Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tigeress on December 27, 2007, 07:02:30 AM
-
Government Paranoia?
I just saw a CNN news piece this morning about wholesale confiscation of all privately own guns in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
I'm not a gun owner and never have been but I am totally appalled at this action.
Why does the government fear legal gun owners to the point of illegally disarming them at a time they need personal protection the most?
This is very scary...
Thank goodness the NRA is holding authorities feet to the fire in court.
If the ACLU is all about civil liberties, where are they in this? :huh
Seems one of the biggest dangers one can face in a disaster like Katrina is the authorities themselves.
I have read so many horror stories about how people were treated by the government...
TIGERESS
-
The aclu is full of commie snakes who's agenda does not allow for a free people.
They claim that they feel that the second only gives the government the right to arm it's army.. that the right of the government to arm itself shall not be infringed.
If people can defend themselves in a riot or when civilizations thin veneer peels away.. then why do we need government? that is what they are thinking. You don't want people to think that they can live without governments "help" now do you?
lazs
-
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=199076
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The aclu is full of commie snakes who's agenda does not allow for a free people.
They claim that they feel that the second only gives the government the right to arm it's army.. that the right of the government to arm itself shall not be infringed.
If people can defend themselves in a riot or when civilizations thin veneer peels away.. then why do we need government? that is what they are thinking. You don't want people to think that they can live without governments "help" now do you?
lazs
For the ACLU to be two-faced and not take a stand on the robbing of legally armed people of their only real means of defense pretty much points to them as a political front.
Some of the threads here seriously opened my eyes... along with situations like Katrina and 911.
I mean… this like having a battery back up for your computer but it is only guaranteed to be a back-up so long as it isn't needed.
Seems the government is more intent on protecting itself at the expense of the public than serving the public at the expense of itself.
I will never forgive the President of the failures of FEMA.
Additionally, Police authorities disarming the public is more than a disgrace… its criminal, in my view.
I hope the NRA prevails on this suit and although I doubt that anyone will be held accountable from the government, hopefully legislation might be forth coming to clarify you guy's right to your legal and licensed guns in the event of a national level disaster.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
I will never forgive the President of the failures of FEMA.
TIGERESS
Funny, the failures of FEMA are laid solely at the feet of George W. Bush. Amazing how ONLY Bush is at fault. No blame at all for the mayor or the governor. Just Bush.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Funny, the failures of FEMA are laid solely at the feet of George W. Bush. Amazing how ONLY Bush is at fault. No blame at all for the mayor or the governor. Just Bush.
It isn't a Bush thing in particular, although I do think he is just a puppet... but I think it is much bigger than the man called Bush.
I suspect the same thing would have happened had anyone else been in office.
Notice I said... "the President"
There is something fatally flawed in the office of the president, in my view.
The office of the President is tasked with real time command and control.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
I will never forgive the President of the failures of FEMA.
Ask people that live down here who is more to blame and they will tell you Blanco and Nagan. They were the ones that dragged thier feet in getting people to leave before the storm.
Sure FEMA didn't do a great job, but it was kind of difficult when there were thousands of people left stranded by the mayor and gov. that had to be located and rescued that could have been bused out earlier. Not to mention the rampant gangs that were already infesting the town who were running around shooting at all the people trying to help.
Many of the areas down there were nothing more than a cess pool that the corrupt politicians have done nothing to fix or clean up. So when all the crap hit the fan they figured "Oh, we'll confiscate all the guns". Of course it didn't stop the criminals from terrorizing the stranded citizens or the rescuers since thier guns are unregistered.
-
Originally posted by Tango
Ask people that live down here who is more to blame and they will tell you Blanco and Nagan. They were the ones that dragged thier feet in getting people to leave before the storm.
Sure FEMA didn't do a great job, but it was kind of difficult when there were thousands of people left stranded by the mayor and gov. that had to be located and rescued that could have been bused out earlier. Not to mention the rampant gangs that were already infesting the town who were running around shooting at all the people trying to help.
Many of the areas down there were nothing more than a cess pool that the corrupt politicians have done nothing to fix or clean up. So when all the crap hit the fan they figured "Oh, we'll confiscate all the guns". Of course it didn't stop the criminals from terrorizing the stranded citizens or the rescuers since thier guns are unregistered.
Yes... of course. Government broke down from bottom to top.
I watched it unfold... from a safe distance and made donations to help the victims.
We don't often think of all the responsibilities elected officials may be tasked with when deciding to vote.
What blows me away is the massive assumptive characterization of legally licensed gun owners as risks instead of assets. I don't think this thinking is going to change even with defenders like Jeanne Assam, and the like.
Perhaps a new relationship can be forged between gun owners and authorities to officially sign off on their acceptance as members of the good guy squad by the authorities? Like a reserve militia or something with offical emergency don't take this gun IDs?
This seems an issue of unwarrented paranoia. How to resolve that?
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
It isn't a Bush thing in particular, although I do think he is just a puppet... but I think it is much bigger than the man called Bush.
I suspect the same thing would have happened had anyone else been in office.
Notice I said... "the President"
There is something fatally flawed in the office of the president, in my view.
The office of the President is tasked with real time command and control.
TIGERESS
One man, President or not, cannot directly command everything. He must delegate authority. It is not direct command, by any stretch, but rather a chain. A chain, only as strong as its weakest link.
You know, FEMA evidently didn't do too bad in Florida. But the President gets no accolades for that. And yet he gets blamed when FEMA supposedly fails in Louisiana. The only thing that changed was the state and who ran it.
-
I have a buddy who is a fireman in Shreveport. He told me they were yelling for volunteers to go down and help with rescues and they were going to go down UNTIL they were told that they were NOT allowed to come armed.
He said only a handfull from some of the other stations in town went and came back a couple of days later, disgusted. Seemed all the State Police wanted them to do was hand out water and food at the rescue stations instead of going out with thier rescue boats which they brought down with them. Seemed they couldn't go out because they didn't have enough police or guardsman to go out with them for protection.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You know, FEMA evidently didn't do too bad in Florida. But the President gets no accolades for that. And yet he gets blamed when FEMA supposedly fails in Louisiana. The only thing that changed was the state and who ran it.
Mississippi didn't have any problems either and it was hit FAR worse. Of course they didn't have all the armed gangs running around and the governor confiscating the citizens guns.
-
I blame no one for the tragedy in New Orleans except for the citizens themselves. They live in a city BELOW sea level. They KNEW that a category 5 hurricane was on the way. Even if it was not going to hit the Louisiana coast directly a Cat 5 storm would have caused major damage to low lying areas all along the Gulf Coast. Why would you stay in the city?
These people did NOTHING for the 2-3 days that they knew the storm was on a direct path toward them. Then they screamed and yelled and wanted handouts and DEBIT CARDS and blamed everyone but themselves... after shooting at helicopters trying to save them.
Don't try and say they had no way to get out. You can WALK a mile in 12-20 minutes if no one is willing to help transport you.
All everyone talks about is New Orleans when taling about Katrina. I don't hear all of the bleeding hearts crying over Mississippi. They are picking up and moving on not whining for handouts and dwelling on the past.
Just my $.02
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
One man, President or not, cannot directly command everything. He must delegate authority. It is not direct command, by any stretch, but rather a chain. A chain, only as strong as its weakest link.
You know, FEMA evidently didn't do too bad in Florida. But the President gets no accolades for that. And yet he gets blamed when FEMA supposedly fails in Louisiana. The only thing that changed was the state and who ran it.
I understand Captain. Yes, presiding over that chain of command is understood. We don't know how good it is till it is really used.
If the office of president can not preside over command and control in a civil disaster then what happens when the Islamists detonate a nuke?
Also is it unrealistic to expect that office to really be the real time Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces?
Someone has to be in charge real time, thus responsible, don't they?
Brown was simply an unqualified low key appointee and was admittedly not up to the task. I felt so so sorry for him.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by yankedudel
I blame no one for the tragedy in New Orleans except for the citizens themselves. They live in a city BELOW sea level. They KNEW that a category 5 hurricane was on the way. Even if it was not going to hit the Louisiana coast directly a Cat 5 storm would have caused major damage to low lying areas all along the Gulf Coast. Why would you stay in the city?
These people did NOTHING for the 2-3 days that they knew the storm was on a direct path toward them. Then they screamed and yelled and wanted handouts and DEBIT CARDS and blamed everyone but themselves... after shooting at helicopters trying to save them.
Don't try and say they had no way to get out. You can WALK a mile in 12-20 minutes if no one is willing to help transport you.
All everyone talks about is New Orleans when taling about Katrina. I don't hear all of the bleeding hearts crying over Mississippi. They are picking up and moving on not whining for handouts and dwelling on the past.
Just my $.02
I know just what you mean... people often talk about Iraq and not the men and women in Afganistan. Also, the WTC and not the victims in the Pentagon or the crashed jet that did not make it to a target.
Perhaps NO is simply a focus point for people.
What happened in Gulfport, MS and else where was just as horrible as was what happened to NO.
Were not the citizens of NO told again and again the dams and dykes were up to par and would hold?
Anyways... the thread is really about vilified legal gun owners in NO being relieved of their means of self-defense.
Seems self-defense is only allowed when things are normal.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
I understand Captain.
If the office of president can not preside over command and control in a civil disaster then what happens when the Islamists detonate a nuke?
Also is it unrealistic to expect that office to really be the real time Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces?
Someone has to be in charge real time, thus responsible, don't they?
Brown was simply an unqualified low key appointee and was admittedly not up to the task. I felt so so sorry for him.
TIGERESS
The law at the time REQUIRED that Louisiana and New Orleans specifically ask for help from FEMA and the Federal Government. Bush, and the Federal Government, couldn't so much have handed out a single bottle of water until Ray Nagin and that other handsomehunk (who's name I forget currently) ASKED for it.
They only asked for help 5 DAYS TO A WEEK after the initial hit.
Brown didn't do that bad of a job. But when you analyze it you have to remember that the entire socialist system came crashing down in a glorious ball of flames all at once. Brown showed up and was expected to clean up not only after the hurricane, but after the decades of Democrats raping the land.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The law at the time REQUIRED that Louisiana and New Orleans specifically ask for help from FEMA and the Federal Government. Bush, and the Federal Government, couldn't so much have handed out a single bottle of water until Ray Nagin and that other handsomehunk (who's name I forget currently) ASKED for it.
That is a sorry state for a chain of command. Hopefully that got fixed.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
If the office of president can not preside over command and control in a civil disaster then what happens when the Islamists detonate a nuke?
Martial Law would be declared and lame governors and mayors wouldn't have much say. THEN the president wouldn't have his hands tied waiting for the governor and local politians to ask for help OR do thier job.
I forsee some big lawsuits over the confiscation of law abidding citizens guns. Afterall, its situations like that which is when they are needed to protect yourself and your family.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
That is a sorry state for a chain of command. Hopefully that got fixed.
TIGERESS
It's a Damned-if-you-do and Damned-if-you-don't situation. Had the federal government stepped in immediately (which they were fully capable of doing), instead of hearing about the incompetency of it when it wasn't their fault, we'd be hearing about the horrible fascistic government we have in power.
-
Originally posted by Tango
Martial Law would be declared and lame governors and mayors wouldn't have much say. THEN the president wouldn't have his hands tied waiting for the governor and local politians to ask for help OR do thier job.
I forsee some big lawsuits over the confiscation of law abidding citizens guns. Afterall, its situations like that which is when they are needed to protect yourself and your family.
So... this begs a question.
IF... martial law is declared, will they come for your guns?
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's a Damned-if-you-do and Damned-if-you-don't situation. Had the federal government stepped in immediately (which they were fully capable of doing), instead of hearing about the incompetency of it when it wasn't their fault, we'd be hearing about the horrible fascistic government we have in power.
Erring on the side of disaster victims and actually being a real-time reaction asset seems defensible to me.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Erring on the side of disaster victims and actually being a real-time reaction asset seems defensible to me.
TIGERESS
Not today it isn't. And, had the Feds moved early, and Katrina not been as bad, the Feds would have been crucified.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Not today it isn't. And, had the Feds moved early, and Katrina not been as bad, the Feds would have been crucified.
I hear you, Captain.
It is often said you can learn as much from mistakes as anything else... sometimes better than anything else.
Katrina was a test. We failed as a nation. Think it will be any better next time?
TIGERESS
-
I was under the impression that the guns where taken from abandoned houses . If you legally owned a gun, you could go and pick yours back up at the police station. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
-
Another factor in the "failure" of FEMA was the sheer scope of the disaster. Nothing like it had been seen in the nation's history, ever. In sheer damage even the hurricane that devastated Galveston, Texas early in the 20th century pales in comparison.
The delay in asking for federal assistance, and the monumental difficulty in clearing the roads of trees and other debris, only compounded the problems. That delay is solely the responsibility of the nincompoop in the governor's office. Ray Nagin....well....what can one say about him that hasn't already been said?
What can one expect from a state government that was known nationwide, for decades, as the most corrupt and inefficient in the nation. FEMA purchased thousands of trailers to be sent to the New Orleans area to provide temporary shelter for the homeless...only to be told by Louisiana authorities that they could not be brought to the area because they didn't meet local housing and safety codes. Those trailers languish in Arkansas and other states, and can purportedly be bought for a song.
The fingerpointing leveled at the federal government was largely undeserved.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
I hear you, Captain.
It is often said you can learn as much from mistakes as anything else... sometimes better than anything else.
Katrina was a test. We failed as a nation. Think it will be any better next time?
TIGERESS
No, it will likely NOT be better next time, at least not in places like New Orleans, because little, if anything, has changed. We did NOT fail as a nation, New Orleans failed as a city. And so long as people are stupid enough to elect those same fools as governor and mayor, the results will be the same. And people will continue to be that stupid because there are fools that will force the rest of us to pay those stupid people to be stupid. And Nagin was re-elected despite the obvious facts that showed he was a complete and utter failure, proving that time and again, stupid people will continue to elect fools who promise to pay them for being stupid.
The next question is "why was Nagin able to succeed in being re-elected?" The answer: Because Nagin, with the help of the media, the liberal left, the NAACP, and the likes of Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, was able to lay the blame for his complete and utter failure completely at the feet of others.
-
People who put their complete trust in any government will get what they deserve. I have no sympathy for their whining when they do.
-
People seem to think we live in some Star Trek The Next Generation universe where bad things exist only as abstractions for science or superior morality to put in their respective places in short order with perhaps some mussed hair.
There could be a hundred different Katrinas tomorrow. Pandemic, terrorist nuke, Calif. "Big one" earth quake. Another Great Depression. Asteroid/comet strikes. Tsunamis. The next Hitler or Stalin -- even here if combined with one of the above motivators. Is there a reason to live in the perpetual bunker? No. But is it something that should be removed from conscious thought? No.
Charon
-
BTW. What was the tone of the CNN piece?
Charon
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
So... this begs a question.
IF... martial law is declared, will they come for your guns?
TIGERESS
Probably not. Remember, the Iraqi citizens are allowed to own AK-47s for self defense and they aren't worried about them owning them. I doubt the military would be worried about hunting rifles and handguns.
-
Originally posted by Mojava
I was under the impression that the guns where taken from abandoned houses . If you legally owned a gun, you could go and pick yours back up at the police station. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
An estimated 1000 firearms were confiscated. At least 350 of which were taken from the owner under threat of arrest, without warrant or probably cause.
Even though FEMA failed in many respects, it did what it was designed to do, which was assist state and local officials implement their disaster plans. The fact that Louisiana and New Orleans failed to implement their disaster plans (and in many cases just threw up their hands and screamed 'Help') should not be considered a failure of FEMA.
"FEMA has long held that state and local governments should be prepared to survive 72 hours before federal intervention."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/14/fema.ig/index.html
-
Originally posted by Mojava
I was under the impression that the guns where taken from abandoned houses . If you legally owned a gun, you could go and pick yours back up at the police station. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
In looking into all this I found multiply sitings of the same thing this site reports...
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/0506r/
Excerpt:
In the chaotic aftermath of the storm, New Orleans Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass III announced that all privately owned firearms would be seized. "No one will be able to be armed. Guns will be taken," Compass declared. "Only law enforcement [will be] allowed to have weapons."
Louisiana, like many other states, issues concealed carry weapons permits to law-abiding individuals. Compass's order did not distinguish between stolen guns and legally owned guns; therefore, he was in violation of Louisiana statute.
After the confiscation order was issued, police and National Guard personnel began searching empty houses for firearms, and TV camera crews filmed numerous instances of forced entry.
California TV station KTVU captured on videotape the most disturbing gun-confiscation incident. An 82-year-old woman stood in her small kitchen, surrounded by police in tactical gear and several TV cameramen. In the open palm of her hand she held a knife and a small revolver. Neither of the weapons was pointed at the police officers.
The police ordered her to hand over the two weapons. When she did not immediately comply with the order, she was gang tackled by three burly police officers, who pinned her to the kitchen floor. The officers then hustled her out to a flatbed truck, lifted her aboard and drove away.
Some police officers told reporters that the confiscation order was issued after Army, Coast Guard and police helicopters were fired upon while flying over the city. It is reasonable to assume that the shooters responsible for these attacks used illegal firearms, which would not simply be handed over when the police and National Guard knocked on the door.
There certainly was no shortage of guns available to criminals. In the wake of the storm, more than 1,000 guns were stolen from gun dealers in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. Only about 130 of these weapons were recovered.
(The Associated Press also reported that some police officers asked if they could borrow guns from citizens. The officers explained that they were outgunned during running street battles with armed criminals.)
The New Orleans city government has a long history of antipathy toward private gun ownership, and there are many large cities dominated by anti-gun mayors and city councils. If, God forbid, there is another terrorist attack on a major city, law-abiding gun owners should be prepared for the "New Orleans treatment."
TIGERESS
-
New Hampshire bill aims to prevent Katrina-style gun seizures--> http://www.infowars.com/articles/2nd_amendment/nh_bill_aims_prevent_katrina_style_gun_grab.htm
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Mojava
I was under the impression that the guns where taken from abandoned houses . If you legally owned a gun, you could go and pick yours back up at the police station. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
No. They took the weapons by force at the point of a gun.
Even AFTER being ordered by the court to return the weapons, the New Orleans police refused to do so, despite several Contempt charges.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
The New Orleans city government has a long history of antipathy toward private gun ownership, and there are many large cities dominated by anti-gun mayors and city councils. If, God forbid, there is another terrorist attack on a major city, law-abiding gun owners should be prepared for the "New Orleans treatment."
TIGERESS
I find that interesting in that its legal for us to carry handguns in our vehicles. I have a .45 in my car all the time. No permit needed.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tigeress
The New Orleans city government has a long history of antipathy toward private gun ownership, and there are many large cities dominated by anti-gun mayors and city councils. If, God forbid, there is another terrorist attack on a major city, law-abiding gun owners should be prepared for the "New Orleans treatment."
TIGERESS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tango
I find that interesting in that its legal for us to carry handguns in our vehicles. I have a .45 in my car all the time. No permit needed.
That appears to be a commentary from the referenced web site and was part of the excerpt from--> http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/0506r/
...no doubt, a thinly veiled whack at the lefties' attitudes re:gun control.
TIGERESS
-
I think it's this sky is falling paranoia that's destroying the country. Everyone is afraid of there own shadow. The terrorists are coming and big brother wants to take my guns away. Come on, do you really believe that?
-
Originally posted by Mojava
I think it's this sky is falling paranoia that's destroying the country. Everyone is afraid of there own shadow. The terrorists are coming and big brother wants to take my guns away. Come on, do you really believe that?
Do I believe that a certain large segment of the government wants to take my firearms? You're damned right I do. And it is quite obvious to anyone paying attention.
-
The sky is falling!!
-
Originally posted by Mojava
I think it's this sky is falling paranoia that's destroying the country. Everyone is afraid of there own shadow. The terrorists are coming and big brother wants to take my guns away. Come on, do you really believe that?
Actually, I do believe the government really doesn't trust it own law abiding population and doesn't seem to seperate that thinking from criminals who have illegal guns.
What do you think? ...other than mocking the concerns of those who have legal and licensed guns and are not criminals?
Let's talk... I am listening.
TIGERESS
-
Has anyone ever came to your house to get your guns? Other than people concerned about background checks or trigger locks or fully automatic assault rifles , have I seen any kind of legislation about "gun control" . I think saying the government is going to take our guns is as far right as someone who would want to take your guns is far left. It's just not realistic to believe that the government is out to take your guns. Guns have always been apart of American society and will always be. Relax and worry about things that are worth worrying about, like the government taking money away from injured vets, or our ludicrous tax system.
-
mojava.. I am sure that you are a troll or possibly a brit who get's found out here from time to time but.. I'll play anyway cause it's fun.
You say no one is coming for our guns yet.. every year more and more guns are banned... The example of new orleans was of the government breaking into peoples homes and taking away their guns.. more and more cities try to ban guns in your own home. diane finestien says that if she could get 51 votes she would tell America "turn em in... turn em all in!" meaning.. take everyones guns.
as for "fully automatic assault weapons" they were never legal the ban was for sporting versions of them not any different and..even less powerful than some that were not banned.
The list of guns that you won't be able to buy next year in kalifornia is pages long and includes some of the highest quality and safest guns ever made.
What you need to do is tell the gun control nuts to quit worrying about moral citizens guns and worry about the things you think are important. Tell em to quit bringing up new gun control bills and we will quit worrying about them taking our guns away.
lazs
-
What are some examples of these extreme gun control bills your talking about Laz?
-
since you don't even know what an "assault weapon" is it would be pretty hard to tell you. you seem to know nothing at all about firearms.
Would you say that a complete ban on all handguns in a city... like frisco... is "extreme"?
Would you say a ban on all semiauto handguns with more than a ten round capacity was "extreme"? would you say not being able to sell a firearm that didn't microstamp is "extreme"? would you say that closing 1/4 of kalifornia to lead bullets on the off chance some overgrown buzzard may eat a bullet (even tho scrap lead is everywhere) is "extreme"?
would you say the DC law was "extreme"? would you say not granting concealed carry permits to law abiding citizens was "extreme"?
Can you name on "sensible" gun law.. one that has been passed that cut down on crime or even gun crime?
any gun law that made things worse or.. did nothing.. wouldn't you define that as a hysterical and "extreme" law?
Not one person was ever killed by a .50 caliber rifle in kalifornia.. yet.. they were banned.. does that not seem a tiny bit hysterical and "extreme"?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Mojava
What are some examples of these extreme gun control bills your talking about Laz?
The "assault weapon":rolleyes: ban. Note to the uninformed, a REAL assault weapon is a select fire medium power carbine, and being select fire it can be fully automatic, and as such, already covered by laws covering fully automatic weapons.
The magazine capacity restrictions. Note to the uninformed, anyone so inclined can learn to swap lower capacity magazines VERY easily, and do it so quickly that it can be done in less than 1 second, without taking their eyes off of the target.
The anti 50BMG rifle laws. Note to the uninformed, rifles chambered in 50BMG are expensive, hard to master, and next to impossible to conceal.
-
LOL.. we must have been typing a reply at the same time.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
LOL.. we must have been typing a reply at the same time.
lazs
Both of which will be ignored by the one they are directed towards, because they do not fit in with his assumptions.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Both of which will be ignored by the one they are directed towards, because they do not fit in with his assumptions.
Isn't that the typical liberal response?
-
I've been hunting all my life, had guns as long as I can remember. Never has anyone tried to take my guns away or even implied it. I think the states you mentioned should let the states majority decide on how it's gun control laws are implemented
I personally don't see a problem with background checks, or tighter gun control laws. The US is the leader in gun related crimes and deaths for a reason. Is it wrong that we should be responsible for ourselves and our kids.
The problem you guys have is you see everything in the extreme. There is a good balance between too little and too much that is just right.
-
Originally posted by Mojava
I personally don't see a problem with background checks, or tighter gun control laws. The US is the leader in gun related crimes and deaths for a reason. Is it wrong that we should be responsible for ourselves and our kids.
The problem you guys have is you see everything in the extreme. There is a good balance between too little and too much that is just right.
Tell that to the citizens in D. C. that are suing to have the right to keep handguns in thier home for defense. I think they would tell you what they think about tighter gun laws.
-
Yes, President Bush should get the blame for the New Orleans disaster!
He is the one who sent the Hurricane there after all.
-
Originally posted by Mojava
I personally don't see a problem with background checks, or tighter gun control laws. The US is the leader in gun related crimes and deaths for a reason. Is it wrong that we should be responsible for ourselves and our kids.
Have you compared those numbers with vehicular deaths or cancer deaths or heart disease?
Obviously we should have tighter control on vehicles, cancer and hearts.
-
I'm sure it depends on who you ask there. They have every right to sue and if they find it unconstitutional then it should be overturned. It is power to the people right.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Yes, President Bush should get the blame for the New Orleans disaster!
He is the one who sent the Hurricane there after all.
hahahaha :rofl
You need to read a bit further down the thread and see office of the presidency, not the man Bush, was the point of the opening comments.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Mojava
I've been hunting all my life, had guns as long as I can remember. Never has anyone tried to take my guns away or even implied it. I think the states you mentioned should let the states majority decide on how it's gun control laws are implemented
I personally don't see a problem with background checks, or tighter gun control laws. The US is the leader in gun related crimes and deaths for a reason. Is it wrong that we should be responsible for ourselves and our kids.
The problem you guys have is you see everything in the extreme. There is a good balance between too little and too much that is just right.
No. The problem here is that liberals hate that we know history and that we pay attention. Every single smaller gun restriction in other countries has led to full out gun bans not too long after.
-
My biggest memory from Katrina, and one that will allways represent that disaster in my mind, is an interview at the dome of a fat woman who was complaining about the lack of food. She had an MRE in her hand and threw in on the ground screaming "this cheese aint even warm".
I will never forget that having eating many MANY MREs.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Funny, the failures of FEMA are laid solely at the feet of George W. Bush. Amazing how ONLY Bush is at fault. No blame at all for the mayor or the governor. Just Bush.
So, since Tigress failed to mention anyone else that falls within the liability she excludes them from it? Or it somehow excludes President Bush for her having made such an omission?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No. The problem here is that liberals hate that we know history and that we pay attention. Every single smaller gun restriction in other countries has led to full out gun bans not too long after.
Explain how the U.S., which has had gun restrictions of one kind or another since long before you were born, has avoided it? How's your 101 history coming along?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
My biggest memory from Katrina, and one that will allways represent that disaster in my mind, is an interview at the dome of a fat woman who was complaining about the lack of food. She had an MRE in her hand and threw in on the ground screaming "this cheese aint even warm".
I will never forget that having eating many MANY MREs.
MREs beat C-rats by a mile. Some people are just stupid. No matter.
-
Thing is they are pretty good IF your hungry.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
My biggest memory from Katrina, and one that will allways represent that disaster in my mind, is an interview at the dome of a fat woman who was complaining about the lack of food. She had an MRE in her hand and threw in on the ground screaming "this cheese aint even warm".
I will never forget that having eating many MANY MREs.
She must not have been very hungry. I've eaten many MREs too and liked most of 'em.
-
So there we have it. Next con we eat MREs. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Explain how the U.S., which has had gun restrictions of one kind or another since long before you were born, has avoided it? How's your 101 history coming along?
The answer is easy. The NRA is responsible for freedom in this country.
Les
-
Yeah,
MRE's are ok, at least until you have had to live on them three meals a day for a hundred and eighty days straight...... At least Cs had cans, you can do some really neat things with those cans (Grin). Worst thing about endless days of MREs is that there were only twelve kinds, and two of them were like eating protein paste in chalk sauce
Regards,
Kevin
Originally posted by Arlo
So there we have it. Next con we eat MREs. :D
-
mojava.. I am glad that the guns that you like and choose to own are not being threatened. Perhaps to you.. "sensible gun control" is getting rid of any gun that you don't own right now?
I say that you know nothing about guns because you said "full auto assault weapons" even some of the dumbest gun control nuts aren't saying that any more.
I have no problem with instant background checks but if we have to have instant background checks for one right then it should be for all... before you have any rights you need to have a background check to make sure you are a citizen and not on parole say or a fugitive.
Many people hunt with handguns too.. many people use handguns for defense and many for all sorts of sports. is tiny little slice of one type of hunting the only thing that we have a right to do?
So tell me.. what are some sensible gun control laws to you and what would they accomplish?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No. The problem here is that liberals hate that we know history and that we pay attention. Every single smaller gun restriction in other countries has led to full out gun bans not too long after.
Which countries, oh knowledgeable-about-history one?
-
Originally posted by gunnss
Yeah,
MRE's are ok, at least until you have had to live on them three meals a day for a hundred and eighty days straight...... At least Cs had cans, you can do some really neat things with those cans (Grin). Worst thing about endless days of MREs is that there were only twelve kinds, and two of them were like eating protein paste in chalk sauce
Regards,
Kevin
I imagine they do get pretty tiresome. Longest I had to eat them was only one week each month for about a year. I liked 'em all but the tuna. Tuna just doesn't like me.
Mention of the woman snubbing them reminded me of my time at Nellis. There is a minimum security prison on military property just north of Nellis proper. The inmates there had better facilities than the airmen living in the dorms on Nellis. Makes you just wanna shake yer head.
-
(http://www.caveyourtrolls.com/img3.jpg)
-
Lets see.....
I remember Chungking Chinken... BBQ Beef (the best!), Dehydraded Pork Patty (the worst!)....uh... help me out!?!
Oh and what was the deal with the black cresant moon on all the boxes? Anyone know the meaning of that symbol?
Wab