First arrest under new Arizona law.

[GuyPinestra]

You have a link to that? I don't recall that particular event happening.

It was on live television, even Geroldo couldn't come up with an adequate excuse for it...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4]NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina - YouTube[/ame]

NRA to settle suit over Katrina gun seizures - USATODAY.com

N.O. Police Returning Guns Confiscated Post-Katrina | Fox News

Here are the top 3 from when I googled "Katrina guns confiscated"

According to the links you exaggerated the facts a little.

You made it sound they went door to door for the sole purpose of removing weapons. That was not the case.

Here, watch this and then tell me she exaggerated...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd8q_rvcAP4&feature=related]Gun Grabbers of Katrina - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Againsheila]

You have a link to that? I don't recall that particular event happening.

It happened, all right. It also took most legal gun owners a year or more to get their weapons BACK, and some of them STILL haven't gotten them returned.

I don't blame them for taking them. But they should have returned them sooner than they did.

They were going into empty and sometimes abandoned houses and if they found weapons they would take them. Their reason is logical if you think about it.

I didn't find the link but they pulled a white couple out of their house, searched it, took their weapons, then released them back into their house, leaving them for any looters or vultures with no way to defend themselves. This I saw on live television on Fox News and you should have seen the look on Geraldo's face. It's would have been comical if the whole thing weren't so repugnant. Even Geraldo couldn't believe what the soldiers were doing.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I found one of them... Look up ^^^...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It was on live television, even Geroldo couldn't come up with an adequate excuse for it...

NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina - YouTube

NRA to settle suit over Katrina gun seizures - USATODAY.com

N.O. Police Returning Guns Confiscated Post-Katrina | Fox News

Here are the top 3 from when I googled "Katrina guns confiscated"

According to the links you exaggerated the facts a little.

You made it sound they went door to door for the sole purpose of removing weapons. That was not the case.

Some people will defend the government no matter what. Those are the ones we have the most to fear. The only thing we need for evil to win is for the good to do nothing.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt is not defending them. Facts are what they are. And the fact is you overstated what happened. They did not go door to door gestapo style taking peoples guns away. If they found weapons in empty house they took them to keep looters from coming and getting them. They took guns away from evacuees that more than likely had no right to carry or own such weapons.

A lawsuit was filed then dropped. If there was an actual case of misconduct the lawsuit would not have been dropped!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It happened, all right. It also took most legal gun owners a year or more to get their weapons BACK, and some of them STILL haven't gotten them returned.

I don't blame them for taking them. But they should have returned them sooner than they did.

They were going into empty and sometimes abandoned houses and if they found weapons they would take them. Their reason is logical if you think about it.

I didn't find the link but they pulled a white couple out of their house, searched it, took their weapons, then released them back into their house, leaving them for any looters or vultures with no way to defend themselves. This I saw on live television on Fox News and you should have seen the look on Geraldo's face. It's would have been comical if the whole thing weren't so repugnant. Even Geraldo couldn't believe what the soldiers were doing.

It's quite possible they had no right to have possession of a firearm.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It was on live television, even Geroldo couldn't come up with an adequate excuse for it...

NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina - YouTube

NRA to settle suit over Katrina gun seizures - USATODAY.com

N.O. Police Returning Guns Confiscated Post-Katrina | Fox News

Here are the top 3 from when I googled "Katrina guns confiscated"

According to the links you exaggerated the facts a little.

You made it sound they went door to door for the sole purpose of removing weapons. That was not the case.

Here, watch this and then tell me she exaggerated...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd8q_rvcAP4&feature=related]Gun Grabbers of Katrina - YouTube[/ame]

Yes she did.

 

[Againsheila]

I don't blame them for taking them. But they should have returned them sooner than they did.

They were going into empty and sometimes abandoned houses and if they found weapons they would take them. Their reason is logical if you think about it.

I didn't find the link but they pulled a white couple out of their house, searched it, took their weapons, then released them back into their house, leaving them for any looters or vultures with no way to defend themselves. This I saw on live television on Fox News and you should have seen the look on Geraldo's face. It's would have been comical if the whole thing weren't so repugnant. Even Geraldo couldn't believe what the soldiers were doing.

It's quite possible they had no right to have possession of a firearm.

The only reason why you don't have a right to a firearm in this country is if you are a felon, are you telling me that little old lady with the unloaded gun was a felon?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I didn't find the link but they pulled a white couple out of their house, searched it, took their weapons, then released them back into their house, leaving them for any looters or vultures with no way to defend themselves. This I saw on live television on Fox News and you should have seen the look on Geraldo's face. It's would have been comical if the whole thing weren't so repugnant. Even Geraldo couldn't believe what the soldiers were doing.

It's quite possible they had no right to have possession of a firearm.

The only reason why you don't have a right to a firearm in this country is if you are a felon, are you telling me that little old lady with the unloaded gun was a felon?

I thought you said it was a couple?

But yes even little old ladies can be convicted felons too. And a convicted felon cannot own or have in their possession a fiream loaded or otherwise.

But how do you know that the weapon in question wasn't traced back to a crime or previously reported stolen. There are many logical reasons one should ponder before rushing to judgement.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I remember being pulled over and I was in the backseat and was asked for my ID....this was in Ga so to me its always been this way.

My best friend got pulled over one night while I was in the passenger seat. Dark, not-terribly-busy road, female cop. She asked if she could see my ID too, because she preferred knowing who she was dealing with. I considered it perfectly reasonable, and not at all "oppressive" or "fascist". It's not a big deal for a cop to ask for ID, especially when you consider that the convenience store clerks do it all the time.

 

[Againsheila]

It's quite possible they had no right to have possession of a firearm.

The only reason why you don't have a right to a firearm in this country is if you are a felon, are you telling me that little old lady with the unloaded gun was a felon?

I thought you said it was a couple?

But yes even little old ladies can be convicted felons too. And a convicted felon cannot own or have in their possession a fiream loaded or otherwise.

But how do you know that the weapon in question wasn't traced back to a crime or previously reported stolen. There are many logical reasons one should ponder before rushing to judgement.

They went door to door taking away guns. They announced on local television that they were going to take away guns. Nothing in there about first making sure the people had no right to guns.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What qualifies as "papers" for the AZ law?
Do people travwelling there need to take extra papers they do not usually carry?
A long form birth certificate?

Hey a valid drivers liscense will suffice. To hear liberals they never take ID with them.....I always take my DL with me, dont you?

People don't need anything other than the same ID they use for a routine traffic stop, or buying alcohol and cigarettes, or cashing a check, or using a credit card, or any of a dozen other everyday events at which they have to identify themselves.

 

[Againsheila]

According to the links you exaggerated the facts a little.

You made it sound they went door to door for the sole purpose of removing weapons. That was not the case.

Here, watch this and then tell me she exaggerated...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd8q_rvcAP4&feature=related]Gun Grabbers of Katrina - YouTube[/ame]

Yes she did.

guess that just goes to show two people can see the same thing and come away with two different ideas as to what it was.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't ever take ID with me anywhere unless I drive. ID's have those RFID chips or verichipds in them, they can track you from space if you have your state ID on you. I don't want the State knowing where I am at always, none of their damn business.

Do you carry a cell phone? Thanks for lying your ass off. Drivers license & State ID's do not have RFID chips in them. There are wallets that block RFID chips in your cards.

Has anyone ever noticed that the people most worried about the state spying on them are the very people the state - not to mention all other people - are LEAST likely to give a damn about?

 

[Cecilie1200]

i guess a police state is ok when it discriminates against people he doesn't like.

O.K. you caught them.

Arizona does not like illegals.

Guilty.

Then why do the people here in Arizona hire the illegals to move furniture, do landscaping or other grunt work they don't feel like doing?

Because those people aren't the majority of Arizonans? Duuuhhh.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Here, watch this and then tell me she exaggerated...

Gun Grabbers of Katrina - YouTube

Yes she did.

guess that just goes to show two people can see the same thing and come away with two different ideas as to what it was.

The clip was NARRATED. In this instance I think Lonestar is in denial.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Hey a valid drivers liscense will suffice. To hear liberals they never take ID with them.....I always take my DL with me, dont you?

A DL is NOT proof of citizenship.

edit: I think that once someone is arrested-then their legal status should absolutely be checked, but not until then.

But if they don't have their driver's license when pulled over they should be held until they can produce it.

I agree that they should be...but what does that have to do with the fact that a DL is NOT proof of citizenship? It's one thing for a LEO to ask somebody for their DL if they're driving, and were pulled over. I'm 100% ok with that. But asking somebody for documentation to prove their legal status is a different standard. That's what I have issue with.

You would be required to carry your passport, green card, or other documentation that proves your legal status-because a DL is not good enough. It's the reason why when you re-enter the U.S. you need more than a DL. Try getting back into the country with just a DL-and they will not let you back in.

Remember this people: most of the posters on here (even those who support this law) don't carry documents proving their legal status on their person or car on a daily basis. Keep that in mind.

 

[dblack]

I considered it perfectly reasonable, and not at all "oppressive" or "fascist". It's not a big deal for a cop to ask for ID, especially when you consider that the convenience store clerks do it all the time.

Specious and naive. Every interaction with a police officer is "big deal". Potentially your biggest. Potentially the last thing you will ever do.

Convenience store clerks aren't authorized to kill you if they decide you aren't cooperating.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yes she did.

guess that just goes to show two people can see the same thing and come away with two different ideas as to what it was.

The clip was NARRATED. In this instance I think Lonestar is in denial.

Clip was also edited.

 

[MisterBeale]

If you were paying attention and I assume you were, you would know the premise of the show.

He went on about how there's a "super computer" that's watching and listening to everyone in this country....etc..

And that is pretty much the premise of the show.

It's big brother on steroids.

Listen, I explained to you what was going on in the world, and you told me, "Oh yeah, I recognize that, it's a show on my T.V."

So what if it is, I don't watch you T.V. I read books, and research articles. That is what I do, I READ. Television producers get their ideas from reality and what is going on in the world. The mere fact that you would accuse me of being ignorant because I don't bother to ever watch T.V. or stay plugged into popular culture I find ignorant to the extreme. You do know they call it "programing" for a reason? Television IS NOT reality. You view your reality and life through a warped prism.

Do not forget, reading and discussion between intellectuals did come and does come BEFORE screen writers and producers decide to make television shows for people to lazy to pay attention to what is going on in the world and too lazy to READ about how the world works. If you don't see the irony of you calling me ignorant because I have described one of your television shows after they have made what I have described, I don't see there is any helping you. This is something that I have known has been going on for well over decade. If they are making a movies about it, and printing literature about it, the technology has been around for some time, well before your silly little show. . .

Obviously since posting any intense reading is going to cause you to lose interest, how about I post a full movie that predates your precious show by FOURTEEN YEARS. It amounts to the same thing. They were telling us back then (Pre-911) what was possible. Can you even conceive of what is now possible? Remember, what ever they put into fiction on screen is only half of what is actually possible. But then, if you read, you would know that.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcKR5X5cz7g&feature=channel&list=UL]Enemy Of The State Pt1 - YouTube[/ame]

(If you go watch this video at the YouTube site, all twelve parts are auto-linked together)

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If you were paying attention and I assume you were, you would know the premise of the show.

He went on about how there's a "super computer" that's watching and listening to everyone in this country....etc..

And that is pretty much the premise of the show.

It's big brother on steroids.

Listen, I explained to you what was going on in the world, and you told me, "Oh yeah, I recognize that, it's a show on my T.V."

So what if it is, I don't watch you T.V. I read books, and research articles. That is what I do, I READ. Television producers get their ideas from reality and what is going on in the world. The mere fact that you would accuse me of being ignorant because I don't bother to ever watch T.V. or stay plugged into popular culture I find ignorant to the extreme. You do know they call it "programing" for a reason? Television IS NOT reality. You view your reality and life through a warped prism.

Do not forget, reading and discussion between intellectuals did come and does come BEFORE screen writers and producers decide to make television shows for people to lazy to pay attention to what is going on in the world and too lazy to READ about how the world works. If you don't see the irony of you calling me ignorant because I have described one of your television shows after they have made what I have described, I don't see there is any helping you. This is something that I have known has been going on for well over decade. If they are making a movies about it, and printing literature about it, the technology has been around for some time, well before your silly little show. . .

Obviously since posting any intense reading is going to cause you to lose interest, how about I post a full movie that predates your precious show by FOURTEEN YEARS. It amounts to the same thing. They were telling us back then (Pre-911) what was possible. Can you even conceive of what is now possible? Remember, what ever they put into fiction on screen is only half of what is actually possible. But then, if you read, you would know that.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcKR5X5cz7g&feature=channel&list=UL]Enemy Of The State Pt1 - YouTube[/ame]

(If you go watch this video at the YouTube site, all twelve parts are auto-linked together)

You assume a lot.

And it makes you look even more ignorant.

It's interesting for a person that claims "I don't bother to ever watch T.V. or stay plugged into popular culture" would use a movie clip to support his argument.