Gun confiscations when the SHTF?

Okay, were they using a list when they went from house to house? Just beating on doors? Shouldn't they have been going after the looters, and not the people confined in their homes, scared to death.
 
Give up my guns??? Sure, Bullets first. Remember " I will give up my gun, When they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
 
JCaswell said:
If they don't mind murdering someone, they won't mind owning a gun without permission!

The bad guys have (or will get) whatever they want. Legal restrictions are only relevant to the good guys:rolleyes::mad:
Click to expand...

I know. The laws aren't terribly easy to enforce, but they are an attempt, at least.

"You need to look up what "a constitution" is. By definition, a constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all other laws enacted are subordinate to it." Then how can the government mold the laws of the documents as they have? "No, actually there are two. The first is to actually seek to determine what the document means, and the other is to impose your policy preferences on the document." So you're saying that if I picked three random people from the street, and asked them to interpret the second amendment, they would have one of two thoughts between them? "This level of ignorance about our Constitution is truly distressing. Like it or not, this is not simply a matter where "Hey bro, everybody's got an opinion." is sufficient. The Constitution is not a recitation of rights conveyed by the government to its citizens. It is a limitation on the power of government that acknowledges the rights we already possessed before forming the republic...Don't drink the Kool-Aid that the Constitution is a "living" document that supposedly has the "flexibility" to accomodate a changing country. Would you play poker with me if I could "reinterpret" the rules whenever it was in my interest?" Then explain to me how it's been done, if it's impossible. And I don't play poker.
 
JimMLa said:
Getting back to the Katrina SHTF, it was not as bad and much worse than reported. I live in the fishbowl, inside a small incorporated town outside of New Orleans. We did not flood, but had massive storm damage. The governments issued mandatory evacuation orders which I understand is their legal authority. If a person stayed behind to ride out the storm, (dummies) then they were in violation of the order. I heard this was the justification for everything that happened after the storm. Now the courts are judging.

First rule of survival is to be prepared. In this case, the preparedness was a well planned evacuation. So, my first question is how can anyone justify staying inside this fishbowl with at least 72 hours notice that the stuff will hit the fan? For those that don't know about us, to the south is the Mississippi River, to the north is a big lake. Almost everything between is under sea level, sinking, and inside levees. It would be easy to picture 18 feet of water in downtown New Orleans.

Oh please justify staying in an area that the professionals ordered you out of. I have heard to protect property, couldn't transport the pets, etc... Does a lot of good when the property is under eight feet of water and the pets are swimming.

I managed to get by the roadblocks and visit my town two days after Katrina. It would be three weeks before we were allowed to return. I brought stuff like water, tp, and can goods (and smokes). I dropped it off at the police station. They may not know my name, but some knew my face from telling them hello every time I see them around town. Do you say hello to the LEO's? None of them asked if I had guns on me.

My basic point is 1) avoid having to survive. 2) that piece of paper that lawyers talk about is important, but human interaction goes much further when the SHTF.

Jim
Click to expand...

Do we as Americans have the right to risk death and go down with the ship or not?
I can understand not wanting to leave your pets behind to die a slow death.
I don't see how the government can order you to leave your home.
Request yes,strongly recomend yes.
State after this point, you will no longer have any government services or protections yes.
Order me to leave my house and/or disarm me is not their right.
They work for us.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
I am always struck by the clumsiness of the sophistry that claims the Second refers to a militia and not to the people. I am a native speaker of English, and the words clearly state "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."

Whatever the logic, whatever the militia was in those days, the right of the people is what the Amendment declares shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

Darn right, E.B. The Framers had plenty of vocabulary to mean what they said when they said "the people", and when they said "the government." If they had meant "the right of the organized militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," or "the right of the army to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," or "the right of the police to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," they were perfectly capable of writing it that way.

But that's not what they wrote. They wrote "the people".

Maybe--in fact, I'd hypothesize, clearly--many people today simply flat disbelieve the initial clause of the 2nd Amendment. How many people on your block or in your workplace would truly believe, enough to fight for, the statement that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free country? There's the trouble: the framers of the Constitution assumed it, but most people today just tacitly reject it. Regardless, we're left with the amendment as written. And, as written, the functional, prescriptive part of that law (as distinct from the explanatory introduction) sets forth the right of the people.
 
Circa 1776, "the people" didn't have a incessant stream of propaganda...er...TV to dumb them down to the level of monkeys within a few generations.
 
I still don't understand how it is expected that the people who are going to commit crimes are less likely to do so if they do not have leagal access to firearms. I do not know first hand, but understand based on what little knowledge I have of illegal transactions, that it is EASIER to illegally purchase a firearm than it is to legally purchase the same firearm. So why would anyone go out of their way to legally purchase a gun, that they intend to use for criminal actions when they can make a couple of phone calls and have someone come to their house to sell them an illegal gun?

The laws only affect those that obey them. Those that choose to do wrong will do so weather they are allowed to legally own a gun or not.
 
I'm of the opinion that when the SHTF, the LEOs are going to have more pressing things to do like traffic control and herding the sheep around. Stay under their radar, stay out of their sight, keep your handgun out of sight, and go about your own business of survival. Second Ammendment "rights" will be up for grabs so look out for yourself.
 
Well, there was a precident set by a president a few years ago during the War Of Northern Aggression where Habius Corpus was suspended "for the good of the people". Fre'mont expanded on it in Missouri and got his butt in a sling, but a couple of guys named Grant and Sherman got away with it big time. And from that day until this... Governments...Federal, State, Local... will do what they will regardless of the legal truth that says... "Any law which is repugnent to the constitution is void from it's inception and imposes no obligation upon citizens to obey it, or duty upon officers of the government to enforce it."

But then it depends on what you mean by "is". Legal chicanery commonly turns rights into priviliges, and any privilidge granted by a government can be rescended by a government. This comes under the "right to contract". You contract away a right for a privilidge.

Please excuse me if I just slipped of that greasy railroad track!:D

COdger
 
Coldwood said:
I'm of the opinion that when the SHTF, the LEOs are going to have more pressing things to do like traffic control and herding the sheep around. Stay under their radar, stay out of their sight, keep your handgun out of sight, and go about your own business of survival. Second Ammendment "rights" will be up for grabs so look out for yourself.
Click to expand...

And if it is some major S hitting the F, a lot of the LEO's might opt to go home and look after their own families.
 
Codger_64 said:
Legal chicanery commonly turns rights into priviliges, and any privilidge granted by a government can be rescended by a government. This comes under the "right to contract". You contract away a right for a privilidge.
Click to expand...

Yup. I once had a friend who was a local town judge, and her opinion was that a drivers license was a "privilege." I disagreed with her and maintained that it was a "right", because without a driver's license you cannot have certain essential benefits "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

How can anyone these days pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without a drivers license and a car? Of course you can lose that right, but it is there, in place, first.

This is off the point of gun control, ownership, and seizure, but it points up how legal chicanery can pervert your rights.

The only rights you have are the ones you claim, and are willing to stand up for, and willing to defend with extreme prejudice.
 
Wolf_1989 said:
The amish do alright.

Not saying that I disagree with you; I do.
Click to expand...

Cute :) The Amish use horse and buggies, AKA "car".:)

So are you, or are you not, disagreeing with me? :)

Nevermind. At different times, different peoples have had to draw a line in the sand (with a sword or a pointed stick or a sharpened clam shell) and say "This is mine. If you cross this line, we are going to war."

The strong leaders drew the line and held it. The others shuffled their feet in the sand, until one of them said "Is Og f'n crazy? Somebody might get their eye poked out over this!"

So one night Og got a stick in the eye and ran off howling, and the sand shufflers took over. And they said "We don't want no pointy sticks or sharp clam shells no more, because if those foreheads over there see us with them they might get angry and come after us."

And so it goes:)
 
Coldwood said:
Yup. I once had a friend who was a local town judge, and her opinion was that a drivers license was a "privilege." I disagreed with her and maintained that it was a "right", because without a driver's license you cannot have certain essential benefits "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

How can anyone these days pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without a drivers license and a car? Of course you can lose that right, but it is there, in place, first.

This is off the point of gun control, ownership, and seizure, but it points up how legal chicanery can pervert your rights.

The only rights you have are the ones you claim, and are willing to stand up for, and willing to defend with extreme prejudice.
Click to expand...



To be perfectly honest, I know a few people who life thier life without a drivers license. In my eyes, they did have the privilege to drive, but were stupid and got it taken away. many commute on the bus, or drive a bike, they dont need a car, so for me I dont see a license as a right.

But, YMMV.
 
You do have a right to travel unencumbered. But when you get a government license to "operate a motor vehicle" (under the commerce clause) you are accepting a privilidge in lieu of your right to travel. Anything which requires a license to do is a privilege whether it is traveling, or owning and carrying a firearm, or operating a business.
 
What part of CORUPT don't we understand. These acts in N.O. were out and out thugery.Now in other parts of the country it is liberal politics that thunk we are to stupid to do any thing but vote and don't need guns so that their left wing crapola will be the only way.
 
Codger_64 said:
You do have a right to travel unencumbered. But when you get a government license to "operate a motor vehicle" (under the commerce clause) you are accepting a privilidge in lieu of your right to travel. Anything which requires a license to do is a privilege whether it is traveling, or owning and carrying a firearm, or operating a business.
Click to expand...

Point taken. But first, we all have a "right" to apply for that license. Then of course we accept a lot of conditions that make it a "privelege." Agreed. And through screwing up, we can lose that "privelege." And our "right" to apply may then be lost. (well, I'm winging it and doing outhouse lawyering here (laughs) :) )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top