Say Anything Blog

As noted before, this type “enforcement” happened only in the more easily accessable sections of New Orleans, not in outlying parrishes or along the Mississippi Gulf Coast, both areas which sustained far heavier damage and loss of life. Now, exactly why did those rich, white people(who had water,generators,fuel,food, and boats) have to be disarmed and forcefully evac-ed from areas that were not flooded, nor in danger of being flooded?

That’s modern liberalism for you:  armed troops camping out on a church lawn, with nary a peep of “that’s unconstitutional” outrage, and disarming law abiding citizens, with nary a peep of “that’s unconstitutional” outrage.

When the jackbooted thugs come marching in for the last time, those of you who remember and respect what our founding fathers lived and died for, will thank your lucky stars for churchgoing gun owners who still do.  We’ll be your last line of defense.

[Feet make good soup!]

What I find chilling is that I believe the National Guardsmen are honorable people in a bad situation. However that doesn’t excuse them from doing something so blatantly illegal.

I’m not entirely sure your point.  Are you suggesting they disobey direct commands because they feel something is illegal or unconstitutional?  That could sure cause a bit of chaos in the Armed Services… Those types of judgements are NOT for the individual servicemen to make.  They are for courts, legislatures, and governors to make…

Were I part of those partrols, I would have done as commanded just as I should have.  I would have felt uneasy about it, but no “crimes against humanity” were being commited.  Not even close.

Two: You must be wrong.  According to the MSM, only poor black people were mistreated as a result of Katrina.  Everybody “knows” that.  We saw it on TV.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

...only poor black people were mistreated as a result of Katrina. Everybody “knows” that. We saw it on TV.

The people of Gretna could attest to that better that anyone.

Spaghetti, it is the duty of each individual soldier to not obey an unlawful order. Check out the oath. Any order that abrogates an Amendmant of the Constitution is, on its face, an unlawful order. In times of a declared State of Emergency troops are permitted to disarm, or fire upon and kill, any citizen using a weapon against other citizens or against said troops. They are at no time authorisied to sweep an area and disarm people, willy nilly, whose only crime is occupying their own property. And do not try the “crime running rampant” argument, troops are specifically barred from such activities while municipal government and law enforcement are functioning. As noted, in the regions where these two entities were in complete collapse, this shit did not happen. Only in the city where Municipal government and law enforcement utterly failed in the time of crisis did the troops get called in to disarm citizens. Wonder why that is?

As someone who got more than a taste of the “surreal” quality caused by Katrina’s devastation, I can attest to a couple of things:

1. Where you live makes a lot of difference. Here in Mississippi, the odds of the NatGard going door to door disarming law-abiding citizens approached zero. Had they tried, I’m afraid to say there likely would have been some dead Guardsmen. Rich folks in New Orleans may own some big weapons, but in Mississippi, big weapons are anything BUT the exclusive luxury of the rich.

2. Arm yourself if you don’t want to be prey. Deal with the guardsmen if/when they come marching down the street, but don’t be a chump. You need a large-caliber sidearm and a tactical shotgun at the very least. A semi-auto battle rifle is a good addition, and a scoped rifle with an accurate effective range of 150 yards is always good to have around.

That is all. Carry on.

DD, in answer to your query. I will not surrender my weapons. And I accept, with full knowledge of fore-thought, the consequences brought forth by my invocation of Constitutional right.

Mr. Griffith! Sound advice. I’m a .30 man myself, only just stepped into the 20th century in 2001 and switched to a semi-auto pistol, Walther P-1. Citizens should be far more aware of their obligation to bear arms, in all senses.

Are you suggesting they disobey direct commands because they feel something is illegal or unconstitutional? That could sure cause a bit of chaos in the Armed Services…

Are you trying to claim that warrentless searches and seizures are OK.  What if someone had (legally in my view) shot at the National Guardsmen?

One thing is that a few guardsmen refusing an illegal order would likely cut down on the illegal orders.

Hmmm, how many Germans soldiers were convicted by the Nurenburg trials ‘for just following orders’? Granted in most cases there were deaths but what if some of the people in New Orleans had resisted? A good question for all of you - what would you do if some police or soldier tried to confiscate your weapons?

Don’t be absurd, DocDave, there is obviously a difference between what happened in concentrations camps and Katrina.  You just make yourself look like a fool comparing them…

Are you trying to claim that warrentless searches and seizures are OK. What if someone had (legally in my view) shot at the National Guardsmen?

I never said they were OK, that’s not the point.  And if someone had been stupid enough to shoot at members of our armed services, they would have found themselves dead in short order.

One thing is that a few guardsmen refusing an illegal order would likely cut down on the illegal orders.

You’re being rather absurd.  It is NOT the duty of members of the Armed services to interperet the Constitution.  They are to follow orders unless those orders are crimes against humanity.  Taking someone’s firearms in no way qualifies as such and so they must follow orders or get out of the service.

Spaghetti, it is the duty of each individual soldier to not obey an unlawful order. Check out the oath

Yeah, I know the oath…

‘’I do hereby acknowledge to have voluntarily enlisted this _ _
day of _ _ _ _, 19_, in the _ _ _ _ _ _ National Guard of the
State of _ _ _ _ _ _ for a period of _ _ year(s) under the
conditions prescribed by law, unless sooner discharged by proper
authority.
‘’I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States and of
the State of _ _ _ _ _ _ against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to them; and
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States
and the Governor of _ _ _ _ _ _ and the orders of the officers
appointed over me, according to law and regulations.  So help me
God.’’

If you interperet that to mean that individual soldiers should interperet the Constitution as they see fit and follow orders that fall in line with their views, you are pushing an idea that could cause a lot of trouble for the Armed Services.

I have a different take on all this.  I see it as a result of trying to make a natural disaster into a “Get the President” operation, at the cost of violating individual rights in the lust to get govt intervention.  It is also a result of the local officials not doing their job, like providing available transport out town and stocking the emergency shelters with food and water.  You whine for the feds, and you get the National Guard.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

That should be “transport out of town”.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

This is why only the government should have guns. Because they’re more trustworthy than the average citizen. Government would never hurt us and wouldn’t be deterred by a possibly shot to the head from these no-knock raids.

Wait! What’s the argument again? Maybe someone can help me because that above position is full of shit. Lefties - help me out here.

Spagh, obeying an unlawful order places you in the position of being a criminal. Not the person who gave that order. You. You knowingly carried out an unlawful order. That officer gets to skate while your ass goes to Leavenworth. Gen. Karpinsky and Abu Ghraib is the latest example of that. No matter who the person is, nor what their reason is, they violate the Constitution at peril to their lives. The very fact that people in positions of authority feel free to give orders that are illegal and in controvention of the Constitution is the far greater problem. A one man Constitutional Convention is entirely against everything my Constitution repreasents. And yes, I will shoot your ass for violating my Constitutional rights.

I never said they were OK, that’s not the point. And if someone had been stupid enough to shoot at members of our armed services, they would have found themselves dead in short order.

Yes, and if I was on the jury I sure as shit would vote the National Guardsman guilty of murder one.

A death as a result of a felony.

That’s why I wonder if the National Guard folks AFTER having a chance to think about it would do that again.

All this discussion seems to evade the issue if you ask me-

The situation after Katrina was chaos, there was no real reason for anyone to follow the law, in fact, it made in some cases, it a necessity to break the law in order to survive, like did the victims of katrina see it as breaking the law to enter an abandoned grocery store and eat the food therein, now, having established that people during Katrina had no reason to obey the law, why should the national guard feel compelled to, especially since they are facing these desperate people who might do anything, and it seems that it becomes a safety issue for them not to take away the weapons, and why should people need guns in a post katrina world, what purpose could they serve, maybe to defend your food, or something.

So from this point of view, doesn’t it seem that it might be morally right to take away guns if the risk of violence and death resulted, especially after enough suffering had happened after katrina.

I have a different take on all this. I see it as a result of trying to make a natural disaster into a “Get the President” operation, at the cost of violating individual rights in the lust to get govt intervention. It is also a result of the local officials not doing their job, like providing available transport out town and stocking the emergency shelters with food and water. You whine for the feds, and you get the National Guard.

But its not violating rights, because everyone has the right to life, and it seems that that should be the formost concern, even if gun possession is protected by the constitution, in the situation of katrina it wouldn’t actually be a violation, oh and its not the locals fault, it is in fact, the federal governments fault, FEMA predicted that a disaster would happen, they told the president to prepare, and do you know what he said- “Americans don’t live in tents.” Well, sure, but now that its happened and you didn’t prepare, too bad.

This is why only the government should have guns. Because they’re more trustworthy than the average citizen. Government would never hurt us and wouldn’t be deterred by a possibly shot to the head from these no-knock raids

kay… well, the government is in no way more trustworthy then normal citizens, there is no basis for you say that, there is probably more evidence to the contrary, but since you don’t have any, well, recall Maoist China, the government was blatantly oppressive, and even during Katrina, there were reports of civilians being threated, and even having shots fired.

Spagh, obeying an unlawful order places you in the position of being a criminal. Not the person who gave that order. You. You knowingly carried out an unlawful order. That officer gets to skate while your ass goes to Leavenworth. Gen. Karpinsky and Abu Ghraib is the latest example of that. No matter who the person is, nor what their reason is, they violate the Constitution at peril to their lives. The very fact that people in positions of authority feel free to give orders that are illegal and in controvention of the Constitution is the far greater problem. A one man Constitutional Convention is entirely against everything my Constitution repreasents. And yes, I will shoot your ass for violating my Constitutional rights.

Well, shooting my ass is exactally the problem that the national guard were trying to avoid, even if it is a constitutional right, you have to place the right to life above all others, and it seems to me that your statement “They violate the Constitution at peril to their lives.” should be reversed to read, peril to their lives should result from not violating the constitution. Now I am not saying that in all situations this is true, but in this particular one, it in fact, is.

The situation after Katrina was chaos,

Not in the neighborhoods that they were attacking here.  If it was in chaos (at night say) then the home owners would have needed their weapons.

there was no real reason for anyone to follow the law, ... now, having established that people during Katrina had no reason to obey the law, why should the national guard feel compelled to,

Because they were put there to restore law and order.

especially since they are facing these desperate people who might do anything,

No, they were forcing themselves into homes without a warrent.  They weren’t detaining people carrying guns on the street.  Big difference.

Those people were doing fine as they were and rather than focusing on areas that needed help the guard was sent where they weren’t needed to do something they shouldn’t have been doing.

Spagh, obeying an unlawful order places you in the position of being a criminal. Not the person who gave that order. You. You knowingly carried out an unlawful order.

It’s not unlawful.  It’s unconstitutional, but there is a difference.  Congress just passed legislation to MAKE it unlawful, but they did that because it wasn’t at the time.  Just because a serviceman has political reservations does not give them right to refuse orders.

And yes, I will shoot your ass for
violating my Constitutional rights.

Ha, well I don’t plan on doing so… whew! :-D

Yes, and if I was on the jury I sure as shit would vote the National Guardsman guilty of murder one.

If someone shot at a National Guarsman and they returned fire you’d vote to convict them of murder one?  1) They would be tried in a military tribunal I beleive 2) That’s rather stupid since the guy would be firing in self defense…

I realize you are a bit emotional about it, but strip that away and deal with reality, hm k?

Sphag, you are being disengenous as you chose to omit the key phrase in my comment ‘just following orders’. Countless soldiers have been convicted while using that defense for offenses committed while ‘following orders’.

The fact that you are trying to compare Germans commiting genocide to the degree of 6 million dead jews and Louisiana National Guardsmen taking guns away from citizens is absurd no matter what “similarities” there are.  There is no reasonable comparison. None.  Zero.

If someone shot at a National Guarsman and they returned fire you’d vote to convict them of murder one? 1) They would be tried in a military tribunal I beleive 2) That’s rather stupid since the guy would be firing in self defense…

Legally I have a right to shoot people that illegally enter my home.

Since they had no warrant or any legal reason to be there they are in the wrong, plain and simple.

I’m quite concerned as I understand that you are entering the law enforcement field. 

Congress just passed legislation to MAKE it unlawful, but they did that because it wasn’t at the time.

Under exactly what legal grounds were the forcing their way into private homes and confiscating the personal property of private citizens without even giving a legal receipt for the property they confiscated.

We have been on this slippery slope since the open confiscation laws from the mid-’80s. Not to mention the Public Housing police forces, which have operated in a rather freehanded manner concerning people’s rights. And then there are the various Transportation Authority police forces in numerous cities. And don’t be forgetting Game&Fish/Wildlife Conservation officers. In many states they have far broader authority than municipal and state law enforcement. The very fact that there is so little of this actually happening is the important point. 90% of the time criminals are the focus of law enforcement actions in America. This is not true in many other countries. The rampant abuse of rights, corruption, and graft in many countries’ municipal government and law enforcement does not exsist in America. There are incidents of these activities in our system, especially in the older urban centers, it just does not rise to the all encompassing level attained in many other countries, and I do include every continent and racial grouping. I am an EEOC kind of asshole.  And as for the “Iwasjustobeyingorders” defense, that don’t cut it. Once again, Gen. Karpinsky and Abu Ghrab shoot that in the head. All of those EMs would have skated had that worked.

Under exactly what legal grounds were the forcing their way into private homes and confiscating the personal property of private citizens without even giving a legal receipt for the property they confiscated.

The city was under marshall law, correct?  When such a situation comes up, the national guard and police have greatly enhanced powers.  Such pretenses are greatly diminished or do not exsist.

You may not agree it is the right thing to do, I certainly don’t agree it is, but using it as an excuse to open fire on armed troops?  That’s rather silly…

So, why exactly were these armed troops not focusing on actual criminals?

The city was under marshall law, correct?

No: A state of emergency but not martial law.

I don’t see where the Constitution was repealed by the State of Louisiana.

The state Attorney General’s office on Tuesday sought to clarify reports in some media that “martial law’ has been declared in parts of storm-ravaged southeast Louisiana, saying no such term exists in Louisiana law.

But even though no martial law exists, Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s declaration of a state of emergency gives authorities widespread latitude to suspend civil liberties as they try to restore order and bring victims to safety. Under the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act of 1993, the governor and, in some cases, chief parish officials, have the right to commandeer or utilize any private property if necessary to cope with the emergency.

Authorities may also suspend any statute related to the conduct of official business, or any rule issued by a state agency, if complying would “prevent, hinder or delay necessary action’’ to mitigate the emergency.

It also gives authority the right to compel evacuations, suspend alcohol and weapons sales and make provisions for the availability and use of temporary emergency housing.

The law gives mayors similar authority, except they do not have the right to commandeer private property or make provisions for emergency housing, according to a background brief prepared by the state Attorney General’s office.