Implimentation of Confiscation

[T.A.Sharps]

I just watched this video and it is full of scary stuff from beginning to end.

It is a news story of the implementation of confiscation of firearms from private citizens. In the middle a Gaurdsman or Reservist tells his story of being in Katrina and breaking down doors confiscating U.S. Citizen's personal firearms.

I don't know, but I think a lot bigger wheels are in motion than we would be able to hold back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyfkQkchlu4&feature=player_embedded

Sorry, if it was posted before, I did a quick search couldn't see anything. I thought it was important. Its the first time I saw it at least.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

The guns of the National Guard are at risk if people resist. The same thing happened in 1776.

 

[JohnBT]

Katrina was 7 years ago. Are they still in the implimentation phase? What's the hold up?

 

[T.A.Sharps]

That is the point.

There is no hold up...

... the confiscation has already been implemented and carried out in Katrina 7 years ago, not sure where else.

It apparently worked.

Makes me afraid to think about what position we are in now 7 years later.

 

[Sam1911]

... the confiscation has already been implemented and carried out in Katrina, not sure where else.

It apparently worked.

And then they got their butts handed to them in court and had to return the guns, and states changed their laws to make such confiscations illegal.

 

[T.A.Sharps]

That is good, but I'm more worried about what this gave way to later with the U.N. wanting control of our country, especially including the disarming completely all of Private U.S. Citizens.

I believe the President has said he would sign the treaty.

 

[mljdeckard]

Not all troops would obey unlawful orders. I deployed with this guy. Work to change the culture and raise awareness if you are in a position where it might be a concern. I have since had this conversation with my commanders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HRZfvtYlCY

 

[gotigers]

North Carolina banned guns in septemeber of 2010 for a hurricane. It cost the Dem gov her job. She is so unpopular she isn't running for re-election. 2nd amendment rights are at an all time high approval. So, crap like this doen't go well for libs.

Those are one of the times, we need guns the most. One of the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

 

[Sam1911]

That is good, but I'm more worried about what this gave way to later with the U.N. wanting control of our country, especially including the disarming completely all of Private U.S. Citizens.

I believe the President has said he would sign the treaty.

If this is all about the UN Gun Ban treaty, we've got LOTS of threads on that already and the information available is HIGHLY speculative. There ISN'T even a treaty yet, and from the looks of things, probably never will be.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=666643

 

[x_wrench]

And then they got their butts handed to them in court and had to return the guns, and states changed their laws to make such confiscations illegal.

but how many people never got them back, got them back rusted and no longer serviceable, moved away, and could not be contacted, etc. i am sure that the national guard was not diligent about recording exactly what firearm was taken from which house, serial numbers recorded, and receipts given out. so who knows how many people actually got their 100+ year old family heirlooms returned properly.
the real problem is, that everyone's rights were violated in the name of a "emergency". like it or not, i still believe the same type of thing under different circumstances could happen again. the problem is, our government has become WAY TO POWERFUL, and we have become WAY TO COMPLACENT. as a general population, we simply follow orders, instead of standing up for what is right, and demanding our rights. AND THEY KNOW IT!

 

[mljdeckard]

It was bad, but at the same time, it was a layered, endemic culture within the NOPD that allowed it to go as far as it did, up to and including mayor Ray Nagin being held in contempt for refusing to follow a court order to cease and desist. Even after Katrina, the NOPD was using old tricks like asking to see proof of ownership from gun owners on the street, and stealing the guns when they didn't have it. It was really mostly NOPD and officers brought in from out of town to help with the disaster that did most of the theft.

 

[Twmaster]

It was not just the NOPD enforcing the firearms confiscation. The National Guard was heavily involved in these actions.

 

[mljdeckard]

All I know is that the national guard members I know who went not only didn't participate, they were never asked to do so. They never heard a word about it. Something to remember, is that military culture is fastidious about keeping records. They put everything in writing. Leaders are wary about not having a butt cover for iffy activities.

I would recommend the following:
http://www.amazon.com/Great-New-Orl...42529837&sr=1-1&keywords=new+orleans+gun+grab

 

[JustinJ]

Funny how the sky starts falling every four years.

 

[gotigers]

The sky falling comparison is a bit off. They have done it in local events. It isn't that far of a stretch to try it on a bigger scale. Improbable? yes. Impossible? no.

 

[JustinJ]

It isn't that far of a stretch to try it on a bigger scale. Improbable? yes. Impossible? no.

If one is going to concern them self with everything possible yet still improbable they will have a very busy life.

The biggest problem with all the wolf crying is nobody will believe it when realistic threats are present.

 

[loadedround]

I am not a constitutional lawyer, just simply a gun owner and a citizen. However it is my understanding that only congress can vote to approve this UN treaty before the executive branch could sign it into law. Since OUR constitution plainly states that only the legislative branch of our government can enact laws or sign treaties, Mr. Obama could not sign any treaties without the approval of congress. This so called treaty signing if it ever occurs DOES NOT come under executive privilege. Please remember our old civics classes where we learned about the three branches of government and it's "checks and balances". Sorry for the civics lecture, but I had to express my personal opinion, and let's all get out to vote in November.

 

[Twmaster]

Actually...

The President -can- sign treaties. These treaties can be put into force in the interim between the signature and the ratification or rejection by the Senate.

Considering the control of the Senate is by the same party as the sitting President the Senate majority leader can delay a ratification vote.

This could put this ridiculous treaty in force for a long time before it's eventual rejection by the Senate.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Actually...

The President -can- sign treaties. These treaties can be put into force in the interim between the signature and the ratification or rejection by the Senate.

Considering the control of the Senate is by the same party as the sitting President the Senate majority leader can delay a ratification vote.

This could put this ridiculous treaty in force for a long time before it's eventual rejection by the Senate.

No, that's not how it works. The President's power to make treaties is only by the consent of two thirds of a quorum of senators. There is no "interim" period wherein a treaty has force and effect while awaiting the constitutional consent of the Senate. See Article II, Section 2 Clause 2.

Woody

If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

 

[Twmaster]

I read that. However there is precedent too TR signed a treaty that was in force for nearly two years before it got before the Senate.

 

[Sam1911]

TR signed a treaty that was in force for nearly two years before it got before the Senate.

TR valued the Constitution about as much as the pages of last year's Sears & Roebuck's catalog sitting on the shelf in the "little house" out back. And was on record as having said that as President he would do anything the Congress couldn't use the Constitution to STOP him from doing.

Not that many Presidents have been a whole lot more ethical about it. But the interest groups and politicos on all sides tend to scrutinize every move of the President these days and there is no possible way that any President could sign (and try to enforce!) a treaty that directly violated the Constitution and have it go unchallenged for 24 hours, let alone two years!

 

[oneounceload]

the problem is, our government has become WAY TO POWERFUL, and we have become WAY TO COMPLACENT. as a general population, we simply follow orders, instead of standing up for what is right, and demanding our rights. AND THEY KNOW IT!

The government that is big enough to give you everything you want, is also big enough to take everything you have - with over 56% of the population now reliant on the government for their existence and survival, there will be more power given in return for their "Soylent Green".

Eventually, though, socialism runs out of other people's money and the cycle changes back - whether it will do so before the fall of this country will remain to be seen - and when that time comes, guns will become a major issue for control and survival

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

I applaud the patience of those who are actually taking the time to try to refute the fear-mongering nonsense peddled by InfoWars.

Posting and defending this kind of unsubstaniated crap does nothing to help the RKBA movement and is simply more embarassing than anything. Promoting the positive face of gun-ownership should preclude entertaining conspicracy theorist aburdity.

 

[Nico Testosteros]

Socialism has it's own money. By definition it is state control of the means of production. Think nationalized oil industry, railroads, steel, etc.

 

[Swing]

(groan) Two seconds in I realized it was InfoWars and mashed the back button.