From: Royce C Hayes (rc_hayes1@juno.com)
Date: Sun Sep 11 2005 - 16:26:33 PDT
--------- Forwarded message ----------
DO NOT LET THIS ALERT DIE! PASS IT ON!
11 September 2005
++++++++++++++++++
Confiscation Of Firearms In New Orleans, Louisiana??
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are receiving this message because you requested our alerts.
Subscribe/UnSubscribe instructions near the bottom of the alert.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Republication permitted only if this e-mail alert
is left intact in its original state.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://johnlongenecker.mensnewsdaily.com/blog/longenecker/
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
And they said it would never happen.
But when conditions change, officials swing into action to break their
word, violate their oath of office, violate the law and bluff or force
their will on the public.
This is the source of lawlessness: when officials break the law in
professional incompetence, delaying of proper response and because-
we-say-so oppression of the People.
To a constituent, officials lied.
The Condition: lawlessness in New Orleans.
The Problem: thugs shooting and civil unrest.
The Solution: Take away everybody’s guns and force evacuation, leaving
the neighborhood unprotected.
The Reality: only the criminals will have guns, perpetuating the
original problem as they return to the evacuation zone.
Exactly, please, how does law enforcement discern the good guys from
the bad guys in what to confiscate from whom? If guns are being
confiscated from thugs, what becomes of the thugs to follow-up on
the suspicion of crime that justifies the confiscation?
Don’t expect much, folks, because the jails were opened there to
release the felons for their own safety.
Brilliant, just brilliant.
There's a very sickening feeling about this. First confiscation, then
they come for you. They call it mandatory evacuation, but they are
still confiscating weapons and coming for you.
New Orleans already has one of the highest murder rates in the country,
but it wasn't the law-abiding shooting at EMS. And it wasn't the
law-abiding shooting it out with police.
Who do they think they're fooling? If they really wanted to stop the
unrest, they could have taken into custody and relocated the thugs
they released, but they didn't concentrate on the thugs they had in
hand; they concentrated on the guns. Everybody's guns.
As an aside, I was contacted this morning by the Republican Party and
asked for a $150 donation. Like Hell.
I answered that I was a member of my Party's Assembly District, and
that we, along with other Republicans, decided to withhold donations
and fundraising for the Party until the Conservatives did two things:
secure and control the borders, and stop the restrictions on gun rights
for the law-abiding.
My unwelcome telemarketer caller asked me if I would like to see
Hilary Clinton in the White House for lack of conservative funding:
the thrust of my reply was let the heavens fall.
No wonder the rescue efforts were delayed. No wonder the thugs were let
out. The situation was allowed to deteriorate so officials would be able
to cite unexpected changed conditions as an excuse to break their word
and confiscate weapons as a dress rehearsal for other communities. This
is not good. Where the hell were the conservatives in looking out for
the individual?
To protect the community and our way of life, armed citizens are the
most effective modality. Police can be overwhelmed and the people have
an interest in defending their homes and their community as a whole.
When facing a thug, the people have a very good idea of who is
law-abiding
and who isn't, and it is they who are best qualified to sort things out
as they participate in the recovery of their community.
I dislike intensely the government's freezing people out of their own
recovery plans. And I dislike the idea of disarming the law-abiding.
The mandatory evacuation -- where the community is one cesspool -- may
make sense for the next several days; I'm for non-mandatory evacuation;
but confiscation of weapons is downright illegal, stupid, and I dare
say predictable.
To use human tragedy to effect unauthorized and unwelcome political
change is not new. Officials have been doing this for a very long time.
Change the conditions and the consent of the people will follow in a
spirit of cooperation.
What's next, confiscation of weapons in California following an
earthquake? Why?
Confiscation of guns -- for whatever excuse -- is part of that use of
human tragedy to effect political change, the kind the community doesn't
want and which runs counter to the interests of the community. But, for
some, it's now too late. They're disarmed and defenseless, and by their
own consent. Even those with permits turn them in? Why?
What do you believe will happen next? What do you believe will happen
this Fall when the City of San Francisco votes to ban guns, which they
have on the ballot?
We've been had, friends.
And we're going to be had in the next crisis, too.
And the next, and the next.
====
John Longenecker is a former Los Angeles Paramedic, now a businessman,
commentator and author.
Visit his website at http://nationwideconcealedcarry.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 28 2005 - 23:27:04 PDT