Second Amendment Upheld

Tagged:  

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91HS2EO0&show_article=1

Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense in their homes, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms restrictions intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

The scary part is that the vote was only 5-4. This should have been a hands down 9-0 vote to uphold it. It is ridiculous to try to legislate from the bench, as the supreme court did yesterday with the death penalty case.

Bruce Beatty probably jizzed himself

This isn't the first vote that's been split 5-4 recently, and certainly won't be the last. In my mind the dissenters should be impeached and charged with high treason.

The anti-freedom folks are squalling like a pig stuck under a fence. An electric fence, that is. The fight is far from over, though. Some people here might be old enough to remember the Roe v Wade decision that legalized abortion. When Roe v Wade was decided, I, in my naivety, thought the whole thing was finished and we could all go home. Boy howdy, was I ever wrong. It's been, what, over thirty years and the protests are still going on.

One thing about the gun issue, though. I don't think we're going to see many anti-freedom idiots shooting at gun store owners or trying to fire bomb anything. They being unarmed and all, and in any event I think it's common knowledge that fascist oppressors like the Brady Bunch, Mike Navarre and Toby Hoover prefer leaning on an unarmed society. It's safer that way.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

If you want to read the actual opinion of the majority and minority click this:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

It's actually pretty intersting. I read some of the majority and minority opinions. Scalia is one sharp guy. He takes Stevens (who wrote for the minority) to task in the footnotes on several occasions. I've read that even the most liberal lawyers and judges find it hard to debate Scalia, and this just proves that point.

Interesting read, and good back'n'forth between Scalia and Stevens. Thanks for the link.

I'm not interested in the minority opinion in this case. That's because the facts of the Second Amendment are clear, since the English used in the Amendment is equally clear. You have the right to keep and bear arms. This right is necessary if a state's people are going to defend defend themselves as a nation. You can also use that right for target shooting, hunting, and in fact anything else that is within the scope of your personal liberty.

Anyone who thinks that the SA says something else is largely just a closet Fascist who thinks that a state has to defend ITSELF from the people. The Liberals unwisely adopted that sort of philosophy ... which is ironic, being LIBERal.

If Czarty and the Czouncil passed a law tomorrow requiring you to obtain a license for your mouth, there'd be big opposition. So, why did the people of Toledo sit still for gun registration and other acts of restriction? Even today, if you wore a gun in a holster, the TPD would be all over you like stink on shit. Are we expected to violently confront the police in order to exercise a personal liberty?

That's because the facts of the Second Amendment are clear, since the English used in the Amendment is equally clear. You have the right to keep and bear arms.

Dont forget this part:

“a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.”

Pink Slip

Oh, I didn't forget about that part, Pinkie. It's simply irrelevant to having the right in the first place. If the people cannot have weapons in the first place, they make poor recruits for defending the nation.

The basic right is still clear: You have the right to keep and bear arms. If the state wants to impress you into a well-regulated (i.e. authorized and organized) militia, then OK. But you have the right to keep and bear arms before, during and after your enlistment period.

Pink, why didn't you put the entire 2nd amendment text? Why just the first part?

Here, IN PLAIN ENGLISH is the entire 2nd amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Get that part? In plain english the 2nd amendment says it is a right "of the people".

Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say that keeping and bearing arms is a "right reserved to government intervention".

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Pink, why didn't you put the entire 2nd amendment text?

Because someone had already mentioned the 2nd part, without noting the opening clause.

Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say that keeping and bearing arms is a "right reserved to government intervention

So who is responsible for regulating the militia?

Pink Slip

Your statement "who is responsible for regulating the militia?" made me stop and think.

Immediately I thought of the defination of REGULATED as "1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regulated

Then I remembered that, back when the Constitution was written, WEB was defind as ". a thin, silken material spun by spiders and the larvae of some insects, as the webworms and tent caterpillars; cobweb."
Nowdays, WEB means "a network of interlinked stations, services, communications, etc., covering a region or country." as well as thin, silken material.

So I went back to the definition of REGULATED. That is when I read the OTHER THREE DEFINITIONS of regulated.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

So, leaving out the meaning of "regulated" as something that the governing elite takes control of, and use any of the other three definations of REGULATED.

The answer to your point is, according to Dictionary.com definitions #2, #3, and #4, the people are the ones entrusted to adjust to a requirement, to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation, to put in good order.

I.E. Thinking like a founding father, a "well regulated militia" means one that is in good order, able to adjust to a requirement and able to ensure the accuracy of operation of Government. They just declared independance from King George and were against regulating anything especially having Government regulate (as in "control") anything. Maybe they were trying to say "A well regulated militia" as in a militia as finely tuned as a watch, would need the right to keep and bear arms.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

I concur with your deduction whole heartedly.

The founding fathers were not out to have someone in government control the militias, but were intending for the militia to ensure the proper operation of government, if need be.

Maybe they were trying to say "A well regulated militia" as in a militia as finely tuned as a watch

That's fine, I'm ok with that. But who ensures that the militia (or the people) are "finely tuned"? And how?

Pink Slip

The Supreme Court has already answered your question, "who ensures that the militia (or the people) are "finely tuned"? And how?"

According to Roe v. Wade, ANY decision is "...a matter for the conscience of the individual..."
and
"(a state's )statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments"

http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

I.E. Thinking like a founding father

when you start thinking like a 'founding father'...

...then you would have learned in American schools the ability to READ.

May I suggest these quotes FROM FAMOUS FOUNDING FATHERS? Not YOUR founding father, Karl Marx, but the founders of America.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. "
--- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; "
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

"To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character."
---Alexander Hamilton

Quotes from the Founders During the Ratification Period of the Constitution

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Still MORE quotes from Colonial era figures and Founding Fathers. You should ESPECIALLY read the quote from Tenche Coxe of The Pennsylvania Gazette in 1788.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. "
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

During the Massachusetts ratifying convention William Symmes warned that the new government at some point "shall be too firmly fixed in the saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection." Yet fears of standing armies were groundless, affirmed Theodore Sedwick, who queried, "if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"
[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. "
Henry sneered,
"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all? "

More quotes from the Virginia convention:

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... "
---George Mason

Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because:

"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.'

The Virginia delegation's recommended bill of rights included the following:
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. "

The following quote is from Halbrook, Stephen P., That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, University of New Mexico Press, 1984.
"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. "
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.
Gallatin's use of the words "some rights," doesn't mean some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, rather there are many rights not enumerated by the Bill of Rights, those rights that are listed are being established as unalienable.
Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):

[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

LOL

The Libsman, cuttin' and a pastin', jukin' and a jivin', twirlin' and a swirlin'...

Libs, I don't trust those major media types like the, ummm...Pennsylvania Gazette. They're biased and only telling me one side of the story and waaaaay too negative.

Oops, wrong thread, sorry. Eyes a little glassy from all that serious readin'. I did get to the part where Henry sneered. (WTF???)

Really, I'm ok with handgun ownership. It was you thinking like a Founding Father that made me laugh til I cried.

Anyway, party on Libsman....the Libster....the Libsone....

Hang in there smokers - maybe someone will come to their senses on other LEGAL activities that go on in PRIVATELY OWNED facilities...

Or maybe 3/4% temporary tax levies will come to an end...

(Yeah, I know, but it's friday and Im in a good mood)

I'd love to believe that but, after sixty-some years watching the political and legal process, I've gotten cynical about it. The laws and constitution seem generally to be on sale to the highest bidder or to be interpreted and enforced depending on the latest bogyman or politically-correct trend. Smoking-bans in privately-owned property are a good example of taking away property rights without compensation. But I am glad to see the SA upheld... at least one right hasn't been lost to the dismal trend toward fascism and a society of prohibition.

From Pink_Slip: That's fine, I'm ok with that.

I don't believe you. You're being patronizing and deliberately dense. You don't believe in the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms, or to be secure in their home, or in the right to defend that home. LibsCanBlowMe provided you with an excellent definition of the phrase, which you choose to ignore.

But who ensures that the militia (or the people) are "finely tuned"? And how?

Now, how do you think this would happen, Pink? Remember, the militia must be well regulated in the traditional sense of the phrase, and the government isn't available to perform that service. So, then, how do you think the militia becomes well regulated, and in that the militia is well regulated, it must be regulated enough to be protected by the second amendment. This, without government intervention.

My father was part of just such a militia, once. In 1964 (or thereabouts) my family attended the Michigan State Fair, in Detroit, MI. Around 9:00 PM a race riot started in the midway and began to spread throughout the fair grounds. A group of men in the horse barn armed themselves as best they could, then sealed the barn against unlawful invaders. Law abiding men, women and children were given sanctuary. This group of able bodied men were a militia. When the danger had passed, they all disbanded. Many of these men were veterans of WWII. I think it's worth noting that this group did not demand service, nor did any women serve. They did, however, offer protection to all people who were peaceful (non-rioters).

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

I don't care what you believe Jack. It's silly to think the right to bear arms is NOT an individual RIGHT. The what the Bill of Rights is for----individual liberties that the gov't CANNOT take away. I don't get involved in many of the Second Amendment debates, but the phrase "well-regulated" always threw me. I thought LibCanBlowMe was very helpful.

In fact, I think much of the fury over the SA debate is misplaced. We should instead be debating the existence of standing armies in peacetime.

Pink Slip

Read or at least breezed through the decision and the dissenting opinions, I highly recommend it (and I admit, I breezed through most and just tried to look at some juicy parts). Whomever you agree with, the cases laid out are interesting. I disagree with a lot of what Stevens said in his dissenting opinion, but his review of similar state constitutions of the time is interesting in the attempt to triangulate the language used in that amendment and place it in the context of the time. Some state constitutions used language tantamount to allowing guns for hunting and defense of home, so it is interesting that the Bill of Rights did not.

On another note, in USA Today re: this session of hte Supreme Court:

Supreme Court, long quiet, ends term with a growl.
WASHINGTON (AP) — For most of the term, Supreme Court justices showed remarkable restraint. They displayed broad agreement even in some volatile areas and refrained from angry dissents.
Then they decided the tough cases.

The court, in its three most important cases, declared a constitutional right to have guns at home for self-defense, granted some constitutional protections to foreign prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and outlawed the death penalty for people who rape children.
Cont. @:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-06-28-scotus-wrap_N.htm

Well, even if one is to believe that the Second Amendment in the US Constitution only applies to the federal government, then Ohio's constitution STILL mimics the SA ... so why are you banned from carrying guns in Toledo?:

«The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.»

The video shows a lady in an agitated state with a weapon in her hand. She says it was not loaded. How many police have heard that and then been shot.

Carefully holding the weapon? Careful as in holding it by the body? With a trembling hand.

The officers did would what any police officer would do. How would they know what would happen next, the gun could have gone off, someone could have been hurt or killed.

Sure we have rights to protect ourselves, but, we also have an obligation to abide by the orders of the police, after all we are a country of laws and rights.

People make the assertions that police let the looters go and loot.

The overall response to the looting was too little too late, the looters and robbers were out in full force after the state and federal administrations failed to react to Katrina.

I'd be agitated too if armed men in riot gear w/automatic weapons barged their way into my home for no reason whatsoever!

I'm not a gun owner and I don't want one either, but I don't have a problem with other responsible people who do. My problem is with the ability of the authorities to just do whatever the hell they want and get away with it. This happened what - three years ago? I'm just now hearing about it. WTH?

The New Orleans PD. The same police dept. that had officers caught on tape doing their own looting after Katrina, and this latest tidbit below:

NOPD officer punished for wearing wrong color shirt 15 minutes prior to retirement.

It is all a matter of perception and emotions.

New Orleans and the surrounding areas were and to some extant are still recovering from the disaster.

It is really quite plain common sense, that when a police officer approaches, one does not have a weapon, could be a knife, could be a pointed stick, even a banana http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w

The lady hand a gun in her hand and the officers to protect themselves as well others, reacted, maybe a bit over board, but a time like that, emotions run high.

We cannot walk down the street with a weapon in our hand, like she had and expect the police to not react.

"This happened what - three years ago? I'm just now hearing about it. WTH?"

Election year politics.

Did I miss something or wasn't she in her own home when the cops badgered her into letting them in? When was she walking down the street with her gun? When she was holding it inside her house, you can see she wasn't even holding the grip.

I have no problem with police taking guns away from people that are brazenly walking down the street with them, but coming into private homes without a warrant?! Hayell no! What's next, books?

Yes, and that is the point.

The officers saw the weapon in the hand and they reacted to the women holding the gun the way she did.

Had she said I have a gun and it is in the drawer, the officers would not have reacted the way they did.

They probably would have done the same with a knife, as it forcefully taking it away from the person.

Holding a gun in front of a police officer is going to cause they to react, order the person to put the weapon down, or in this case, the woman had the gun in her hand and was not handling it properly and had it been loaded, who is to know what could have happened.

The video goes contrary to all the gun safety and being a responsible gun owner that the NRA espouses.

"but coming into private homes without a warrant?"

It was a time of local emergency. Could we expect a warrant for all the homes in the area, when the area was many states wide.

I suspect that if one of the officers was shot and killed, people would saying what a tragedy.

I get that, but the whole thing about going into her home and wrestling her down without even a "drop it". I sure would love to know the whole story.

"It was a time of emergency" Yes, and the looters and criminals were running rampant. Thus, the loaded gun inside her home.

It seems to me that the cops could find some real criminals at the local WalMart.

But not ONE mention of Blackwater, who were under contract with the Bush administration, taking guns away from people.

Pink Slip

From Neighborhood Concerns: The officers did would what any police officer would do.

I'm sorry to say that NC may be right about this. The police, even the good police departments such as Sylvania Township, are not to be trusted. Remember that any policeman is a policeman first, before all else. That's his top priority, which far and away overrides your own top priority – protecting you and yours.

The rest of NCs post is a sick travesty of civil ideals. Still, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

From Pink_Slip: But not ONE mention of Blackwater, who were under contract with the Bush administration, taking guns away from people.

How about telling the whole story, Pink? Here's a link to one of the many stories about Katrina and security forces: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051010/scahill

From the article: mercenaries from companies like DynCorp, Intercon, American Security Group, Blackhawk, Wackenhut and an Israeli company called Instinctive Shooting International (ISI) are fanning out to guard private businesses and homes,

Then we have this additional bit of wisdom from Neighborhood Concerns: It is all a matter of perception and emotions.

What really makes me sick to my stomach is that, One, I'm convinced that Neighborhood Concerns actually believes the things he/she/it writes, and Two, that he's not alone. To that I'll add that I believe Pink_Slip is the alter ego of an elected official, hence he's on the inside of the power circle, which makes his tacit approval of this entire scenario doubly egregious.

Until the citizens of the United States organize themselves into neighborhood civil defense groups for the protection of their own homes, families and immediate vicinity, travesties just like the Katrina debacle will continue unimpeded.

1derfullyMade: Why are you now just hearing about this? Because commercial media is controlled by the same people who hired Blackwater to protect their property. Because no charges have been filed, no New Orleans police fired, and no politicians (including the Moonbat Mayor of New Orleans) will ever be held responsible for the oppression of law abiding US citizens by US military and security forces. Because the people in charge don't want this travesty publicized. That's why.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

What this comment even necessary? Aides in civil discussion, how?

"Until the citizens of the United States organize themselves into neighborhood civil defense groups for the protection of their own homes, families and immediate vicinity, travesties just like the Katrina debacle will continue unimpeded."

Didn't we already groups like these? As in vigilantes?

We have the right to defend ourselves, no doubt, and no disagreement, but does that mean we take to streets and start shooting, like the old west or the old south.

Police are respected for the role they play and for giving up their lives at times, people will say.

The emotions and perceptions to which I was referring to was and is, a scene with an elderly woman holding a gun in her hand, and not holding it properly and then showing it to a police officer, charged with up holding the law.

One shows a weapon to a police or peace officer and the reaction will be the same, the officer fears for his or her life.

The lady in the video brought the trouble on herself. Others who have weapons in the home, have simply told the officers and there was no trouble, the house was evacuated and peace was restored.

The scene was included for an emotional response from the viewers.

What of the many people who turned in weapons at a time of city wide crisis, they were not on the video, just those that felt violated.

The, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, well armed militia was doing what it was called to task to do. Maintain the security of the city, that also included using the weapons to shoot and kill looters.

"Troops told 'shoot to kill' in New Orleans"
"A detachment of 300 National Guard troops have landed in anarchic New Orleans with the authorisation to shoot and kill "hoodlums", Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco says.

Thousands of troops have struggled to counter armed looters and help tens of thousands of refugees flee New Orleans, where chaos reigns three days after Hurricane Katrina.

Top officials have confirmed that the storm killed thousands of people and have made a desperate plea for help to restore order to New Orleans and the surrounding region.

"Three hundred of the Arkansas National Guard have landed in the city of New Orleans," Ms Blanco said.

"These troops are fresh back from Iraq, well trained, experienced, battle-tested and under my orders to restore order in the streets."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1451906.htm

What also is not mentioned and judging from the scenes in the videos, where we the people from that were interviewed and when were they interviewed.

And by the way, I watched on live TV the beatings by the Chicago police at the Democratic Convention, so I do understand the whole state and police issues.

Which is why I have asked some, if we are not in a Police State, why then do we have State Police.

I have no problem with police taking guns away from people that are brazenly walking down the street with them, but coming into private homes without a warrant?! Hayell no! What's next, books?

Tell that to the police who had to deal with armed demonstrators in Columbus, OH over the passage of the CCW law. Taft, the turncoat governor of Ohio, tried to veto the legislation and was subsequently overridden. During that demonstration you never saw friendlier, more helpful police. Of course, the police were confronted by several hundred armed civilians who wanted nothing more than to assert their constitutional right to peacefully assemble. It was during the time of this demonstration that, several blocks away, a young man dressed in combat fatigues ran down the street carrying a long gun. The brave police tackled him from behind without warning. He had a gun, right NC? It turned out that the young man was an E2 headed for Iraq, and was getting himself back into shape. The long gun turned out to be a stick - a plain piece of wood. It wouldn't have mattered, because even if he were carrying a loaded AR-15, Ohio law provides for open carry. He was not breaking the law, but the police tackled him and roughed him up, and they did so because they knew they could get away with it.

Firearms are first. More suppression of the media is next. Martial law is last. Eventually, certain religious groups will be ordered to disband. People will quietly disappear in the name of national security. Books are on the agenda. Look at the Nazi party before WWII, then look at Katrina.

I expect I won't be around to see NC licking the jack boots of the oppressors, chanting political slogans and leaning to be a better citizen.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

What ever you say, what ever you say.

"The brave police tackled him from behind without warning. He had a gun, right NC? It turned out that the young man was an E2 headed for Iraq, and was getting himself back into shape. The long gun turned out to be a stick - a plain piece of wood."

It is not the first time and certainly won't be the last that some police officer has shot some person and it was found to be an unjustified shooting.

"People will quietly disappear in the name of national security"

Heck, they do now.

The answer is, besides lashing out at people on a discussion board for reasons known only to the other party.

A revolution?

People are simply not interested in it, not yet any way.

Wait till gas hits 7$ a gallon.

And if memory serves me correctly, the officers who failed to uphold their duties were dismissed and charged with crimes.

The Katrina disaster brought the dark side of humanity.

Leaving people in hospital beds to drown, etc.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.