Am just wishing to say, not to be rude like, if the 2nd Amndmt. gives the right to bear arms ... trained Militia ... you don't really need it since your Government provides all your protection for you. If you have to have a revolution I fear your Miltia is going to look like those guys in M.Moores film Bowling for Columbine. Ownership of guns is fine as long as you don't look for demons.

I've been munching so much :corn: reading this thread, I need that Pepsi. Diet, if you please.

Icileparadise, this is exceedingly unfortunate thinking. The people who place the whole of their trust for this in their government suffer from elevated crime levels and occasional genocides -- crime built to government specifications, and committed either directly by government or with government as an accessory before, during, and after the fact.

The self-reliant do not place their trust so exclusively, regarding it at best as too passive, and more usually they start throwing around applicable wisecracks about "sheeple."

There is only one known cure or prophylaxis for genocides, and that is to keep an armed populace. Any jerks who think their might makes their right have to weigh their might against that of their targets. Genocide becomes an impracticality at that point -- Einsatzkommandos succeed because nobody can shoot them. Contrariwise, imagine their chances of success if they are wiped out. A happier outcome for the general good, right?

Am I to understand you see some need to explicitly remind us of this? Most of the guns and freedom people are very far beyond having to address this question. I suggest you consider that we gun people know far more about what guns are, and what they are not, than you presently do; was it not you worrying publicly about worrying who might be carrying concealed as you go about your daily occasions? Funny how such views never stretch to imagining oneself, the worrier, carrying concealed. How much "worrying" is called for then, regardless of who else might be carrying?

Icileparadise, this is exceedingly unfortunate thinking. The people who place the whole of their trust for this in their government suffer from elevated crime levels and occasional genocides --

I'm a Brit and we don't do revolutions hav'nt done since Cromwell but that was against a Monarchy oh and a feeble uprising that went away. We prefer to go on strike but only as a last resort. Anyway UG this is a very complex thread which leads to many Hydras. I am amazed that you hold your Government under a wary eye and are ready to act if necesseray - I never imagined that kind of commitment. I own and have owned a liscensed German 7.65mm auto. for years because of this comfort feeling I think you allude to. Americans have a short history but you had it hard for so long, I guess firearms are in you nature & culture similar to the importance of horses/transport to you which in todays terms means grand theft auto is a really serious crime: taking away someones ride (hanging offence!) - in Europe we call it car theft - not so historically important to us in little Europe but to you in the vast USA your horse and your right to defend yourselves/family was the meaning of life.

I'm sorry I did not understand your last paragraph but then I was talking about the European way of life - I often meet hunters in the mountains here with single shot rifles but down in the valley the only people carrying firearms are the Gendarmerie. I mean, from my point of view, I don't need to worry in town if a guy I cut up on the road is carrying coz he's not and the most I'm gonna get is loud klaxons or the finger. In the USA on a hot day I would worry about pissing a guy off. I don't think we can compare each others point of view due to the cultural differences but I an in awe of you UG if you think you could take on the USA Government if necessary though after all you, did a bitching job against the Brits all those years ago. That was awesome.

Bwahahahahahaha! "Thank you" for making me choke on my coffee.... Totally worth it. Awesome!

Why did I make you choke? And if you got any coffee on your T -Shirt bin it, those stains don't come out.

Ok... seriously... I choked on my coffee because I laughed while drinking. I drink a lot of coffee. I laughed because I found your remarks highly amusing--whether or not you intended them to be funny. Either way, they crack me up!

You are most welcome BigV, just spreading my good cheer. Glad you like my mien de la vie. But this is a complex forum. I miss Radars input though.

He won't stay out of this for long; not only is this a tangible application of his favorite subject, but I suspect that only some hectic preholiday running around would keep him from reading on this thread.

Essentially, IciLP, we account the one legitimate source of power to be the electorate, which seems to us an excellent paradigm of a Republic, which is definitely what we are. To retain this political power in full, the electorate must also hold powers of life and death -- just to keep government the people's servant and not its master. (For it will seek mastery.) The electorate does delegate authority and power to its representatives, and this is all up and down through all our governing bodies. That delegated power is limited in scope and in time, and at the end of its term it is to be returned to the people's keeping. I do understand you find that paragraph opaque yet, and I think perhaps we should correspond about it by PM as I'd rather not be tempted up onto a soapbox about it. I'm sure I can make myself clearer and make our motivations as citizens of our Republic clearer too. I'd go to that kind of trouble because I regard those ideas as the quintessence of our Republic's social contract.

A bit of regarding history will show that we had to do that "bitchin' job" twice, in two wars thirty years apart, 1775-83 and 1812-14 -- and with an intervening conflict with France about midway between called the "Quasi-War." 1798-99, IIRC without looking. Not exactly an era of placidity.

The War of 1812 settled permanently a few matters considered at least by England to be loose ends -- impressment of seamen of British birth, and entanglement one way or another with the Napoleonic Wars that had occupied the previous decade. It wasn't all burning Washington, John Paul Jones, and the Battle of New Orleans -- Davy Crockett made his reputation in the frontier regions of this war as did Andrew Jackson, later President and the face on our $20 bill. Jackson was nothing if not colorful, and if the term had been current then, the eastern-seaboard Americans would no doubt have called him a cowboy, as a couple of American Presidents have been termed since. And for the same reasons, too.

V, wrt coffee drinking, have some innocent good fun reading this site sometime when you're not super busy: Girl Genius -- the coffee fun is about halfway down the table of contents. Mad Science rules the world. Badly.

Please don't turn this into a defense of imperialism thread. Radar (presumably) and I prefer to agree with you during the holiday season.


Acknowleges would be the proper word. We've had the fight here the last couple weeks about where rights come from but among the founding fathers there was no such squabble.

Amen Griff. I agree. And UG that is a whole lot of info I did not know. I get your point. thank you both.

By the way, what impact did Benedict Arnold have on the American People at that time? And what was his story? Just fascinated to know? Anyone...

He worked for us, got pissed on, got pissed off, defected to the Brits, retired to London, failed as a businessman and died poor. I would guess karma killed him fittingly.

http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/served/arnold.html

[quote=TheMercenary;418960]He worked for us, got pissed on, got pissed off, defected to the Brits, retired to London, failed as a businessman and died poor. I would guess karma killed him fittingly.

Fuck him. Politics ruled then as today. This shit happens every day. And we keep paying. The 2nd Ammndmnt. is fine as it is - untill a new law comes into force. Then we will abide by it.

"We?"

Sustained, Ahem, you're right Clod, I meant the royale "we".

The second amendment came about because Americans rejected the royale we.... any royale we.... all royale we's.

I got a new stick to stir up trouble with!
 

Powerful US gun lobby searches for owners of guns seized by police after Hurricane Katrina
The Associated Press
Published: December 26, 2007

NEW ORLEANS: A powerful gun lobby organization has hired private investigators to track down hundreds of gun owners whose firearms were seized by New Orleans police after Hurricane Katrina, according to court papers filed this week.

The National Rifle Association is trying to locate gun owners for a federal lawsuit that the lobbying group filed against Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley over the city's seizure of firearms after the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane.

As the flooded city descended into chaos and looting, authorities said they took guns from abandoned homes and from people trying to take the guns into shelters or onto evacuation buses in an effort to keep them out of criminals' hands. As the local police were overwhelmed, the National Guard was called in to assist in patrols.

The NRA's lawsuit marks a continuation of the group's efforts to protect Americans' constitutional right to bear arms. The group's influence in the U.S. Congress has been cited by critics as being behind most efforts to block gun law reforms.

In the lawsuit, which is set for trial in February, the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation claim the city violated gun owners' right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit says the gun owners were left "at the mercy of roving gangs, home invaders, and other criminals" after Katrina.
Today in Americas
Giving disorganized boys the tools for success
Huckabee and Romney battle to the wire in Iowa caucuses
Reconciling the realist with the rhetorician

The NRA says the city seized more than 1,000 guns that were not part of any criminal investigation after the hurricane. Police have said they took only guns that had been stolen or found in abandoned homes.

In April 2006, police made about 700 firearms available for owners to claim if they could present a bill of sale or an affidavit with the weapon's serial number.

In court papers filed Monday, NRA attorneys say investigators have found few of the guns' owners because the storm has scattered so many residents.

NRA lawyer Daniel Holliday said investigators have identified about 300 of the gun owners and located about 75 of them. Some could be called to testify during a trial, he added.

"Finding these folks has been a nightmare," Holliday said. "That is really the guts of our case — to establish that there was indeed a pattern of the police going out and taking people's guns without any legal reason to do so."

The NRA is asking that the February trial be postponed.

"Since a primary objective of this litigation is to cause the return of seized firearms to their lawful owners, more time is necessary to locate them," NRA lawyers wrote.

A U.S. District judge had not yet ruled on the request Wednesday.

Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said the group will not be satisfied until the police department has returned all the guns or reimbursed their owners.

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said the police department has returned only about 100 of the 1,000 seized guns.

"Obviously, we don't expect the city to find everybody. We only wanted to see a good-faith effort, and that's what the city didn't do," Gottlieb said. "It's a bad example to let them get away with it."

An attorney for the city and a police department spokesman did not return telephone calls for comment Wednesday.

I loathe the NRA, but this time I agree with them. Taking the guns was just plain wrong.

A little late but people are on the issue never the less...

N.O. Police Returning Guns Confiscated Post-Katrina
Wednesday, April 19, 2006

NEW ORLEANS — Under pressure from the National Rifle Association, police this week began returning guns confiscated after Hurricane Katrina.

The police department is making the guns available three days a week. At the close of the second day Wednesday, police said only 17 of about 700 weapons had been returned.

Police and soldiers removed guns from houses after the storm flooded the city, and they confiscated guns from some evacuees.

The NRA and other groups sued the city, saying it took away people's means of protection amid the lawlessness that gripped New Orleans.

"Natural disasters may destroy great cities, but they do not destroy civil rights," said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, which joined the NRA in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was dropped after the city agreed to return the guns.

Some owners complained it was difficult to get them back. Gun owners must bring a bill of sale or an affidavit with the weapon's serial number. Police also are running criminal background checks on those claiming weapons.


Some gun owners found the weapons were evidence in a crime and not eligible for release. Others did not have the proper paperwork.

Percy Taplet, 73, said the National Guard and state police confiscated his shotgun when they arrived to tell him to leave his house. When he tried to get his gun back this week, police told him he would have to contact state police.

"I won't ever see that gun again, believe me," Taplet said. "It's gone like everything else in that storm."

Police Superintendent Warren Riley said police had legitimate reasons for confiscating weapons.

"We took guns that were stolen that were stashed in alleyways. If we went into an abandoned house and a gun was there, absolutely we took the weapons," he said. "Obviously there were looters out there. We didn't want some burglar or looter to have an opportunity to arm themselves."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192347,00.html

They do have a point. Taking a gun from an abandoned house, while slightly ethically dubious (invasion of privacy/space), is a fairly reasonable disaster response. However, taking guns from people who are actually present or with the weapon, wrong.

Yea, we call that "covering one's ass in the press". I would have come up with some lame excuse as well if I were the Police Chief about to have my ass handed to me in a lawsuit I know I would never win. Most cops I have met completely support the legal civilian ownership of guns and CCW permit holders.

I cannot "loathe the NRA" because I've been getting better informed about what they actually do, and because they are an antigenocide NGO in the way absolutely no other non-gun group can be. This is both the NRA, singular, and its political wing, the NRA-ILA.

Also we NRA'ers inconvenience tyrants.

So what's not to like?

I can't stand the NRA. They are hypocrites and liars. They consider themselves part of the Republican party. They will support a Republican candidate who favors gun control over a Libertarian candidate who opposes any kind of gun control. They are actually very rude to LP candidates. They aren't much of a real inconvenience to tyrants. At least not as much as the JPFO. I love these guys and I'm not even Jewish and nobody knows more about the genocide that occurs through gun control like the Jews.

I'm very fond of the JPFO myself -- but then, I'm the sort who seeks allies and coalitions in political doings, and whatever your other virtues, Radar, you most definitely aren't. (An observation, from me to you, that you will completely yet unwisely ignore: that isn't politic.)

I've noticed NRA-ILA doesn't endorse LP candidates much, and the reasons are clear: one, NRA-ILA likes to maintain good credibility among the electorate, so they endorse the people they think are the likely winners among those pols they like. And face it: Libertarian Party candidates are so uniformly and emphatically pro-gun that NRA-ILA has to spend precisely zero effort influencing either the candidate or his supporting activists on gun rights and policy. So, yeah, taken for granted -- with complete justice. And the NRA lobbyist will drop by after you've won office, all right?

The JPFO, whose arguments for assault rifles as preventers of genocide totally blow their opponents out of the water, reducing to a smoking hole any "Theory of the Evil Gun Type." Good for them!

Who needs the NRA AFTER being elected. The whole point of having an NRA endorsement is to have it to help you get elected. Saying they won't support pro-gun libertarians in favor of gun-control supporting Republicans who are more likely to get elected is like saying...."I won't vote for you unless you don't need my vote. I won't offer my support to those who have the same position as me unless they don't need my support."

Which is not what I was saying, in any particular.