  5. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Law breakers - of the type that would shoot at rescue workers and prey upon the unarmed or weaker persons - will always have weapons no matter what laws are in place. These persons have no respect for the lives or property of their fellow mankind. Law abiding citizens need the ability to equalize the odds against such persons. Law enforcement exists to help those citizens provide for their own defense. Law enforcement does not exist to disarm the public or to be "over" them. We can not depend upon law enforcement being readily available to handle every situation in times of dire need. That has proven to be true in nearly every major disaster. Disarming law abiding citizens is a bad mistake for our security and our liberty. Citizens have the primary responsibility to provide for order amongst themselves. Law enforcement is hired by them - at the local level - to help accomplish that goal. Having an armed public gives one last protection against aspiring tyrants even in a republican democracy. That was understood at the time our nation was founded but, among many, the reasons have been forgotten. People have come to believe that all problems can and will be solved by calling 911 when, in fact, there are many times when that will not happen.
     
  6. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Individuals most ban together through organizations such as the NRA to pursue every means to insure our liberty is preserved in the right to own, possess, and use weapons for the defense of ourselves, our families, our property, and to be ready to assist law enforcement in times of dire need when ordinary order breaks down.

    We need to give strong consideration to the establishment of local militia units at the neighborhood, town, city, and county levels than can meet any threats to the breakdown of civil order in times of need. We are likely to see more cases where the normal law enforcement and even the National Guard are not able to meet the needs of localized areas.

    We need to encourage all able bodied persons to procure and learn how to use personal weapons so that they present a serious deterrent to persons who have no respect for life or property and would use any condition to take advance of unarmed or weaker persons.
     
  7. OCC

    OCC
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Yes, I know that the criminals will always have the weapons. I don't see that as an excuse though.

    You are half right. Law enforcement is not over us...unless we break the law. I don't know what it's like there but here law enforcement is not hired to help provide order...they are hired to PROVIDE the order. They don't ask us to help them with our guns.

    If you DO want to help with "law enforcement" that's fine then. But you don't have the right to do it when someone is persecuting you for your faith. The Bible tells us how to handle that.

    Final question. Is it fact that the government wants to disarm the public so that they can persecute the public? Wouldn't that make you a conspiracy theorist? And if it were true, what does that say about your government...when your government IS the people? Could that happen in the 'best' country in the world?
     
  8. OCC

    OCC
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    "The NRA members nearly to a man will declare how it would be impossible for the neighborhood sheriff to take their guns."

    Maybe so...would they be honouring God?

    Dragoon, isn't the right to bear arms in the context of forming a well regulated militia? Is your neighbourhood a well regulated militia? How come the Jewish nation in biblical times didn't have this 'right'?
     
  9. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not that interested in a "gun rights" debate right now. I have too many other things on my mind. Right now, I'm just very glad the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana sided with the NRA. It's a small victory in the right direction. A favorable US Supreme Court ruling would be even better!
     
  10. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because we don't have a King any more. We kicked him out a long time ago.
     
  11. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hopefully, in your country, they'll always be able to do that for you and will never abuse the power you've turned over to them. Here, in America, we trust neither and reserve our right to protect ourselves.
     
  12. OCC

    OCC
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    That's fine if you don't want to debate.

    Was God pleased with you "kicking out the king" back then?

    I hope they never abuse their power here either. And we didn't give it to them. God did. Romans says so. But still...we can't be sure they would abuse this power. That's for a conspiracy theorist to theorize about.

    Here in Canada we trust niether as well. Many of us trust God to protect us.
     
  13. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't mind debating it at all. I'm just not into an intense debate on this subject right now. I'm still unwinding a bit from Hurricane Rita and, knowing how intense that subject can become, choose to avoid it temporarily.

    The people in this nation certainly benefited from being removed for the yoke of tyranny under which they were subjects of the King of England and his harsh rule over them. I believe that our founders felt God desired that they overthrow the King and set up a more perfect form of government with which God would be more pleased.

    I'm certain you are referring to the scripture in Romans concerning government "ordained by God".

    This still applies today as it did when it was written. It clearly indicates that God recognizes and ordains the concept of civil government among mankind during his temporal time upon this earth.

    The key difference is that in those days governments were authoritarian and headed by a monarch with absolute power over their subjects. Our government today, in the United States of America, is headed by the citizens of the nation in whom final power is vested and the government only has those powers given to it through our Constitution and the laws created under it.

    We do not have a king or emperor to whom we are subject. We have a system of justice of which each one of us has a part from the ballot box to trail by jury. With this freedom comes a responsibility. We no longer bow to a king or emperor nor can we blame one who is evil for the actions of our nation. The government we have now wields the sword of justice on our behalf and its blood is no our hands thus making us responsible for and giving us authority over its use.

    We have no leaders to who we pay tribute as being greater than any one of us. We have leaders to whom we may choose to pay respect for the offices they hold on our behalf. We find this method of self government with its balance of power and accountability to the people to be more perfect than any form previously known.

    We trust God Almighty finds this an improvement over than of older times through which His "ministers" might now more likely serve His needs than fill their own coffers with gold on the backs of peasants.

    Americans, as a hold, obviously trusted in God Almighty considering the many references to His name in the founding documents of their state and federal governments.

    Christians trust God for their eternal salvation and their temporal blessings. They ask God for the wisdom, strength, courage, and means needed for their earthly walk. One aspect of that walk is the protection of self, family, property, and others from potential harm at the hands of those who have no respect for life or property of others. The strong among us have a duty to do that for the weaker among us.

    [ September 25, 2005, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Dragoon68 ]
     
  14. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    ------"I have a question. Is it ok for criminals to shoot at rescue workers and police officers? If they didn't have guns they wouldn't have been able to shoot at them. How can police and rescue workers do their jobs when they are being shot at? Rescue workers have no guns, police have limited ammunition."

    Aren't you haveing a criminal shooting spree in Toronto right now? What good has gun control done, except make the criminals bolder and the good folks more vunerable? The idea of stopping criminals by not letting any of us have guns is not working in Toronto, it just does not work. Now we have seen in NO that the Govenmeant can not provide order under all circumstances, so we need to be armed.

    ------"they are hired to PROVIDE the order."

    I was a police officer. And on a given night we had 12 to 20 officers on duty for a 100,000 population. The police cannot provide order, they can only HELP the citizens keep it. Only in a dictatorship can the gov or police qurantee order by tyranical means.
     
  15. kubel

    kubel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    0
    Glad to see the government put in it's place by the people [​IMG] .

    As far as the gun debate:

    We are guaranteed the right to bear arms. Armed citizens deter tyranny. If you don't believe tyranny can exist, look at history. It has once been said that the second amendment is "the palladium of the liberties of the republic". Also, armed citizens can protect themselves. When law enforcement is busy looting Walmarts, what is there to protect the law abiding American citizen in an emergency like Katrina? The gun is.

    I am 100% pro-2nd amendment, and in my view, the government went way overboard when it took guns away from law abiding citizens. Looking through modern history, citizens generally lose their rights after an emergency, and tyrants rise from the ashes of destruction.

    History gives us the warning of the Reichstag Fire in Germany. We should never pretend that a republic is not capable of becoming a dictatorship. Tyrants have power over the police and the military. Where is your protection from them? Is it with sticks and stones?
     
  16. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    These words still apply today and perhaps more so. Gun control laws strongly favor the hardened criminals among us. There are too many of both these days.
     
  17. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    There were no law enforcement agents to protect Terrell Hughley's property in Port Arthur, Texas during Hurricane Rita but he didn't need them because he was well armed.

    Rita's Wrath Rips Up Coast's Rural Towns

     
  18. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    My point, obviously not well put, was that even though the NRA people say they won't give up their arms, the incident in LA. proves otherwise.

    Honoring God would be fulfilling my duty as a husband and father to protect my family, and since the Constitution and Bill of Rights allows it, it is good. As much as I deplore taking another's life I would do so to protect my family. In a heartbeat.
     
  19. OCC

    OCC
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    No sticks and stones...Jesus Christ. I never said I don't believe tyranny can exist. I will say this though...so bloody what. Is tyranny bigger than Jesus Christ?
     
  20. OCC

    OCC
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    My point, obviously not well put, was that even though the NRA people say they won't give up their arms, the incident in LA. proves otherwise.

    Honoring God would be fulfilling my duty as a husband and father to protect my family, and since the Constitution and Bill of Rights allows it, it is good. As much as I deplore taking another's life I would do so to protect my family. In a heartbeat.
    </font>[/QUOTE]hillclimber, I would protect my family as well. but I would not use a gun and kill someone. In the event that I would, I would know that I was wrong. There is no excuse for it, even if you are "protecting your family". I don't know where the Bible tells us to kill in order to protect our family. It does tell us to hate our father and mother (in comparison to our love for Christ). If it does tell us to kill to protect our family, thus honouring God, then I am open to it. Please show me where it says that.

    To Bunyon: we may be having a shooting spree in Toronto. You have them over there too. I guess these criminals doing the shooting figured they had the right to bear arms. Maybe they were lunatics and thought they were protecting themselves or their families.

    In any case, if they didn't have the guns, would the shooting spree happen? BTW...any sane American with the right to bear arms could one day go nuts and go on a shooting spree, claim the right to bear arms, say his mother beat him up when he was a tyke and he feared for his life cuz some mean guy who looked like his mama made a face at him.
     

Share This Page

Loading...