The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Katrina's Latest Victim

[antifederalist]

You're a cop. Innocent, law-abiding citizens are fending for themselves in a city ravaged by a natural disaster, and the only thing protecting them from rampaging gangs of looting, raping murderers is a shotgun. What do you, an agent of the state, do to "protect and serve"? Why, take the gun away, of course:

New Orleans Begins Confiscating Firearms as Water Recedes (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/national/nationalspecial/08cnd-storm.html?ex=1126843200&en=3848efb)

NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 8 - Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police officers began confiscating weapons, including legally registered firearms, from civilians in preparation for a mass forced evacuation of the residents still living here.

No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said. ...

When you're down, it's nice to know that the government is there to make sure you stay down.

"Excuse me, officer, but could you move a little to your left? Your jackboot is starting to crush my Adam's apple."

[GovernmentIsDangerous]

great analysis of it here also: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september2005/090905gunconfiscation.htm

[Aaron]

great analysis of it here also: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september2005/090905gunconfiscation.htm


I Agree 100% :)

[TheSeventhStooge]

I hate to sound cynical here, but is there anyone on this forum that is surprised at this?

Think about it; how long has it been since we had a majority (or even a significant minority) of politicians who don't use the Constitution as toilet paper? How long has it been since we have had presidents, senators, council members, etc., who remember that the Constitution is the supreme law of this land and that EVERYONE is subject to it?

I have a brilliant idea! Let's call a new Constitutional Convention, let's vote to scrap the one we have (since we aren't using it), and let's write up a completely new Constitution. In this one, however, let's make sure we give the government all the power and authority it needs to do anything it pleases at anytime it wants. Let's make sure it is allowed to: 1) run up a huge a debt as it pleases, 2) do anything it wants to its citizens, 3) change its laws and make any it wants, 4) ... well, you get my drift.

Jay Leno was right.

TheSeventhStooge...

[TimV]

I also support the right to keep and arm bears.

[Jaime]

http://www.scottbieser.com/images/1775vs2005d.jpg

http://www.scottbieser.com/images/1775vs2005d.jpg

[TheSeventhStooge]

That cartoon is outstanding! Thanks for sharing!

TheSeventhStooge...

[Mosaics]

This is the liberal response that I rec'd about the gun confiscation. What do y'all think?

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-secondamendment.htm

[TheSeventhStooge]

I am not a trained apologist or debater, so I don't know how well my post is going to be when it comes to defending the Second Amendment. But I will give it a try.

First of all, for this article to say that the courts have, in effect, "made it a law" that the right for individuals to keep and bear arms can be revoked is mistaken under the Constitution. The courts are able to interpret law, not make law.

Second, the Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." A "militia" is defined, according to Webster's Online Dictionary, as "a part of the organized armed forces of a country liableto call only in emergency; a body of citizens organized for military service." So the militia, in essence, consists of private citizens. For the courts to say that the militia is now the modern-day National Guard is simply wrong. The militia, by definition, IS the people. Therefore, I reject the courts definition of militia.

Third, there is a very simple reason why the NRA and other pro-gun advocates don't go to the courts to challenge the constitutionality of gun laws, and it is so simple I am scared to write it here because I will insult the intelligence of everyone on this board. The reason is because the courts are made up of men and women who interpret the Constitution according to their own views, not the meaning of the Constitution. So any challenge would naturally be refuted.

Fourth, I find it funny that they would use past Supreme Court decisions and interpretations, such as Presser vs. IL, to prove that the Second Amendment means what they think it means, yet most of them would reject Court definitions of Christianity's role in the United States (there was an 1892 decision in which the Court declared, based on the writings of past politicians and the founders, that the US was founded as a Christian nation with Christian principles. Now, this is an issue that I have read massive debates about, but the courts did say this. I wonder how many liberals would acknowledge this? Just goes to prove Lonnie's Second Rule of Politics [I'll tell you what that is later]).

Next, these guys are worried about "state's rights?" When have liberals ever cared about states rights? In the mind of the modern-day typical liberal, the federal government is the all-in-all, the god that must be worshiped, the force that all must bow to. They sure weren't screaming "STATE'S RIGHTS! STATE'S RIGHTS!" on the abortion issue or the homosexual marriage issue, were they? Again, another application of the Second Rule of Politics.

As for the "nuclear straw-man argument," if that is what it takes to defend myself from the government, so be it. I know that sounds radical, and I may take a lot of heat for saying this, but if they want to go that route, so be it. I'll be consistent in this issue. If I need a nuke or a tank to keep the government from taking my Bible, then I need a nuke. Not to mention that there is an implication here- Our society cannot be trusted with tanks, battleships, and nukes, because of our belligerence, but our government can! Another example of "government elitism" in the eyes of liberals, eh? I believe the citizens should have weapons to protect themselves, NOT to force their views on others. Yet, the government has that power because it has weapons. If it wanted to take away my Bible, there really isn't anything that I, right now, could do to keep them from forcibly entering my home and taking it.

Last, I am curious as to the last statement of this article. What "disimprovments" would occur in order to guarantee the individual right to bear arms? Would someone please tell me what they mean by this?

I do not own a firearm. And I probably will never own one. I am too much of a pacifist and I don't know if I would have what it takes to fire one at someone, even if they were attacking me or my loved ones. But I would never deny or criticize the right of others to keep and bear arms, as the Second Amendment says.

Like I said, I am not a very good debater, so I don't know if I made any kind of convincing argument against this article. But hey, at least I tried!

TheSeventhStooge...

P.S. Lonnie's Second Rule of Politics is summed up in one sentence: "Honesty and integrity only matter when your enemy is lying."

There are many corrolaries that can come with this. You can use a tactic that supports your position or helps you, but immediately cry foul if someone else uses that same tactic to advance their position against you. With the above example, liberals use court decisions that support their view on gun control, but then ignore court decisions and opinions that go against their views, such as the 1892 court decision that defined the US as a Christian nation. Conservatives do this just as much as liberals, too.

[Flick]

In an August 24, 2004, United States Department of Justice Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General, the meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is examined exhaustively. The memorandum is lengthy, containing 437 footnotes, but the Principal Deputy Attorney General, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and the Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General all concluded:

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment’s operative clause, setting out a “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution’s structure. The Amendment’s prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England’s Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment’s ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.

[Joe_Liberty]

A Resolution
Drafted by Joe Rogers (Ohio)
Recommend by the Resolutions Committee

Passed by the Constitution Party Nation Committe on 16
Sep 2005


Whereas the Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution guarantees that the right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and

Whereas, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina there
has been malicious and deliberate violation of this
Constitutional right of the people of New Orleans, LA
by military, law enforcement, and private contractor
personnel acting under the authority and command of
the President of these United States, the Governor of
the State of Louisiana, and the Mayor of New Orleans,
and

Whereas Biblical Justice requires that restitution be
at least double for stealing property (Exodus 22),

Therefore, the Constitution Party absolutely condemns
each and every occurrence of such infringement. The
Constitution Party calls upon the President of these
United States, the Governor of the State of Louisiana,
and the Mayor of the city of New Orleans to do the
following:

1) Publicly acknowledge their error for directing,
approving, or permitting these unconstitutional
actions against the people of New Orleans, and

2) Direct all personnel under their respective
authority and command to immediately cease and desist
from these unconstitutional actions against the people
of New Orleans, and

3) Direct that each and every one of these confiscated
firearms and ammunition be immediately returned to
their rightful owners, and

4) Issue a public, written, apology to the victims of
this unconstitutional action and pledge that they will
never ever again under any circumstances during their
tenure of office allow such action to be taken against
the people of their respective jurisdictions, and

5) Make restitution to each and every victim by the
appropriate element of government accountable for the
offense. This restitution shall be a cash payment in
the amount equal to the current fair market value of
the item that was stolen by the unconstitutional
activity.

[LAmama]

"The Militia of the Several States"
Guarantee the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin17.htm

Part 2 of 6

Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
August 5, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

Too many people wrongly assume that the purpose of revitalizing "the Militia of the several States" (or, for that matter, of forming the kind of private citizens "militia" that already exist in several States) is to fight new battles of Lexington and Concord. To the contrary: The goal must be, if at all possible, to deter usurpation and tyranny, so as to make actually fighting any battle here in America unnecessary. Deterrence is always the best defense. And preparedness makes deterrence credible. Besides, the ultimate purpose of revitalizing "the Militia of the several States" is to reassert We the People's control over both the General Government and the States, from the inside and under the law, by infusing with energy a very important constitutional component of those governments that has withered to a present-day impotence and insignificance. Yet nonetheless not to irrelevance--for "the Militia of the several States" remain not only part of the Constitution, but also, with the continuing crisis over "homeland security", more relevant and needed than ever before.

<snip>

[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

To the Founding Fathers, the verbal formulas "a free State" and "a Republican Form of Government" must have been closely connected. Which doubtlessly is why the Second Amendment recites that "[a] well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State"; while Article IV, Section 4 "guarantee[s] * * * every State * * * against Invasion * * * [and] domestic Violence"; and Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 empowers Congress "[t]o call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union" (including Article IV, Section 4), and to "suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". The unity of thought throughout these provisions could not possibly be just accidental.

<snip>

[Flick]

LAmama,

I'm not sure what the purpose of your post is other than to promote the resurgence of militias...which I think is a good thing. In case you're interested, militias across the country are getting coordinated with National Militia Standards and are of late making an effort to resurrect the Committees of Safety. If you want links, let me know.