Guns are part of who we are as Americans

[Markle]

You’re both wrong about Katrina.

It was a rare aberration neither authorized nor sanctioned by any lawmaking body, no guns were retained by the City, and further seizures were prohibited by a Federal court.

The right to due process and the rule of law worked, ensuring that there won’t be another similar incident.

‘Ad hoc gun seizures are also unlikely to happen there, or anywhere else, again. On the heels of that DOJ investigation, the city’s police department made sweeping reforms. President Bush signed bipartisan legislation “to prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster,” except temporarily “as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation.” And Compass, the NOPD superintendent who’d ordered the gun confiscation, is long gone. He resigned less than three weeks after issuing his fateful order.’

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/08/nra-hurricane-katrina-gun-confiscation/

Yet conservatives continue to propagate the Katrina lie – proving most on the right to be nothing but dishonest demagogues.

Mayor Ray Nagin was also complicit with the police chief in ordering the confiscation of guns. Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005 after which was the confiscation. The city did not reach an agreement to return the weapons until 2008. Not surprising, crime and murders skyrocketed.

Obviously you didn’t bother to read the linked article, remaining willfully ignorant.

The seizing of firearms was not the result of a sanctioned act of government, no elected representatives of government passed any such measure, law enforcement had no government authorization to seize firearms.

When challenged in Federal court the seizures were declared unlawful and subject to injunction; Federal legislation was enacted to prevent future occurrences.

You and others on the right who attempt to propagate the ‘Katrina’ lie succeed in only illustrating your dishonesty; references to ‘Katrina’ by conservatives fail as a slippery slope fallacy, nothing but meritless demagoguery.

Mayor Ray Nagin was, obviously, elected mayor of New Orleans. No one said there was not an injunction but guns were confiscated from innocent, law-abiding citizens. Mayor Ray Nagin proffered that he had an authority to confiscate the guns because of the emergency and disaster.

As you know, Mayor Ray Nagin is currently serving time in prison for fraud and bribery.

New Orleans Mayor Finally Admits Illegal Gun Confiscation, Settles With NRA
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2008

After a three-year legal battle over the unconstitutional confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during Hurricane Katrina, this week, the City of New Orleans agreed to settle a lawsuit initiated by NRA. A permanent injunction has been issued against the city, Mayor Ray Nagin, and current Police Chief Warren Riley. The Second Amendment Foundation assisted NRA in the legal battle against Mayor Ray Nagin and the City of New Orleans.

NRA-ILA | New Orleans Mayor Finally Admits Illegal Gun Confiscation, Settles With NRA

Scalise: NRA, New Orleans to settle suit over Katrina gun seizures
Oct 8, 2008

Washington, DC -- Congressman Steve Scalise made the following comment today regarding the National Rifle Association (NRA) and New Orleans agreement to settle a lawsuit over the seizure of firearms by police officers following Hurricane Katrina.

In the 2006 regular session of the Louisiana Legislature, Scalise passed the law (H.B. 760), backed by the NRA that prohibits the seizure and confiscation of firearms during an emergency or disaster.

“It is long past due that this issue gets resolved. Today's settlement sends a message across the nation that no city can take away our 2nd Amendment right to protect our families. The law is clear that no one has the right to take a firearm from a law-abiding citizen. I will continue fighting to defend our 2nd Amendment rights in Congress, and have co-sponsored several bills that protect these rights.”

Scalise: NRA, New Orleans to settle suit over Katrina gun seizures | Congressman Steve Scalise

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You’re both wrong about Katrina.

It was a rare aberration neither authorized nor sanctioned by any lawmaking body, no guns were retained by the City, and further seizures were prohibited by a Federal court.

The right to due process and the rule of law worked, ensuring that there won’t be another similar incident.

‘Ad hoc gun seizures are also unlikely to happen there, or anywhere else, again. On the heels of that DOJ investigation, the city’s police department made sweeping reforms. President Bush signed bipartisan legislation “to prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster,” except temporarily “as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation.” And Compass, the NOPD superintendent who’d ordered the gun confiscation, is long gone. He resigned less than three weeks after issuing his fateful order.’

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/08/nra-hurricane-katrina-gun-confiscation/

Yet conservatives continue to propagate the Katrina lie – proving most on the right to be nothing but dishonest demagogues.

Mayor Ray Nagin was also complicit with the police chief in ordering the confiscation of guns. Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005 after which was the confiscation. The city did not reach an agreement to return the weapons until 2008. Not surprising, crime and murders skyrocketed.

Obviously you didn’t bother to read the linked article, remaining willfully ignorant.

The seizing of firearms was not the result of a sanctioned act of government, no elected representatives of government passed any such measure, law enforcement had no government authorization to seize firearms.

When challenged in Federal court the seizures were declared unlawful and subject to injunction; Federal legislation was enacted to prevent future occurrences.

You and others on the right who attempt to propagate the ‘Katrina’ lie succeed in only illustrating your dishonesty; references to ‘Katrina’ by conservatives fail as a slippery slope fallacy, nothing but meritless demagoguery.

Mayor Ray Nagin was, obviously, elected mayor of New Orleans. No one said there was not an injunction but guns were confiscated from innocent, law-abiding citizens. Mayor Ray Nagin proffered that he had an authority to confiscate the guns because of the emergency and disaster.

As you know, Mayor Ray Nagin is currently serving time in prison for fraud and bribery.

New Orleans Mayor Finally Admits Illegal Gun Confiscation, Settles With NRA
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2008

After a three-year legal battle over the unconstitutional confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during Hurricane Katrina, this week, the City of New Orleans agreed to settle a lawsuit initiated by NRA. A permanent injunction has been issued against the city, Mayor Ray Nagin, and current Police Chief Warren Riley. The Second Amendment Foundation assisted NRA in the legal battle against Mayor Ray Nagin and the City of New Orleans.

NRA-ILA | New Orleans Mayor Finally Admits Illegal Gun Confiscation, Settles With NRA

Scalise: NRA, New Orleans to settle suit over Katrina gun seizures
Oct 8, 2008

Washington, DC -- Congressman Steve Scalise made the following comment today regarding the National Rifle Association (NRA) and New Orleans agreement to settle a lawsuit over the seizure of firearms by police officers following Hurricane Katrina.

In the 2006 regular session of the Louisiana Legislature, Scalise passed the law (H.B. 760), backed by the NRA that prohibits the seizure and confiscation of firearms during an emergency or disaster.

“It is long past due that this issue gets resolved. Today's settlement sends a message across the nation that no city can take away our 2nd Amendment right to protect our families. The law is clear that no one has the right to take a firearm from a law-abiding citizen. I will continue fighting to defend our 2nd Amendment rights in Congress, and have co-sponsored several bills that protect these rights.”

Scalise: NRA, New Orleans to settle suit over Katrina gun seizures | Congressman Steve Scalise

Thank you for proving my point that the seizure order was unlawful, not the act of elected government, and enjoined by the courts.

You’ve also reaffirmed the fact that rightwing references to ‘Katrina’ fail as a slippery slope fallacy – the notion that there will be ‘another Katrina’ is completely false and devoid of merit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As an American, I shouldn't be put behind the 8 ball and feel compelled to have a firearm. So far I have escaped the madness. This shouldn't be what being an American is all about. I got nothing here. I don't have a PAC that supports my right to question the second amendment. Not liberal dipshit stuff. No, grown up mature Americans tired of political madness stuff.

And again you have that right to be unarmed. But you don’t have the right to demand that I be as well.

This is a moronic and ignorant statement.

No one says anyone has the ‘right’ to disarm another – rights concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons.

Government cannot prohibit a person from possessing a handgun, the possession of a handgun pursuant to lawful self-defense is subject to Constitutional protections.

Any law enacted making it illegal to possess a handgun would be struck down by the courts as a violation of the Second Amendment.

Oh really?! Then explain George Soros, explain Everytown. Explain any gun control group out there. Their entire goal is complete civilian disarmament. Banning a class of firearms based on its “looks” is a constitutional infringement. “May issue” states are a constitutional infringement. Gun registrations are a constitutional infringement. Don’t sit here & say stupid stuff because that is precisely the agenda of the Left. And the courts are not a reliable protector of rights either. That has been shown time & time again by certain circuit courts.

lol

Yes, really!

Typical conservative ignorance and idiocy: a moronic reference to ‘Soros’ followed by a word salad.

A private citizen has the right to advocate for the enactment of a law they support – such as a firearm regulatory measure.

He has the right to advocate for a law banning handguns, but such a law won’t be enacted because it’s un-Constitutional; or if enacted, it would be invalidated by the courts because it violates the Second Amendment.

Very good. So you now think that banning a class of guns is unconstitutional. Same goes with ARs.

Wrong.

What someone ‘thinks’ is irrelevant.

Only court rulings are relevant.

The Supreme Court has held that banning handguns is un-Constitutional; the lower courts have held that banning assault weapons is Constitutional – such bans will remain Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

The Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited’ – government has the authority to regulate firearms consistent with Second Amendment case law, regardless of what some might ‘think’ with regard to the efficacy or appropriateness of such laws.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You fucking moron. History has many examples of lesser armed citizens taking power away from tyrants.

Guns are only useless to pussies like you who are afraid to use them if necessary.

I was in the Army for 11 years. Any idiot can shoot a gun. Solving problems takes a lot more than that.

Actually, what history is full of is armed people toppling bad governments and replacing them with even worse governments. Russia 1917, Cuba 1959, Iran 1979.

Which is why the Framers didn’t authorize such nonsense in the Second Amendment.

 

[justoffal]

That, in my opinion is why the de-nationalizing hordes are so interested in grabbing them.

So was slavery.

So was genocide of native Americans

So was racism.

"We've always done it that way" isn't a good argument.

Does it make sense now? Most of us don't have to hunt for food now.

The two arguments for gun ownership today is " I needs my guns to fight off the criminals" when in fact, most gun deaths are from people you know.

The other is "I needs my guns to fights the gummit!" which is even stupider, because the government has tanks and bombers and can take you out with impunity if they really wanted to.

The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment so you have no argument whatsoever there... go back to school

I guess that, with the average age in the military being 20 years old or less, what you are saying is possible. Wisdom comes several years after that age grouping. However, failure to obey a lawful order is still mutiny, and can be punishable by death.

The military confiscating firearms is an unlawful order...
The government would not use the military to begin with they would have to use the CIA/FBI/NSA/etc.
The military is bound to enforce the constitution not the federal government

Rustic, it is always interesting to visit your alternative universe in which the government is going to take away the guns, but the military will revolt and stop them, and will protect our republic at the point of a bayonet from the paranoids who are running everything through the Illuminie. Visiting your world is like viewing a Salvador Dali painting...

A Dali painting...kinda like Venuzuela is now. Giraffe steak anyone? It's great with a little A-1.

Jo

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Guns don't keep anyone safe.

The NRA has become the arm of the gun industry, trying to keep people like you scared so you want more and more guns.

And it works.

That's a lie, of course guns keep people safe.

People can defend themselves with guns but the notion that guns ‘keep people safe’ is questionable – a gun in the home is more likely to kill its owner than a home invader.

Gunowners need to understand the importance of gun safety and to keep guns secure at all times.

And yes, the NRA has clearly pursued a policy of lies and misinformation to propagate the myth that owning a gun has anything to do with ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’ – which in fact it does not.

The NRA has also propagated the lie that ‘the government’ wants to ‘take your guns,’ when nothing could be further from the truth.

The NRA engages in nothing but fearmongering and demagoguery, having no problem with either benefiting the gun industry.

 

[Pilot1]

So Hillary, and Rep. Swalwell never said they want UK, and Australia style gun bans, gun confiscations, and MANDATORY gun "buybacks"?

How can government buy back my gun when they never gave it to me in the first place? I earned the money to buy one LEGALLY.

From that bastion of conservatism owned by Brian Roberts of Comcast (Obama Bundler, and Fundraiser) NBC.

Democratic congressman: Force gun owners to get rid of assault weapons

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So was slavery.

So was genocide of native Americans

So was racism.

"We've always done it that way" isn't a good argument.

Does it make sense now? Most of us don't have to hunt for food now.

The two arguments for gun ownership today is " I needs my guns to fight off the criminals" when in fact, most gun deaths are from people you know.

The other is "I needs my guns to fights the gummit!" which is even stupider, because the government has tanks and bombers and can take you out with impunity if they really wanted to.

The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment so you have no argument whatsoever there... go back to school

I guess that, with the average age in the military being 20 years old or less, what you are saying is possible. Wisdom comes several years after that age grouping. However, failure to obey a lawful order is still mutiny, and can be punishable by death.

The military confiscating firearms is an unlawful order...
The government would not use the military to begin with they would have to use the CIA/FBI/NSA/etc.
The military is bound to enforce the constitution not the federal government

Rustic, it is always interesting to visit your alternative universe in which the government is going to take away the guns, but the military will revolt and stop them, and will protect our republic at the point of a bayonet from the paranoids who are running everything through the Illuminie. Visiting your world is like viewing a Salvador Dali painting...

A Dali painting...kinda like Venuzuela is now. Giraffe steak anyone? It's great with a little A-1.

Jo

Neither a Dali painting nor Venezuela have anything to do with the United States.

 

[justoffal]

The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment so you have no argument whatsoever there... go back to school

I guess that, with the average age in the military being 20 years old or less, what you are saying is possible. Wisdom comes several years after that age grouping. However, failure to obey a lawful order is still mutiny, and can be punishable by death.

The military confiscating firearms is an unlawful order...
The government would not use the military to begin with they would have to use the CIA/FBI/NSA/etc.
The military is bound to enforce the constitution not the federal government

Rustic, it is always interesting to visit your alternative universe in which the government is going to take away the guns, but the military will revolt and stop them, and will protect our republic at the point of a bayonet from the paranoids who are running everything through the Illuminie. Visiting your world is like viewing a Salvador Dali painting...

A Dali painting...kinda like Venuzuela is now. Giraffe steak anyone? It's great with a little A-1.

Jo

Neither a Dali painting nor Venezuela have anything to do with the United States.

Sure they do. In the not too distant past those who predicted Venezuela's current predicament were mocked as gloom-n-doomers.... And yet it seems that it is indeed possible to have a Dali-type landscape in reality.

 

[justoffal]

You fucking moron. History has many examples of lesser armed citizens taking power away from tyrants.

Guns are only useless to pussies like you who are afraid to use them if necessary.

I was in the Army for 11 years. Any idiot can shoot a gun. Solving problems takes a lot more than that.

Actually, what history is full of is armed people toppling bad governments and replacing them with even worse governments. Russia 1917, Cuba 1959, Iran 1979.

Funny how you forgot to mention America 1776.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Guns don't keep anyone safe.

The NRA has become the arm of the gun industry, trying to keep people like you scared so you want more and more guns.

And it works.

That's a lie, of course guns keep people safe.

People can defend themselves with guns but the notion that guns ‘keep people safe’ is questionable – a gun in the home is more likely to kill its owner than a home invader.

Gunowners need to understand the importance of gun safety and to keep guns secure at all times.

And yes, the NRA has clearly pursued a policy of lies and misinformation to propagate the myth that owning a gun has anything to do with ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’ – which in fact it does not.

The NRA has also propagated the lie that ‘the government’ wants to ‘take your guns,’ when nothing could be further from the truth.

The NRA engages in nothing but fearmongering and demagoguery, having no problem with either benefiting the gun industry.

Where exactly did you read those words published by the NRA? " The government wants to take your guns". ???

Jo

 

[KGB]

And again you have that right to be unarmed. But you don’t have the right to demand that I be as well.

This is a moronic and ignorant statement.

No one says anyone has the ‘right’ to disarm another – rights concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons.

Government cannot prohibit a person from possessing a handgun, the possession of a handgun pursuant to lawful self-defense is subject to Constitutional protections.

Any law enacted making it illegal to possess a handgun would be struck down by the courts as a violation of the Second Amendment.

Oh really?! Then explain George Soros, explain Everytown. Explain any gun control group out there. Their entire goal is complete civilian disarmament. Banning a class of firearms based on its “looks” is a constitutional infringement. “May issue” states are a constitutional infringement. Gun registrations are a constitutional infringement. Don’t sit here & say stupid stuff because that is precisely the agenda of the Left. And the courts are not a reliable protector of rights either. That has been shown time & time again by certain circuit courts.

lol

Yes, really!

Typical conservative ignorance and idiocy: a moronic reference to ‘Soros’ followed by a word salad.

A private citizen has the right to advocate for the enactment of a law they support – such as a firearm regulatory measure.

He has the right to advocate for a law banning handguns, but such a law won’t be enacted because it’s un-Constitutional; or if enacted, it would be invalidated by the courts because it violates the Second Amendment.

Very good. So you now think that banning a class of guns is unconstitutional. Same goes with ARs.

Wrong.

What someone ‘thinks’ is irrelevant.

Only court rulings are relevant.

The Supreme Court has held that banning handguns is un-Constitutional; the lower courts have held that banning assault weapons is Constitutional – such bans will remain Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

The Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited’ – government has the authority to regulate firearms consistent with Second Amendment case law, regardless of what some might ‘think’ with regard to the efficacy or appropriateness of such laws.

A few justices on the Supreme Court would tell you that you’re wrong about lower court decisions.

Thomas impatient at SCOTUS's inaction on 2nd Amendment - CNNPolitics

 

[Skull Pilot]

Vietnam, Afghanistan.

You mean, "Gee, we got tired of beating you into a pulp. I mean, it was fun the first couple of years, but now it's getting boring and we aren't really accomplishing anything."

This is your best argument, buddy?

Trust me, your fat ass would never want to live like a Vietcong or a Muhajedin....

You do know that we lost in Vietnam don't you?

No that's not what happened. The army was handcuffed by politics.

Jo

And we lost

 

[Skull Pilot]

Guns are like sex. We never think about the long term consequences of either until it's too late.

Speak for yourself

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's sadly true. Guns don't have that same reputation they used to. And people more often that not misuse them. When that dweeb shot up a preschool, and THEN when pro gunners sought to minimize that, that was the finial nail in the coffin. Enough.

That is blatantly untrue. The only people that misuse them are criminals. The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding, and use the responsibly. They would be the only one that yet more gun laws would effect. So you are just plain wrong.

I learn from mistakes. So all the gun violence, those are HUGE mistakes we need to stop repeating. People don't need guns like say, dialysis or oxygen. No, so let's stop kidding our selves. The constitution doesn't say anything about breathing or kidney health. But, ya know...some things transcend.

If you want to be unarmed, that’s your choice. You don’t have the right to demand the same of others.

As an American, I shouldn't be put behind the 8 ball and feel compelled to have a firearm. So far I have escaped the madness. This shouldn't be what being an American is all about. I got nothing here. I don't have a PAC that supports my right to question the second amendment. Not liberal dipshit stuff. No, grown up mature Americans tired of political madness stuff.

You aren't compelled at all
If you don't want a gun don't buy one but it's none of your business if anyone else buys one

 

[miketx]

That's sadly true. Guns don't have that same reputation they used to. And people more often that not misuse them. When that dweeb shot up a preschool, and THEN when pro gunners sought to minimize that, that was the finial nail in the coffin. Enough.

That is blatantly untrue. The only people that misuse them are criminals. The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding, and use the responsibly. They would be the only one that yet more gun laws would effect. So you are just plain wrong.

I learn from mistakes. So all the gun violence, those are HUGE mistakes we need to stop repeating. People don't need guns like say, dialysis or oxygen. No, so let's stop kidding our selves. The constitution doesn't say anything about breathing or kidney health. But, ya know...some things transcend.

If you want to be unarmed, that’s your choice. You don’t have the right to demand the same of others.

As an American, I shouldn't be put behind the 8 ball and feel compelled to have a firearm. So far I have escaped the madness. This shouldn't be what being an American is all about. I got nothing here. I don't have a PAC that supports my right to question the second amendment. Not liberal dipshit stuff. No, grown up mature Americans tired of political madness stuff.

No one is making you buy a gun, but YOU want to stop others from doing so.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You moron. You Moon Bats are dumber than door knobs. The NRA is the biggest gun safety organization in the world.

33,000 gun deaths a year.. They really suck at the "gun Safety" thing.

more than 2\3 of those are suicides and about 400 a year are accidents

for the mathematical challenged that means 1.2% are accidents

That's a pretty good safety record by any standard

 

[Skull Pilot]

The 33,000 number is irrelevant as it includes Suicides.

Suicides would commit hari-kari, hang themselves,poison themselves, immolate themselves or leap from buildings if they didn't have a gun.

Okay... except they don't... seems to me that leaping from a building is a lot easier than getting a gun.

But it's a lot scarier

If people are going to choose to kill themselves why not let them choose how they want to do it?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I guess that, with the average age in the military being 20 years old or less, what you are saying is possible. Wisdom comes several years after that age grouping. However, failure to obey a lawful order is still mutiny, and can be punishable by death.

The military confiscating firearms is an unlawful order...
The government would not use the military to begin with they would have to use the CIA/FBI/NSA/etc.
The military is bound to enforce the constitution not the federal government

Rustic, it is always interesting to visit your alternative universe in which the government is going to take away the guns, but the military will revolt and stop them, and will protect our republic at the point of a bayonet from the paranoids who are running everything through the Illuminie. Visiting your world is like viewing a Salvador Dali painting...

A Dali painting...kinda like Venuzuela is now. Giraffe steak anyone? It's great with a little A-1.

Jo

Neither a Dali painting nor Venezuela have anything to do with the United States.

Sure they do. In the not too distant past those who predicted Venezuela's current predicament were mocked as gloom-n-doomers.... And yet it seems that it is indeed possible to have a Dali-type landscape in reality.

I am expecting to see black helicopters enforcing the New World Order at any minute....

 

[justoffal]

The military confiscating firearms is an unlawful order...
The government would not use the military to begin with they would have to use the CIA/FBI/NSA/etc.
The military is bound to enforce the constitution not the federal government

Rustic, it is always interesting to visit your alternative universe in which the government is going to take away the guns, but the military will revolt and stop them, and will protect our republic at the point of a bayonet from the paranoids who are running everything through the Illuminie. Visiting your world is like viewing a Salvador Dali painting...

A Dali painting...kinda like Venuzuela is now. Giraffe steak anyone? It's great with a little A-1.

Jo

Neither a Dali painting nor Venezuela have anything to do with the United States.

Sure they do. In the not too distant past those who predicted Venezuela's current predicament were mocked as gloom-n-doomers.... And yet it seems that it is indeed possible to have a Dali-type landscape in reality.

I am expecting to see black helicopters enforcing the New World Order at any minute....

What makes you think it's not happening already?

Jo