Realistically what would you have done...


PDA






Joe7cri
April 26, 2006, 11:20 PM
Lately I've been thinking what I would have done if I lived in N.O. and the national guard came to confiscate my guns. I think I would have giving them a shot gun, .22 rifle, and 9mm. and hope they move on without finding the rest. Just curious what others would do?

Please give it some thought before posting that they can take it from your cold dead hands!

If you enjoyed reading about "Realistically what would you have done..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Declaration Day
April 26, 2006, 11:22 PM
Guns? I lost all of mine in a tragic, uh, boating accident. Yeah, that's it. Don't worry officer, no guns around here.

cosine
April 26, 2006, 11:22 PM
I don't think you'll get a lot of takers on this scenario... :uhoh:

Alex45ACP
April 26, 2006, 11:27 PM
Please give it some thought before posting that they can take it from your cold dead hands!

Hm... well, I've thought about it...

From my cold, dead hands.

WayneConrad
April 26, 2006, 11:28 PM
What thought is needed? I'll give 'em all the bullets they want. No charge. They can have the guns as a bonus gift once all the bullets are gone.

Joe7cri
April 26, 2006, 11:31 PM
I guess it's a debate between being killed in a shoot with police or die unarmed by the criminals who are trying to take your food:confused:

Ryder
April 26, 2006, 11:46 PM
Smash my locked doors in? I'll make you famous. :D

Low-Sci
April 27, 2006, 12:04 AM
I would have handed them over. Maybe I would've kept one hidden, but I wouldn't have shot at them.

I have two cousins and one very good friend in the service. Which makes me realize that even if he's confiscating my weapons, there's probably a kid about my age underneath the armor and fatigues with cousins and a best buddy of his own , both of which want to see that poor bastard again someday.

And when the whole mess is over, I'll get my guns back. They'll be returned to me. If I shoot that kid, I'm gonna die, because his buddies are gonna light me up like a dutch brothel, and they'd be right to. They came bearing me no ill will, threatening no violence, and for that I killed their friend? I hope to hell they'd shoot me.

And when it really comes down to it, from a tactical standpoint, this is just like a theft shoot/no-shoot situation. An armed thief wants my TV? Take it. My golf clubs? Take em'. Just don't hurt me or mine.

After all, what a sh*tty thing to kill a good man over.

silicon wolverine
April 27, 2006, 12:10 AM
That depends on how you take problems with authority. Would you roll over and be a good sheeple or not? Me? i think id say go away, youre not taking them. IF you taek them by force ill retaliate. I dont know a single cop thats gonna bust youre door down when he knows you'll start slingin' lead.

SW

BullfrogKen
April 27, 2006, 12:12 AM
In New Orleans specifically?

Realistically - Write them off on the flood damage policy, along with the rest of our belongings.

Since the news coverage I saw suggested that those who didn't evacuate before the storm, got evacuated afterwards, there wasn't much to stop someone from coming in after I was gone to get them, anyway.

Lupinus
April 27, 2006, 12:15 AM
depends

Family with me? I smile nod give over a gun or two sue them later and in the meantime protect my family with a gun I have stashed where happy police officer doesn't see it. I am of more use to my family alive then I am dead for making a stand.

No family? Well I will likely be in one of them, but there will be a number of body bags corresponding to how much ammo I have and hot good a shot the people coming to confiscate are. If I don't have a family to worry about protecting my guns will indeed come only from my dead hands.

This depends on the overall situation. If there is a nightly raiding party of armed thugs coming by my door I will fight regardless because we are likely to die without them anyway.

Low-Sci
April 27, 2006, 12:19 AM
My hangup isn't that its an authority figure. My hangup is from a tactical standpoint, the shoot solution seems like a miserable, terrible, exceedingly bad idea.

Tell the cops that if they come back you'll start shooting? That won't make you any friends. You'll very quickly become the quintessential "barricaded maniac" and you'll be all over the news, and so will the footage of the firefight that you'll lose to the SWAT team or national guard. Maybe you were right to say they're not gonna take your guns. But you're dead now, and you shot at LEOs or Military who were only doing as they were ordered.

After Katrina, confiscated weapons were court-ordered to be returned to their owners. So this would be at worst a momentary but severe breach of your second amendment rights. But if you decide to be a fanatic about it, that momentary breach will last the rest of your life.

But of course maybe being dead and taking a few fascist pigs with you was worth it. A couple more grieving families to add to the already senseless tragedy. Good plan.

WayneConrad
April 27, 2006, 12:19 AM
"They came bearing me no ill will, threatening no violence..."

Aw, nuts. I didn't say I'd enjoy giving the nice kids all of my bullets. If someone takes my guns by force, they are threatening violence. If not now, then later, because they have removed my ability to defend myself.

evan price
April 27, 2006, 12:22 AM
Why the hell would the NG be taking guns anyway? Did this really happen? If so, what justification did they give for disarming the populous? If I lived in N.O. and had to face looters & thieves damn straight I would have my pistols on my hip and a 12-ga on my lap. Try and take them!

Standing Wolf
April 27, 2006, 12:25 AM
I wouldn't have stayed in New Orleans in the proverbial "first place."

Low-Sci
April 27, 2006, 12:31 AM
I guess just being in a situation where this kind of decision has to be made means you've violated Rule 1 of SHTF procedure, which is always getting the hell outta dodge.

Don't Tread On Me
April 27, 2006, 12:55 AM
1] There's no fighting them unless there's a semi-organized effort (ie neighbors and others participating). You wouldn't want a confrontation infront a home or when they are expecting it. You'd want to organize, then ambush them on their confiscation route. Get them in the open with a massive hail of gunfire. Then run or evade. The longer range, the better. Think Lexington/Concord - but more guerilla style than even those battles.

2] You don't have a choice as to whether or not you'd "give" them a particular gun.

WAKE UP.

You aren't giving squat - THEY'RE TAKING.

You will be handcuffed infront of your home like a criminal while they ransack your home to find any arms that they can. The premise of the thread starter's post is that there's a cooperative nature to this. There is not. This is a forced confiscation. They are the master, you are the bitch. End of story.


3] If you thought about fighting back without an organized plan, you'd lose, because the 2-3 cops who banged the doors down had an entire platoon of National Guardsmen with fully automatic weapons fresh from Iraq. If you shoot the cops, they NG on your street will shoot back and take you out with their freshly acquired urban combat skills. They will saturate you and your home with firepower. If you've seen raw footage of what our guys do in Iraq, trust me, you don't want to go up against that. At least the Iraqi's have full-autos, RPGs and 2ft thick solid concrete wall contruction virtually everywhere for cover. You have semi-autos, no explosives or rockets, and wooden or cinderblock homes, and worst of all - no experience. Good luck.


Amazing, the cops are the badguys, but the brainwashed nationalists condemn any negative statement about the NG, despite their participation to guarantee the of authority of the police via physical presence of force which makes them 100% complicit in the crimes. As if anyone is impuning their Iraq service. It is the participation of *some* NG in the confiscations that makes them the enemies of freedom. Sorry, had to throw that in.


Since all of these options look bleak. The best idea is to not keep all your eggs in one basket. Way before any disaster, one should hide rifles and ammo in different locations that will not be easily found by confiscators. Let them take what they can find, then later on it is your choice what to do - at least you'll be armed. You can dig up your arms, and use them for defense against looters and to stay low, of if a "movement" rises up, join them and get a little justice later on.

Low-Sci
April 27, 2006, 01:06 AM
I didn't mean to suggest that the NG was good and the cops were bad. Both are good, but they're doing a bad thing.

But here's my real rub with a shooting solution: the weapons that were confiscated were ordered to be returned to the owners. So are we seriously going to mount an insurgency over what is a momentary, if extreme, lapse of judgement? Is it really worth killing a man to hang onto your weapon for another week instead of just, you know, leaving and taking the damn guns with you?

c_yeager
April 27, 2006, 01:10 AM
One look at me and a lot of people simply assume that I have a firearm of some kind. I have two guns that dont work for a damn that I would *LOVE* to get rid of. I would hand those over to assuage their jack booted desires and count myself lucky to be rid of them.

oops!
April 27, 2006, 01:13 AM
So, you're for the 2nd, as long as it doesn't mean actually standing up for it.
Any wimp can right a check to the NRA.

SilentStalker
April 27, 2006, 01:16 AM
Um, I guess that depends on why they were taking them in the first place. I mean isn't confiscating our guns without grounds against our constitutional rights? I do believe it is so they better have a damn good reason as to why they would want mine.

Low-Sci
April 27, 2006, 01:31 AM
I'm for the 2nd amendment, but I also don't find it an unreasonable effort to find a way to avoid death and destruction where possible. These are bad things.

Of course you need to stand up for your second amendment rights. However, that stand can and most definately should manifest itself in a peaceful way long before a violent road should be considered.

If you find yourself in a Katrina-type disaster, you have lots of options. Your first and best bet is to leave the disaster area as quickly and safely as possible, thus avoiding a potential confiscation. Once you're out and yours are safe, raise pure hell about confiscations and don't stop until some action is taken.

Second, if your gun will be confiscated, you have to personally evaluate the risk. If you resist with a deadly weapon, you're a dead man. Congratulations for fighting the good fight, its gotten you killed, and anyone who might have relied on you for protection is out of luck.

If you're really spoiling for a fight, and a natural disaster strikes and you want to be part of the devastation, by all means load up that thar lever action and saddle up. John Wayne's got nothing on you except a couple pounds of brain, and you move faster without it.

My point is there are better ways to protect your right to bear arms than by using them against other people, and the best way is to stay alive, protect who you need to protect, and then raise some hell about it.

If nothing else, consider this: How will the media spin your death when you die trying to ambush a group of police or NG who were confiscating weapons? They're going to explain to the nation that you were a psychopath with a high-power weapon who lauched an assault on NG disaster relief personnel, and that spin is a terrible blow to the rest of the gun-owning nation.

Use your head more, your itchy trigger finger less.

WayneConrad
April 27, 2006, 02:09 AM
"John Wayne's got nothing on you except a couple pounds of brain, and you move faster without it."

Easy, now. No need to be insulting.

This is the prisoner's dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma) writ large. When each person optimizes for their own well being, the least favorable outcome is the result.

Low-Sci
April 27, 2006, 02:21 AM
That comment was uncalled for and I apologize. It wasn't directed towards any person in particular, I just meant to use it to explain how the rationale of an aggressive response struck me.

It just perturbs me that some people think that the only way to protect a freedom is to frag someone.

WayneConrad
April 27, 2006, 02:56 AM
I understand, and your point is well taken. There are always choices.

c_yeager
April 27, 2006, 02:57 AM
So, you're for the 2nd, as long as it doesn't mean actually standing up for it.
Any wimp can right a check to the NRA.

Clearly you havent died for the RKBA just yet, tough guy.

silicon wolverine
April 27, 2006, 03:14 AM
In this case its about principle. How far would you go to keep what is rightfully yours. Yes its easy to hand them over and get them back later. but the question remians what if you DIDN't ge them back? Before the court order the NOPD had no intention of giving them back. and theyre making it hell to get tham back now. We should be a little more worried about the KIND of world our kids grow up in rather than thier or our physical safety and prosperity. When they come knockin'to take your guns away (regardless of motive) it is your constitutional duty to resist and you would be in the right (in principal at least) as what they are doing is unconstitutional. Personally, id rather end up dead fighting to keep my guns than waiting patiently for some perp to come waste me.

SW

MTMilitiaman
April 27, 2006, 03:30 AM
I would have handed them over. Maybe I would've kept one hidden, but I wouldn't have shot at them.

I have two cousins and one very good friend in the service. Which makes me realize that even if he's confiscating my weapons, there's probably a kid about my age underneath the armor and fatigues with cousins and a best buddy of his own , both of which want to see that poor bastard again someday.

And when the whole mess is over, I'll get my guns back. They'll be returned to me. If I shoot that kid, I'm gonna die, because his buddies are gonna light me up like a dutch brothel, and they'd be right to. They came bearing me no ill will, threatening no violence, and for that I killed their friend? I hope to hell they'd shoot me.

And when it really comes down to it, from a tactical standpoint, this is just like a theft shoot/no-shoot situation. An armed thief wants my TV? Take it. My golf clubs? Take em'. Just don't hurt me or mine.

After all, what a sh*tty thing to kill a good man over.

I guess I am just not as willing to turn the other cheek as you or some other people. Someone, anyone, breaks into my house and I feel they should be shot on general principle. So if you are in my house--whether it be to steal my TV, my guns, or to do bodily harm to my family and I, you're going to have to try real hard not to get shot. I feel that anyone showing up to my doorstep with a rifle and demanding enterence to my house in order to confiscate my property or to forcibly remove me from the premises is very much a threat. Cousins or no cousins, it is exactly the kind of threat that the Framers wrote the Second Amendment to allow me to defend against. So they take my guns and maybe I do get them back after the whole incident. But do they take me with them and put me in a camp, presumably for my own safety? Who protects what is left of my property until my return? Do they leave me there? What am I to do if people with less than honorable intentions follow these "do-gooders" of the state so willing to save me from myself as a sign of their benevelance? Yes, in my contempt I have resorted to mild sarcasm. Call me stupid but I can deal with a certain amount of danger or peril if it means I am free. But as a citizen I feel surrending rightfully owned private property is a loss not only of property but of individual freedom and dignity. This is true not even if it is an element of the state, but especially if it is an element of the state. This is coming from someone with a brother and several friends in Iraq, a strong military background in my family, and someone who is almost certainly joining the military himself sometime in the near future. What I am saying here is that I would much rather be dead on national television than forced to give up everything I hold dear for, as Benjamin Franklin would put it "a little temporary safety."

crazed_ss
April 27, 2006, 06:00 AM
Maybe I'd give them my Remington 710 and hope they'd be satisifed with that :)

Joe7cri
April 27, 2006, 09:00 AM
Does anyone know if there is anything in motion to protect us from future Mayors who decide it's best for their city to violate our Constitution Rights in time of crisis?

Spiphel Rike
April 27, 2006, 09:17 AM
"the weapons that were confiscated were ordered to be returned to the owners."

How many do you think will make it back? I'm betting it won't be all of them. "Just following orders" is not a valid excuse.

TallPine
April 27, 2006, 09:25 AM
If you've seen raw footage of what our guys do in Iraq, trust me, you don't want to go up against that.
I've been wondering all along if the aggression against Iraq isn't just a training exercise ... :uhoh:

redloki
April 27, 2006, 10:47 AM
I have thought about it. If I was faced now with that senerio. I have no doubt I would try to hide one or two like some of you and maybe get away with it. I would tell the officer he can leave me and my guns(the ones he finds) alone or take them and I find the first news camera I can find, exercise my first amendment right and tell them the story of how my 2nd and 4th amendment right was violated by him and his department while asking help from a constitutional lawyer. His choice. I would fight them but only as a last resort and if they gave me no other choice.

High Planes Drifter
April 27, 2006, 11:10 AM
From someone who lived through it:

There was a law on the books in La. making it legal to confiscate guns during emergencies like the aftermath of Katrina. But, its worth pointing out, they werent taking guns away from everyone like the media tried to make it out. I walked around with an M1A slung on my back, and a pistol on my hip. Pretty much every male in my home was outfitted the same; a long gun slung on back, and a pistol holstered. I picked up trash out of my yard with these on; heck I had National Gaurd troops stop everyday and ask us " Hey Mr . Drifter, you guys need anything?" , they complimented me on the rifle, spoke to us a while each day and went on about thier business. The gun confiscating went on in certain neighborhoods where less than model citizens were hold up; the areas where the reports came from that rescue workers were being fired upon. These areas have always been the problemed areas of New Orleans. I'll let you use your imagination to draw an image of them.:rolleyes: . Yes, there were good people who lost thier firearms in the confiscation, thats very unfortunate; I really dont have an answer to what could have/should have been done. What I do know is that the storm set in motion a mutiny against social structure and order; where gangs of thugs tried to take the city over. IMO, the NG shouldnt have taken the guns from the animals responsible for and participating in the mutiny until after they killed them.

Joe7cri
April 27, 2006, 11:42 AM
Hey High Planes Drifter,

I hear what you are saying, but If someone is living in an area where that type of situation is present, shouldn't they be allowed to bear arms to protect themselves from that type of element, especially during times of chaos?

rmgill
April 27, 2006, 11:44 AM
In the case of New Orleans the orders to confiscate seemed to be enforced by LAPD or CHP officers that were there to lend aid, but at the behest of the NOLA PD (which was notably absent for a large part of the fun). The National Guard didn't seem to be involved directly from what I heard.

Seems to me that it'd be a really good idea to have some weapons stored away that couldn't easily be found (along with ammo) so if they did come take your weapons but left you there, you could let them take what was out (only got these three sir) and then when they were gone, wait a while and then get your spares out of storage.

I think a second visit would warrant statements that they should get bent unless they were planning on staying and protecting you. :cuss:

geekWithA.45
April 27, 2006, 12:33 PM
There was a law on the books in La. making it legal to confiscate guns during emergencies like the aftermath of Katrina.

I don't believe that's that case.

I've looked into that exact question, and was unable to find any authority for systematic confiscation of arms from homes unless incident to an arrest for other crimes.

Invocation of "states of emergencies" does not entitle the authorities to start making stuff up on the fly. It temporarily grants "extraordinary powers" that are finite and enumerated.

As far as I could tell, this absolutely was NOT an "extraordinary power" granted.

Got a citation?

Derek Zeanah
April 27, 2006, 01:13 PM
Is it really worth killing a man to hang onto your weapon for another week instead of just, you know, leaving and taking the damn guns with you?The issue isn't just one of rights. It breaks down something like this:
The S has truly hit the fan
Outside of your home, there's a bunch of life 'n death stuff going on.
Goblins are out in force, and if the news reports are to believed they control big pieces of the city to the point that helicopters won't land to aid relief efforts.
Your only chance to protect against goblins is the arms you've got mixed with your training in their proper employment.
Those "authorities" that come to your door are trying to require you to disarm, so that you will be left defenseless in the face of the goblins and will therefore be more willing to get crammed into the same public shelters we've all heard about. The fact that their request is unlawful and immoral may or not enter into the decisionmaking process.

Now, me? I don't think I'd play along. Odds are I'd have someone in the house behind a riflescope watching me outside the premises, too.

I honestly don't know what I'd do. I'd start with "there is some serious **** going down here, fellas, and y'all can't help me out. Now that's fine, because we prepared for this, but it won't be fine if you disarm me and some of these goblins y'all can't seem to control get a whiff of my supplies. Now, my wife is in that house and I know I want to get back to her. Just like y'all want to make it home to your wives as well. I understand what y'all have been asked to do, and I understand it's quite a moral delimma you're facing. I don't know how I'd react in your shoes. But then, I don't know how my buddy in th OP/LP is gonna react if he sees me forcibly disarmed out here either -- see, we have a number of prearranged goblin-defense signals that mean "open fire", like me raising my arms over my head, or lowering my weapon to the ground. I think the best course of action is for us to just decide we didn't see each other this afternoon. Now, what do you want me to do?"

Of course, the script might go the same even if I didn't have a buddy backing me up...

'Card
April 27, 2006, 01:35 PM
I've been sitting here thinking this one over for about 15 minutes now, and I honestly can't think of a scenario where I'd be willing to give up my only means of self-defense without a fight.

First I'd lie, then I'd cheat, then I'd bluff. I honestly think I'd try everything possible to avoid a violent confrontation. I used to be a soldier. Odds are I'd see a much younger version of myself in that uniform. Odds are I'd try reminding that younger version of myself of the oath we both took to defend the Constitution, and the things written in it.

But if everything else failed, and push came to shove, and the options were either to fight or to give up my means of fighting? Well, I reckon that'd be a pretty bloody day around these parts. They might get my guns in the end, but they wouldn't have to worry about any unfired ammo left around.

DF357
April 27, 2006, 01:42 PM
the weapons that were confiscated were ordered to be returned to the owners.

they haven't been returned yet and there seems to be no hurry. The NRA is going back after them again. Saw this in the latest NRA email sent out.

TX1911fan
April 27, 2006, 02:54 PM
This post has actually caused me to think about this scenario is a little more depth. First, no matter how strident a 2nd Amendment supporter you are, you are not going to defeat a determined police force. Talk to David Koresh or Mrs. Weaver if you think otherwise. If you resist, all that's going to happen is that now they have a REASON to take your weapons and NEVER give them back, since you are now a felon. So, if the stuff starts hitting the fan in my area, I think I will hide several firearms in my home. If the LEOs come to confiscate, I'll be very mad, but I will turn them over and hope they don't find the others. I'd prefer to argue in court over keeping a firearm after an illegal confiscation and using it self defense than to argue that I was justified in protecting my constitutional rights by firing on law enforcement.

RNB65
April 27, 2006, 03:07 PM
I would have denied having any firearms and only displayed them for legit self-defense purposes.

As a result of the NOLA incident, VA recently passed a law prohibiting government from disarming citizens during a disaster or emergency situation. The amazing thing is that our liberal Dem Governor signed it into law.

:cool:

jashobeam
April 27, 2006, 03:31 PM
Imagine a very large earthquake here in CA which damages many of the roads, making "getting out of Dodge" nearly impossible. There is often talk here about earthquake preparedness. What good is your preparedness if you are unable to defend that which you have accumulated in preparation?

Or how about a Flu outbreak? One day you learn of local cases of Bird Flu, and next your entire town, city, or suburb has been quarantined.

Whatever the cause, you might find yourself more or less stuck in the same "lockdown" sector with those who welcome any opportunity as an excuse to riot, loot, and pillage.

There exists within America an entire socioeconomic category of people whose very culture it is to continually receive from a system to which they never contribute. Some of these folks feel entitled, not to what they have or receive, but to what you have. They will flaunt and brag about owning an expensive item, regardless of whether it was purchased or stolen. How will this type of person respond when placed in a very desperate situation?

I don't live in or near a ghetto, but in the Santa Clara valley one can't always know which houses or apartment complexes are being used for Section 8 (government subsidization in which, IIRC, landlords and homeowners actually receive more by renting to Section 8 qualifiers than by renting on the open market). Every town and city in this valley has its lesser-desirable areas. Not all wealthy people have manners, compassion, or consideration for their fellow man, either.

Before Mt. St. Helens erupted in the early '80s, there was a man who lived near its base. I believe his name was actually Harry Truman. He refused to vacate his property. He died when the volcano erupted. I wonder, if there had been armed looters roaming the Washington woods, would the government then have (essentially) arrested and relocated Mr. Truman for his own safety?

When they can't control the bad, the government will round up the good. In a supposed effort to stop the lawless, the government will restrict the rights and freedoms of the law-abiding.

Low-Sci
April 27, 2006, 03:40 PM
There are a lot more people willing to commit suicide by NG or Cop here than I would have imagined.

Threatening violence on police or NG in a situation like that wont be regarded as a friendly encouragement to move on. It will be treated like a hostile act, and you can expect a response that coordinates with a hostile act.

I understand that there is a need to be able to protect yourself from miscreants in such a situation, but why would it be a problem to couple that with your need to leave the disaster zone and take your guns along with you for protection, instead of simply camping out waiting for a shootout with cops or goons, whichever comes to you first?

Derek Zeanah
April 27, 2006, 03:47 PM
I understand that there is a need to be able to protect yourself from miscreants in such a situation, but why would it be a problem to couple that with your need to leave the disaster zone and take your guns along with you for protection, instead of simply camping out waiting for a shootout with cops or goons, whichever comes to you first?If you reread a lot of what popped up during Katrina, it looks something like this for those who didn't leave before the storm hit:
If you go into the shelter, you'll be disarmed and your possessions will either be taken at the door or by someone bigger/stronger inside. Once there you'll be faced with rumors of the rapes happening on the top floors, violence, non-working latrines, no water, rising heat, and rising tempers.
If you try to find another way out, you'll be met by armed deputies saying "you can't go this way. We aren't accepting any more of your kind."
If you wander around you'll get into trouble.
If you stay put you're fine as long as you don't make yourself a target, or get found by the "wrong kind" of rescuers.Those are your options. Government run shelters = hell, no other way out.

Some don't find those two options acceptable.

Low-Sci
April 27, 2006, 03:58 PM
Ok, so lets put it in the simplest terms that people seem to be suggesting. First, there is no way out. Absolutely no way you can possibly extricate yourself from the area.

Second, a patrol is coming to take your weapons, with or without your consent.

Third, without your weapons, you will inevitably, absolutely be killed by marauding thugs because without a gun, a man is incapable of self-defense or conflict evasion.

Fourth, if you resist violently, you will be killed.

So it seems the best course of action still isnt a very attractive option: hide a few guns and hope, feign cooperation. It might work, it may very well not work.

The next most popular course of action seems to be to go down in a hail of gunfire and gore, which defies both logic and common sense, but is well principled.

High Planes Drifter
April 27, 2006, 04:18 PM
Hey High Planes Drifter,

I hear what you are saying, but If someone is living in an area where that type of situation is present, shouldn't they be allowed to bear arms to protect themselves from that type of element, especially during times of chaos?
-----------------------------------------------------

I agree one hundred percent with you that every law abiding citizen should have the means to defend themselves. It is unfortunate that the honest folks living in the targeted areas had thier property taken for no good reason.
---------------------------------------------------------
Posted by High Planes Drifter:
Quote:
There was a law on the books in La. making it legal to confiscate guns during emergencies like the aftermath of Katrina.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By geekWitha.45:

I don't believe that's that case.

I've looked into that exact question, and was unable to find any authority for systematic confiscation of arms from homes unless incident to an arrest for other crimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------

I was a bit incorrect in my original statement, there wasnt a specific law on the books giving the state this right. Rather an emergency powers law covering many items. The state legislation passed a bill- HC-139 ; to prohibit this from happening again.

Derek Zeanah
April 27, 2006, 04:21 PM
Not to invoke Godwin, but here's another argument that comes up occasionally here:

Look, if you resist you're gonna die. If you go with them you might die, but you'll probably just be put in prison or shipped out of the country or something. So what's a Jew to do when the troops come and bang on the door?

The common answer here seems to be "they may kill an individual family, but if every 10 families only killed one guy who showed up at the door, the government would have rapidly run out of manpower."

There comes a time when evil must be resisted, regardless of the personal consequences. Or at least, those who believe in something bigger than themselves (God, Country, Family, Justice, Rights, whatever) seem to argue this on occasion. Your answer is "meekly give them what they want, but hide something in the hope they don't take it."

My answer is give 'em a choice, and act on their choice. "You've taken an oath to the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment protects my right to be armed, and I think we both agree that right now is the most important time I've ever chosen to be armed. I swore that same oath, as did my buddies in the building behind me, and that oath had no expiration date. Think this through son, and decide how you want this to proceed. If it's an unlawful order you've a right to refuse it. If you decide to enforce it, at best you're going to have to deal with the emotional consequences of killing off a pediatrician and her husband who were doing all they could in a nasty situation, and wanted nothing more than to be left alone with their arms so they could resist the evil elements that their government couldn't suppress. At worst you'll go straight to God to answer for this crime. I'll be waiting in my house for your answer. And don't think that me turning my back is an opportunity -- there's at least one rifle you don't see pointed at you right now..."

Derek Zeanah
April 27, 2006, 04:23 PM
Wow, my post sounds militant. I guess there are still some emotions I'm carrying left over from the whole Katrina confiscation thing.

Interesting.

Powderman
April 27, 2006, 04:45 PM
To all who have posted:

There is one thing that is somewhat wrong with your way of thinking.

And, here it is:

You ASSUME that all law enforcement officers will attempt to take your guns.

You ASSUME that our Armed Forces consist of mindless drones who will willingly trash the Constitution.

As for the servicemembers, a survey was done a while back, in the 90's. In it, a LTC asked, if an order was given to confiscate firearms from citizens, and you met a pocket of people who refused to give them up, would you fire on these citizens if ordered?

IIRC, well over 90% of these soldiers, sailors, Airmen and Marines said not no, but HELL no!

Moreover, the vast majority of LEO that I know will react in this manner:
Supervisor/Department administrator
"OK, guys, here's the brief. You will go door to door, you will search households, and you will confiscate all firearms, ammunition and equipment for disposal and final disposition. Any questions?"

Line officers, to include Sergeants and most Lieutenants I know:

"Yup. What bowl of crack are YOU chewing on? Screw off. You want to do this, do it yourself."

Administrator:

"You'll lose your job!"

Officers:

"Well, why don't take this nice, shiny badge, polish it up good and smooth, and CRAM IT *&^*(&&^!!@?!?"

Don't assume that because we wear a uniform that we will watch our Nation dissolve without acting.

Remember, the oath said, "Against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC....."

geekWithA.45
April 27, 2006, 04:45 PM
High Planes Drifter:


I think you see my point:

In the one circuit that holds 2A to be an individual right,

In a state that has a strong, individual RKBA guarantee*,

In the complete absence of any lawful power to do so**,

Knowing full well that disarmed citizens faced the imminent danger to life and limb in the form of widespread, criminal lawlessness,

Officials of the City of New Orleans unlawfully ordered the systematic confiscation of personal arms, and such orders were systematically carried out through the vigorous application of the threat of lethal force, in defiance of the protests of the people thus victimized.

THIS NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED, AND YET IT DID.

This was an unprecedented event in the history of our Republic, and it has been swept under the rug.

We have yet to hear a full accounting of these events, and there has been no Congressional inquiry.

Judicial redress came too late, and and even restitutional remedy has still yet to be effected.


Frankly, honest people, under those circumstances would have been fully justified, ethically, morally, and legally in meeting the official abuse of force with force.

That they did not I think is due to any of a number of mitigating circumstances, most notably the lack of global knowledge of what was going on due to the power being out, and the general unwillingness of men of good character to resort to arms in ambiguous circumstances, especially in the face of authority.

If we, the gunerati of America, who are well versed in the underlying topics of rights, powers, and the Lockean basis of our Republic do not come to the concensus that in circumstances of imminent danger and the impossibility of immediate judicial relief and redress, that meeting the official abuse of force, with force is valid, no one will.




* The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

** I stand by my original assertion that there was NO AUTHORITY, even under emergency powers

Derek Zeanah
April 27, 2006, 04:51 PM
You ASSUME that all law enforcement officers will attempt to take your guns.

You ASSUME that our Armed Forces consist of mindless drones who will willingly trash the Constitution.
No, not all of us. Some of us are assuming that there's a thinking, caring, feeling person who's coming to our door. We hope that, if given an opportunity to really think about what they're doing and the potential reaction they face, especially if presented in a rational and clear manner, they'll choose to do the right thing.

If not, it alleviates some of the burden on one's conscience, because you gave them an opportunity to prove they were human before you acted.

geekWithA.45
April 27, 2006, 04:52 PM
Powderman:

You ASSUME that all law enforcement officers will attempt to take your guns.

I think people are responding to those officers who DID follow their orders, perform dynamic entries, cuff citizens to the curb, and take their lawful personal arms.

Some did not get such orders.

Some, I'm sure, found ways not to comply with such orders.

Some complied, grudgingly, and felt bad about it.

Others complied with gusto.

Unfortunately, the bottom line is that enough of them DID comply, that we can no longer trust the intentions of such officials under those circumstances.

And that sort of third world nonsense is a damned, crying shame in America.

rab357
April 27, 2006, 05:00 PM
I'd play hide and go seek. I would be positively friendly to the NG and police. I would even offer them a glass of lemonade. But they can't take what I can't remember where I put it.

I see no difference between New Orleans and the LA Riots. When civil order breaks down only count on yourself. I remember Regenald Denny and that brick. Don't you?

Low-Sci
April 27, 2006, 05:13 PM
The question is how you would handle the situation. Of course it was wrong, and it was a blatant abridgement of human and civil rights. But that's totally beside the point. The point is, it happened, proving that it indeed can happen, and what would you do if placed in that same situation?

There is certainly a large body of very principle-driven people who would much rather die than be disarmed. While I understand this, I don't sympathize with it and it doesn't make logical, tactical sense.

Of course you have a duty to resist when your rights are being taken away. However, you're doing yourself a disservice if you think the only way to resist is to shoot back. Hiding a firearm is resisting unlawful confiscation. There is a middle road between knuckling under and dying for your beliefs, and that's civil disobedience. Maybe it doesn't have the romance of a gun battle, but it may very well be much more useful.

What does make sense from a survival standpoint is hiding your firearms. This way you at least have a decent shot at retaining them for future use, which satisfies the need for protection. If you manage to succeed in hiding them, then you've also resisted an unlawful and unconstitutional decree with no loss of life required.

Fighting back only promises that they'll take not only your weapons, but also the weapons of anyone who might have been in your care, and you won't be around to protect them anymore.

Derek Zeanah
April 27, 2006, 05:43 PM
However, you're doing yourself a disservice if you think the only way to resist is to shoot backI guess we're seeing this differently. I don't see myself as advocating a gun battle. I see myself as saying, in a clear and reasoned way, "no, and there are serious consequences if you decide to force this matter, so please think this through thoroughly Mister Jackboot." The ball is totally in the other dude's court, and to be honest I don't believe most cops/soldiers would choose to pursue that course of action once given the option as I have stated above.

Having said that, I think you've overestimating the ability of a handful of cops when faced with the prospect of assaulting a prepared position. Point one: assume the primary and secondary approaches to the home are covered by interlocking fields of fire...

Low-Sci
April 27, 2006, 05:51 PM
I didn't mean to say you in particular, Derek, were advocating a gun battle, although there is certainly an element here that does.

You're right, I may very well be overestimating the ability and willingness of local police to prosecute a situation like that. I've never put much faith in police marksmanship or training, so maybe I'm putting too much faith in it now. On the other hand, what if this isn't the cops, and it's the National Guard? That has to factor into the situation.

It would be nice to just be able to tell them to move along amicably and have them do it, but I just don't trust them to do it. I think that's where the real disagreement lies.

DKSuddeth
April 27, 2006, 05:57 PM
I think through the whole katrina fiasco, if just one person would have met force with force, every LEO and guardsmen there would have told the police chief and mayor to :cuss: off. For most I'm sure it was bad enough that they were violating the constitution to carry out an unlawful order, it would have magnified it 10x to have had to kill an american just trying to defend their constitutional rights.

I would probably have been that one to do it.

gunsmith
April 27, 2006, 06:15 PM
I was in the guARD in the 70's when it was full of drunks, liars and junkies.
And us enlisted men were not much better:neener:

Anyway, I would never have obeyed an order to confiscate, I would have knocked on doors and said

you aint got no guns here right? yup no guns here.
my brother would do the same.

now what would I do if I'm the one getting confiscated?
before katrna I would have been in the hide some give some camp.
but .gov has proven it didn't plan on returning them by first saying they never had them, and now it's making it impossible for large groups of gun owners...you know that private sales , no paperwork EBR? you can't prove it's yours so they keep it.

if they come for mine before I get out of town I do not answer the door.
if they break the door down then I start shooting.

.gov proved it was willing to steal my guns by it's actions in the katrina.

before katrina I would have probably coperated to some degree, now that they have shown their true colors???

no way!

I am single, I don't have any children , I don't have a really have a lot to live for except my freedom, which I need to thrive.
if you take my guns you are crippleing me financially and emotionally.
I would react like a cornered well armed wolf.

nomadboi
April 27, 2006, 07:03 PM
"John Wayne's got nothing on you except a couple pounds of brain, and you move faster without it."

Okay, so maybe it wasn't nice or appropriate, but I for one found it hilariously phrased.:D

I don't think in an emergency situation like that the infrastructure and communication would still be in place for them to look up who owns how many of what gun from FFL records or anything, so I'd probably be in the 'hide one' camp. Here in Seattle it's the next big earthquake we have to worry about, which means no advance warning. I don't live in the best neighborhood, not by choice but because that's all I could afford for my family. Then again, if it comes to it, I've got a decent collection of non-firearm weapons...

jashobeam
April 27, 2006, 07:55 PM
Low-Sci,

Let me first say that I enjoy your well-written arguments and that I appreciate your point of view. Either compliance or resistance MAY work satisfactorily with everyone ultimately keeping his life and property. NEITHER will work if the disarmament effort is more than just a loosely coordinated sweep by roving bands of LEO/NG, and is instead a highly coordinated agenda to remove all citizens from a given zone. While in the case of Katrina LAPD and CHP were most likely brought in due to a lack of local manpower, do not be surprised to see the same tactic employed in the future where out-of-state LEOs (and possibly UN troops:eek: ) are utilized for the purpose of employing enforcers who cannot relate to or identify with those placed under their charge.

You say that those who resist to the point of bloodshed do themselves and their families a disservice; but might not your compliance encourage the morale and efforts of those who are doing the disarming, whereas stories of resistance might give them pause to reconsider the justification for their actions, and the consequences thereof?

At what point will your compliance end?

What if the next band of LE brothers to come by your house treats you and your family with extreme disrespect or brutality simply because they believe, due to your former unwillingness to stand up for yourself (as perceived by them), that you are weak and that they can push you around?

I have been told that in prison any act of submission to a bully will only result in greater demands from the bully. Other inmates will only help you as long as you are helping yourself; in other words, as long as you are resisting a bully others will 'have your back'. Once you make a mistake and give in or show any weakness, you are on your own and it is up to you to stand up and refuse to comply with further demands. Failure to do so will essentially result in your being owned.

Isn't the same true with organized crime? Once you agree to let them 'help you' in your business you will never be able to refuse again.

What if, after the first wave of cops/soldiers comes and confiscates whatever firearms you admit to owning, a second wave of cops/soldiers comes through and informs you that due to armed bandits it is entirely too unsafe for you to remain in the area without a means of self-protection and that, consequently, you and your family/household will now have to be escorted to a refugee (detention) camp for your safety?

1911Tuner
April 27, 2006, 08:43 PM
First shots fired between American and British troops, on April 19, 1775. The British chose to march to Concord because it was an arms depot, and the the garrison had been ordered to seize all arms, powder, and shot. They were only following orders, mate.) The colonists knew that they didn't stand a chance against British regulars...but they took a stand anyway. They lost, and they lost badly...but they delivered a message with that "Shot heard 'round the World." It took a long, bloody war for the British to come to understand the full measure of that message.

I guess you can mark this date in American history as the first organized gun grab. I can't see much difference between that event and the disarmament of peaceful citizens holding out in what was left of their homes in the aftermath of Katrina...I really can't. I'm sorry...but anyone who tries, plans, or even wants to disarm me is my mortal enemy. An enemy who would leave me at the mercy of a sociopathic element without so much as an air rifle to fight back with...because they were following orders. I don't think so, brother.

And so, Mayor Nagin, (Or however the hell you spell your name) I will NOT bygod be disarmed at your whim, or anybody else's. Not while I'm alive.
Mark that well.

mordechaianiliewicz
April 27, 2006, 08:47 PM
1] There's no fighting them unless there's a semi-organized effort (ie neighbors and others participating). You wouldn't want a confrontation infront a home or when they are expecting it. You'd want to organize, then ambush them on their confiscation route. Get them in the open with a massive hail of gunfire. Then run or evade. The longer range, the better. Think Lexington/Concord - but more guerilla style than even those battles.

2] You don't have a choice as to whether or not you'd "give" them a particular gun.

WAKE UP.

You aren't giving squat - THEY'RE TAKING.

You will be handcuffed infront of your home like a criminal while they ransack your home to find any arms that they can. The premise of the thread starter's post is that there's a cooperative nature to this. There is not. This is a forced confiscation. They are the master, you are the bitch. End of story.


3] If you thought about fighting back without an organized plan, you'd lose, because the 2-3 cops who banged the doors down had an entire platoon of National Guardsmen with fully automatic weapons fresh from Iraq. If you shoot the cops, they NG on your street will shoot back and take you out with their freshly acquired urban combat skills. They will saturate you and your home with firepower. If you've seen raw footage of what our guys do in Iraq, trust me, you don't want to go up against that. At least the Iraqi's have full-autos, RPGs and 2ft thick solid concrete wall contruction virtually everywhere for cover. You have semi-autos, no explosives or rockets, and wooden or cinderblock homes, and worst of all - no experience. Good luck.


Amazing, the cops are the badguys, but the brainwashed nationalists condemn any negative statement about the NG, despite their participation to guarantee the of authority of the police via physical presence of force which makes them 100% complicit in the crimes. As if anyone is impuning their Iraq service. It is the participation of *some* NG in the confiscations that makes them the enemies of freedom. Sorry, had to throw that in.


Since all of these options look bleak. The best idea is to not keep all your eggs in one basket. Way before any disaster, one should hide rifles and ammo in different locations that will not be easily found by confiscators. Let them take what they can find, then later on it is your choice what to do - at least you'll be armed. You can dig up your arms, and use them for defense against looters and to stay low, of if a "movement" rises up, join them and get a little justice later on.
__________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson


Don't Tread On Me had it right. When it comes right down to it, you give them something to placate them. A rifle, a pistol, a shotgun, whatever. Then, you take your reserve stock, and use that. If it's like they did in NOLA, then they'll move on, and you can do more or less fairly well.

If it is at all a massive confiscation effort, you need to light them up late in a guerilla action with massive firepower. A "bushwhacking" if you will. Nothing else will suffice.

Soybomb
April 27, 2006, 09:02 PM
because his buddies are gonna light me up like a dutch brothel, and they'd be right to. They came bearing me no ill willI'm not completely sold on that, young guys just following orders perhaps. But disarming people and leaving them defenseless in a dangerous environment has to show some ill will doesn't it? Ultimately you're responsible for your own actions and perhaps a little thought on what they would be effectively doing would have been good.

I actually don't see how it would have been an issue...
jbt: "do you have any guns"
me: "of course not those things are dangerous"
jbt: "ok good, places to go, people to disarm"

I guess if you were sitting out on your porch with a gun or voluntarily showed them your safe...even then its locked and bolted down. Say its full of old underpants and your uncle has the combination, how much time would realistically be spent trying to open it?

Gun registration of course adds a wrench to the plans but just say a relative fleeing the storm took them with him to keep them dry...

Joe7cri
April 27, 2006, 10:41 PM
Hey mordechaianiliewicz, when I said "give them" a couple of guns, I meant leave some in the closet or a place where they can be found easily, and hide my good ones behind wall panels or in attic so after they find a 3 or 4 guns they'll figure they found them all.

browningguy
April 27, 2006, 10:56 PM
"From my cold, dead hands"

That says quite a lot doesn't it.

This was not simply a "mistake" by the people in charge, this was a planned and thought out assault on our civil liberties.

When Houston was being evacuated some months later my wife and I stayed put. We had a couple of weeks supply of water and food, generator with gas to run 6 hours a day for two weeks, and I even checked my ammo supplies.

First let me say that if "they" knocked on my door, I would very politely ask for a copy of their court order or warrant identifying me personally. If they didn't have one I would wish them a good day and close the door. They would have every opportunity to walk away.

If anyone tried to break down my door then at least the first few through the door would have gone to see the diety of their choice. Yes, in the end, SWAT/NG/LAPD/UN Peacekeepers would kill me. But the government would then know that some people are still willing to give their lives to resist tyranny.

For those not willing to risk your lives to stop illegal government confiscation of your firearms, what else are you willing to allow the government to do to you or to others?

Confiscate your food and water for emergency providers?
Relocate your family to a shelter against your wishes?
Send "undersirables" to special camps (homeless, unemployed, wrong religion)?

And no, I'm not a survivalist but any stretch, not even a right wing extremist, heck I'm pro-choice and don't mind gay people. The fact is the authorities in NO willingly, knowingly and with malice, followed orders they knew to be illegal and unconstitutional.

As far as I'm concerned when they choose to knowingly perform illegal/unconstitutional acts then they are just goblins in a uniform.

You have to wonder why no one has had any Federal charges brought against them for violation of civil rights, or abuse of power. Where are all the attorneys when you really need one?

Joe7cri
April 27, 2006, 11:17 PM
You have to wonder why no one has had any Federal charges brought against them for violation of civil rights, or abuse of power. Where are all the attorneys when you really need one?


My Thoughts Exactly:fire:

repo
April 27, 2006, 11:30 PM
I'd stick some brady campaign and PETA stickers on the windows, and when they ask if I have any guns... I'd point to the sticker and say in my best lisp "GUNTH??... EWWW YUCKEEEEEY"

And if that don't work.. "HABLA ESPANOL SENOIR??"

hso
April 27, 2006, 11:31 PM
what I would have done if I lived in N.O. and the national guard came to confiscate my guns.

I have an unhelpful comment about those that stayed in light of all the warnings to leave.

But supposing I had stayed, I would have lied about what I had. Considering that there would be no recovering any of them or they would be worthless when you got them back due to abuse and neglect I would have gotten witnessed receipts for each one I provided and then have filed the information away for the future. After they had gone on their way leaving me and my family helpless and defenseless I would a few of the ones I didn't tell them about.

Low-Sci
April 28, 2006, 12:08 AM
A lot of people here with points that disagree with mine are very right. In principle, its of course right to resist tyranny. Even at the cost of one's own life, even if that cost is the inevitable price of resistance.

I guess the point that I'm not convinced of that lends me the attitude toward the situation that I have is the point that states this was a carefully calculated confiscation for the purpose of causing harm to the people the weapons were to be confiscated from.

The mayor probably had the misguided goal of protecting people by getting some guns away from potential criminals (no, I don't happen to agree with such a method) and didn't intend for the disarmed people to be devoured by the looting bands of criminals. Doesn't make it right, but it also doesn't mean that he intended malice towards anyone.

1911Tuner
April 28, 2006, 12:53 AM
Quote:

>The mayor probably had the misguided goal of protecting people by getting some guns away from potential criminals (no, I don't happen to agree with such a method) and didn't intend for the disarmed people to be devoured by the looting bands of criminals. Doesn't make it right, but it also doesn't mean that he intended malice towards anyone.<
******************************

Maybe...and maybe he saw an opportunity to get rid of some guns...and justified it in the name of "State of Emergency." I guess we'll never know.
We can look at his past record and his stance on gun ownership...things like that...but I doubt if a straight question would get a straight answer.

Meanwhile, the Right Honorable Mayor of N.O. should go and study up on the Bill of Rights until he understands what "Shall not be infringed" means while we all hope that the good people of Louisiana fire him come next election.

Joe7cri
April 28, 2006, 01:11 AM
Some people here are of the belief that the only guns that were confiscated were from people who were likely to use them against law abiding citizens. But I've read somewhere that a news crew taped the confiscation of a handgun from an old lady who was in her kitchen. Supposedly the woman refused to turn over her Handgun and knife so the NG or NOPD or both subdued her, and arrested her for disorderly conduct, etc, etc, etc...

Unfortunately I did not see the news article or News report so this is only hear say, but it doesn't seem unreasonable from what I've read on other Forums. If I can find the post on the other forums, I'll attach it below.

Low-Sci
April 28, 2006, 01:33 AM
Its really in everyone's best interests that the mayor be removed. I don't disagree at all that confiscation of any kind was wrong to order, whether the mayor knew that or not, and it is very clearly not the people's duty to put up with that kind of crap, its their duty to resist it.

But I guess one thing I think we should all take away from this particular question, no matter what your opinion of the matter is, is that should a state of emergency arise, a confiscation may be ordered. If it is, then as in all other situations involving firearms from range practice to trigger locks to military combat, how you conduct yourself with the weapons in your posession will have a very close and immediate correlation with your lifespan, so be wise, and don't stop thinking until you're dead.

1911Tuner
April 28, 2006, 01:43 AM
Quote:

>I've read somewhere that a news crew taped the confiscation of a handgun from an old lady who was in her kitchen.<
***************************

Slammed her into a wall is more like it. The guy's biceps were about as big as her waist, and he man-handled her like a bouncer on a belligerent drunk. There was absolutely no justification for that, whatsoever.

Lo-Sci said:

>But I guess one thing I think we should all take away from this particular question, no matter what your opinion of the matter is, is that should a state of emergency arise, a confiscation may be ordered. If it is, then as in all other situations involving firearms from range practice to trigger locks to military combat, how you conduct yourself with the weapons in your posession will have a very close and immediate correlation with your lifespan, so be wise, and don't stop thinking until you're dead<

Amen to that. It's not a matter of "IF"...it's a matter of "WHEN" a natural disaster will strike somewhere...and the actions taken in The Big Easy will probably be repeated, at least on some level. The time to plan is now...not after it starts. Have supplies on hand so you won't have to forage, and plan on keeping a low profile...and figure a place to store some of your goods away from your home base...even if you have to have a pre-dug hole to bury them in.

geekWithA.45
April 28, 2006, 09:38 AM
I've read somewhere that a news crew taped the confiscation of a handgun from an old lady who was in her kitchen.

Her name is Patricia Konie. The cops bounced her off the floor like Mexican wrestlers, breaking her collar bone. She hooked up with Ashton Dwyer, an attorney who appeared on TV armed promising that there "will be gunfire" if they came to collect his guns.

No one took him up on his promise, and now they're suing the behebus out of all parties concerned.

I have lots of video archived here:

http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2005_09_04_geekwitha45_archive.html#112624153325128502

Also in this video archive are confiscation victims from all stations in life, rich, poor, didn't matter. I distinctly remember two guys out in front of their quite nice home, which was clearly not in a "troubled" area, so the poster who suggested it was only the poor zones didn't have the complete picture.

As for motivation, I recall at the time that the confiscation orders was largely in response to some people's refusal to evacuate. With food, water, arms and other supplies, folks had chosen to ignore the evac order (a misdemeanor offense, btw, which means that lethal force would not be justified to enforce) in order to protect their property and interests.

The impression was that the confiscation's purpose was to enfeeble those who remained, and inspire them to leave.

We never learned much more after that, as the whole thing skidded to a halt in pretty short order.

Joe7cri
April 28, 2006, 11:20 AM
The sad/scary part of the whole situation is that I wouldn't have known anything about the confiscations if I didn't read it on a Forum. Hard to believe that IMUS or someone who is pro gun didn't take the story and run with it for a while.

On the other hand if a group of citizens disarmed a LEO or NG it would have been on the nightly news for weeks. We need to get an NRA type of news channel on Cable TV!

If you enjoyed reading about "Realistically what would you have done..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!