Seems to me, a well regulated Militia needs assault weapons and not muzzle loaders.

The above is blatantly incorrect. No such order was ever made by George Bush during his time serving as president of the united states. No national guard or other federal agents were ever ordered to confiscated weapons from the people of the city of New Orleans. Instead the decision for confiscation, and the resulting order came from those in office in the state of Louisiana, who were all liberal democrat party members. That is why the NRA took the city of New Orleans to court over their confiscation, rather than turning their focus on the federal government.

 

Responsibility goes to the top.

 

The President isn't empowered to overrule decisions made by local and state officials.

 

Obviously you do not understand the Constitution or know your history. If you did, you would know of President Kennedy federalizing the National Guard in Alabama. Google for more details.

 

Which has nothing to do with overturning a decision by the mayor of the city of New Orleans to authorize the city police force to confiscate guns. Bush is not responsible for that decision. He can't arbitrarily tell them to stop doing so.

 

The OP study is obsolete. Since then the experts have had ample opportunity to get to the bottom of the problem with mass murder.
History has shown us what can happen to the population of the world when people are weened on milk.



The correlation between the banning of weapons and fascism have been doubtful from the very start, but no one has been able to refute the new results accrediting the ingestion of milk with megalomania.

 

Driving is the most common form of travel. Travel has been deemed a constitutional right by the courts. Your position is invalid.

 

Driving isn't a right, no matter how common. Your logic is invalid.

 

The dems should have read this thread before talking civil war. They have pretty much disarmed their states to the point where they are no match for the gun favoring states. Maybe Bloomberg & Moonbeam Brown can buy some guns back to arm their warriors before they attack us?

 

With all the turmoil and talk of civil war by the dems, will this revive the Militia?

If so, should it be under the direction of...the Prez ...the Constitution or combination thereof?

Should the Militia only be used to defend the homeland and not for fighting states that want to leave the union?

 

Operating a motor vehicle on city owned property is a privilege, and subject to whatever restriction those in charge choose to place upon said privilege, even if the restriction is not meaningful or necessary. The right to travel exists independently of motor vehicles. It is simply that motor vehicles make the right to travel more convenient to exercise.

Firearms ownership, however, is a constitutional right, and cannot be restricted to the same degree as a privilege granted by government. The carrying of a firearm on city owned property is not a privilege, but rather a right, as has been recognized by most states.

 

Like I said, I'm not those posters. I hold the view that unless we're attacked or in great danger of being attacked with substantial evidence then we don't get involed in wars. And I still fail to see how is this related to the topic at hand.

 

If you troubled yourself to actually watch the videos from youtube that I and others have posted on this forum you would see that it was FEDERAL troops that took those weapons away. The president is commander in chief and could have easily stopped it.

We have gone through this enough times on this forum already.

- - - Updated - - -

I have already answered that.

 

Like this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo

The only forces confiscating weapons were the police. And there wasn't anything the President could have done to have stopped that NOLA police chief from having his cops taking the weapons.

Edit: https://www.thetrace.org/2015/08/nra-hurricane-katrina-gun-confiscation/ (an anti-gun source for you)

"In fact, LeBouef wrote, he and 200 other federal officers from an array of agencies were given clear briefing instructions that included an order not to take firearms except as criminal evidence or as part of arrest procedures.

LeBouef’s recollections track with New Orleans police records. Shortly after the storm, the NRA and other gun groups sued the city police department, eventually reaching a court-brokered settlement that required the police to return confiscated guns to their rightful owners. The department revealed it had taken 552 guns into custody. Gordon Hutchinson, part of the legal team that tried to inventory the confiscated weapons, estimated that police had collected several thousand more guns before a federal court halted the seizures on September 23.

President Bush signed bipartisan legislation “to prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster,” except temporarily “as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/5207

 

Driving on public roads is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the state.

Travel, which is not the same thing as driving on public roads, does not, and can not, require a license, for the reasons I stated.

Perhaps, but not because of your false premise and non-seq.

Feel free to try again.

 

And you have ignored the fact that you are incorrect in your opinion pertaining to the actions of federal personnel. It was police officers for the city of New Orleans, and only the police officers of the city of New Orleans, who were confiscating legally owned firearms.

If George Bush was the one who ordered the confiscation of legally owned firearms, why did he sign into federal law a legal prohibition of the confiscating of legal firearms during a declared state of emergency?

 

Imagine the irony, if Mr_Truth were to ignore the truth!

 

Mr. Truth, I have watched some of the things you have done in this thread, and here is my response. I preface what I am about to say with a quote. It was made during the debate concerning the need for the 14th Amendment, as an explanation of its purpose by one of its sponsors:

"To these privileges and immunities should be added the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.. . .[A]ll these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guaranteed by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizens solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or prohibition upon State legislation. . . .The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees." Congressional Globe, 39th. Congress, 1st. Session, part 3, p. 2765 (May 23, 1866) [Speech of Senator Jacob M. Howard (Republican-Michigan)] (bold emphasis added)

The truth of the matter is all of these rights—including the RKBA—comprise the “great fundamental guarantees”—the full scope of the liberty interests of a free people. I understand your desire to provoke a debate by claiming some false immediate need exists to justify the RKBA.

My response is this: Why do you feel entitled to demand that a need must be shown?

You may as well demand that I justify or explain the need to read a particular book, to practice or abstain from practicing a particular religious faith, or why I should be allowed the freedom to blog my thoughts here, or to protest the actions of my government, or to keep the government from invading the privacy of my home absent the due process of obtaining a warrant from a neutral and detached magistrate. The recognition of the right in my Constitution is all the justification I need, and all the answer you are entitled to demand.

I believe it is also important to recognize that these rights—including the RKBA—were not created by any government. They are the recognized natural rights of man that transcend individual governments. Whether these governments choose to accept them or ignore them does not determine the existence of these rights. Rather, it is the recognition of these pre-existing rights which gives any government its legitimacy.

The democratic principle we live by is simple: “majority rule, but respect for individual rights.” And I believe that respect for these rights—all of them—is the ultimate responsibility of the government. I do not believe we can safely set this principle aside in favor of a belief that the price of greater security must be paid with the coin of liberty. To our shame we have done it before. You speak of racism and the RKBA, and well you might, for gun control has an undeniably racist history in America.

In my nation it was the will of the political majority that kept black men enslaved for decades. In my opinion the supreme irony of the Revolutionary War was that (in my state at least) the same men who cried the loudest to “take up arms against the tyrant king” had with equal clarity of conviction decided that keeping the black man unarmed and enslaved to them would be in the best interests of society.

It was the same will of the majority that decided the policy of denying the RKBA to and forcing the migration of the Native American to “reservations” would act contribute to the safety and quality of life of society as a whole.

It was the same will of the majority that decided a policy of forcing both the disarmament of and the concentration style internment of the Japanese American in World War II would act to contribute to the safety and quality of society as a whole.

These are just three examples of how racism and gun control walked hand in hand to deny our fundamental rights to a hated minority. But the existence of these sad chapters in our history was not caused by the liberties themselves. Rather, they happened because of the fault of those in power who broke their oaths to protect and defend those rights when asked to do so by the tyranny of an irritated majority.

Thucydides best describes what happens when governments refuse to respect these individual rights: “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

The bottom line, as I see it, is this….you have attempted to create a false debate where supporters of the RKBA must either proclaim the time is come for open rebellion against the government (a condition you claim must exist which no one with any common sense truly believes), or, failing that, they must somehow admit that they are hypocrites who are afraid to live out the purpose you claim they must immediately embrace to justify the existence of the RKBA. It is a very transparent argument, invented against an imaginary opponent, for whom every answer merely serves to prove your intellectual superiority.

Yet from my vantage point all I see is someone trying to provoke what he assumes are stereotypical “right wingers” and racists by demanding they justify the existence of a right found in the Bill of Rights, without any understanding that demands to justify one of these great liberty interests merely shows the way for other rights to be similarly challenged and attacked. But then again, it is always easy to demand that someone else must justify one of their rights—particularly when you do not see how these arguments can be used to attack your own.

---

"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don't see the danger of the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." Alan Dershowitz, quoted in David T. Hardy, The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason, 62 Tenn L. Rev. 759 (1995).

 

Simple:
If the anti-gun side could not argue with fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly, they'd be silent.

 

You know, you keep claiming that, but I've never seen it.

Perhaps you could back up your assumptions with links to people who have done what you say?

 

now lookee here at roughly 45 secs:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q2BXH0JfOc



Notice that it was a California patrolman under federal control - I have posted this on numerous occasions so that right wingers like you can see that these were federalized jack booted thugs under Bush's control. As you well know a local mayor has no authority over troops from another jurisdiction.

It is a good bet that some day soon I shall have to post this again because you right wingers just cannot admit that you are wrong as always.

 

That video showed mere seconds of someone knocking on someone's door, but not single bit of anyone under federal control actually confiscating a single firearm. Every single victim of confiscation in this clip said their guns were confiscated by the police.

When I was working in a post - Katrina Red Cross shelter in Pearl River, LA, security was provided by a couple of parish deputy sheriffs and two National Guardsmen, who took their orders from the deputies.

 

Except for the fact that the video you have posted, does not in any way show what you claim it shows. There is absolutely not one piece of any evidence anywhere, to conclusively show that George Bush ever, repeat ever, gave the order for federal personnel to confiscate any firearms from the people of the city of New Orleans in the aftermath of hurricane katrina. There are no newspaper articles detailing that such an order was ever made.

To the contrary, however, there are indeed newspaper articles detailing how such orders were made by local-level police officers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/us/nationalspecial/police-begin-seizing-guns-of-civilians.html

Absolutely every last piece of available evidence states that the confiscation order came at the local level, not the federal level. You have not presented anything to the contrary that amounts to actual proof.

 

Very convenient. As usual, you Republicans have a ready excuse for everything under the sun when one of your own causes problems. But the only person you are convincing is yourself because as EVERYBODY knows, responsibility goes to the top.

Had Obama or Clinton been president, that is the person you would have blamed.

 

Nothing in your video supports this assertion.