Hurricane Rita: Will FEMA Block Aid & Take Guns?

[pisshead]

it certainly is good practice for when the total suspension of the constitution occurs...

the groundwork is there...the unconstitutional fema and the patriot act and the federalization of cities and states and police departments around the country...after a few more big 'terrorist' incidencts it's bye-bye constitution...like tommy franks said...he's so sad about it, but we'll have to have military dictatorship to be safe from the freedom hating terrorists...

our military hasn't been training with foreign troops to round people up and disarm them just to wase time...

[andruejaysin]

All laws are flawed and under in certain extraordinary circumstances, fail to be functional. Note that even the laws of physics have a failure point.

In New Orleans, just after Katrina hit, the constitution failed to be functional. The reason for this failure was, in short, extreme environmental conditions, for which constitutional law is not suited.

For the first week after the storm, by allowing people the right to roam the streets with guns the government was complicit in violation of numerous New Orleaninan's 5th amendment rights. Regrettably, in order to rectify the situation, temporary suspension of 2nd amendment rights was necessary.

A good analogy of this situation from the perspective of traditional western legal philosophy would be the drowning boy scenario. [scenario]Boy is drowning in his backyard swimming pool, a person walking by the house can hear lots of commotion and goes to his aid. In doing so the passer by is trespassing(violating the law) in order to serve the greater good of society.[/scenario]
Note that the essence of this argument has been the legal foundation for a number of medical marijuana cases. In the case medical marijuana, someone must break the law in order to serve the greater good of society. In this case that would be the preservation of their good health.

Ultimatly once the crisis passed the 2nd amendment became functional once again, and the rights it entails were reinstated.

I can imagine no circumstances under which the 2nd amendment is more important than when law and order breaks down.

[Psycho4Bud]

All laws are flawed and under in certain extraordinary circumstances, fail to be functional. Note that even the laws of physics have a failure point.

In New Orleans, just after Katrina hit, the constitution failed to be functional. The reason for this failure was, in short, extreme environmental conditions, for which constitutional law is not suited.

For the first week after the storm, by allowing people the right to roam the streets with guns the government was complicit in violation of numerous New Orleaninan's 5th amendment rights. Regrettably, in order to rectify the situation, temporary suspension of 2nd amendment rights was necessary.

A good analogy of this situation from the perspective of traditional western legal philosophy would be the drowning boy scenario. [scenario]Boy is drowning in his backyard swimming pool, a person walking by the house can hear lots of commotion and goes to his aid. In doing so the passer by is trespassing(violating the law) in order to serve the greater good of society.[/scenario]
Note that the essence of this argument has been the legal foundation for a number of medical marijuana cases. In the case medical marijuana, someone must break the law in order to serve the greater good of society. In this case that would be the preservation of their good health.

Ultimatly once the crisis passed the 2nd amendment became functional once again, and the rights it entails were reinstated.

I was wondering if it were possible in here but I do detect a beacon of light in the clouds! Preach on brother!!!

[hempity]

it's apparent in the post, and you can readily see, that they have not yet been served a warrant nor have an officer of the law want to see inside their homes.
they will speak differently after either of those traumatic episodes.

[pisshead]

I can imagine no circumstances under which the 2nd amendment is more important than when law and order breaks down.

ditto to that. but the neo-cons would rather see everyone disarmed...how conservative of them?

[Psycho4Bud]

ditto to that. but the neo-cons would rather see everyone disarmed...how conservative of them?

Your dribble makes you look dumber by the second. The N.R.A. loves the Republicans, it's your Dems that want to save the bunnies, trees, etc........

You better consult with Alex before you try independent thought!!

[andruejaysin]

ditto to that. but the neo-cons would rather see everyone disarmed...how conservative of them?

They are by no stretch of the imagination conservatives, vastly increased government power? Runaway spending? A wildly interventionist foreign policy? Well, they hate gays, I guess that's something.

[Nicoli]

I can imagine no circumstances under which the 2nd amendment is more important than when law and order breaks down.

Back in 1776 that would be true, and, even today, under normal circumstances the 2nd amendment contributes to the functionality of the constitution as a whole. In N.O. Shortly after the hurricane, the right for anyone to carry a gun around was causing some serious problems. We as a country canâ??t allow rescuers to be fired on and citizens to gunned down in the streets. Laws require balance in order to function in N.O. That balance was lost. The imbalance resulted from criminals having been released from the jails, and large numbers of guns having been looted after the storm by those same criminals.
The end result of this imbalance was more guns being used to perpetrate crimes(or to violate the constitutional rights of others) then were being used to deter or prevent them.(or to protect the constitutional rights of others) Under normal conditions more guns are used to prevent and deter crimes then are used to perpetrate crimes and thatâ??s why we have the 2nd amendment.

Now if you know anything of history you must know that N.O. Was subjected to Martial Law during the war of 1812 by none other then Andrew Jackson. He had to temporarily deprive citizens of their constitutional rights by forcing them to stay and defend the city from the British. In this case Andrew Jackson was breaking the law in order to preserve the law. Now had he chosen not to take this action itâ??s quite likely that the British would have captured N.O., and in doing so would have threated the very survival of the Republic and its constitution.(the law) Now do you think what he did was wrong? If not then you shouldnâ??t be so quick to judge some of the actions taken in the wake of Katrina, because the justification for those actions is not all that dissimilar from those taken in 1812.

Also, suppose guns hadnâ??t been confiscated, and then suppose that many people died as a result. Donâ??t you think that might have given the anti-gun advocates plenty of ammo? I mean thereâ??s tons of soccer moms that are fence sitters now, but show them a bunch of people gunned down by criminals and the next thing you know you have another anti-gun/gun control advocate.

[hempity]

Back in 1776 that would be true, and, even today, under normal circumstances the 2nd amendment contributes to the functionality of the constitution as a whole. In N.O. Shortly after the hurricane, the right for anyone to carry a gun around was causing some serious problems. We as a country canâ??t allow rescuers to be fired on and citizens to gunned down in the streets. Laws require balance in order to function in N.O. That balance was lost. The imbalance resulted from criminals having been released from the jails, and large numbers of guns having been looted after the storm by those same criminals.
The end result of this imbalance was more guns being used to perpetrate crimes(or to violate the constitutional rights of others) then were being used to deter or prevent them.(or to protect the constitutional rights of others) Under normal conditions more guns are used to prevent and deter crimes then are used to perpetrate crimes and thatâ??s why we have the 2nd amendment.

Now if you know anything of history you must know that N.O. Was subjected to Martial Law during the war of 1812 by none other then Andrew Jackson. He had to temporarily deprive citizens of their constitutional rights by forcing them to stay and defend the city from the British. In this case Andrew Jackson was breaking the law in order to preserve the law. Now had he chosen not to take this action itâ??s quite likely that the British would have captured N.O., and in doing so would have threated the very survival of the Republic and its constitution.(the law) Now do you think what he did was wrong? If not then you shouldnâ??t be so quick to judge some of the actions taken in the wake of Katrina, because the justification for those actions is not all that dissimilar from those taken in 1812.

Also, suppose guns hadnâ??t been confiscated, and then suppose that many people died as a result. Donâ??t you think that might have given the anti-gun advocates plenty of ammo? I mean thereâ??s tons of soccer moms that are fence sitters now, but show them a bunch of people gunned down by criminals and the next thing you know you have another anti-gun/gun control advocate.

seems to me that the 2nd amendment says it is in place to insure a free state not as a deterrent to crime, in fact a well regulated militia is said to be necessary to the security of a free state.
wouldn't that mean that the guns were there to keep the government in line?

[Nicoli]

seems to me that the 2nd amendment says it is in place to insure a free state not as a deterrent to crime, in fact a well regulated militia is said to be necessary to the security of a free state.
wouldn't that mean that the guns were there to keep the government in line?

Well that's your own interpretation of the law, but in my opinion that interpretation is overly simplistic and quite bias. (not that I like the government but I do value objective analysis) The fact is that many threats to freedom can originate from within the general population and not just the government. Deterring crime helps maintain socio-economic stability which in turn promotes the existence of a free state or is conducive to the security of a free state. In the case of N.O. All the normal methods of crime prevention essentially failed for a time, and as a result many people in N.O. started acting irrationally and unpredictably. (many turning to crime for multitudinousness reasons) I feel that there were good legitimate reasons for temporarily suspending 2nd amendment rights in N.O. Not only to protect other rights granted by the constitution but to protect our constitution as a whole.
Like I said before, had we not disarmed people in N.O. We as a nation might have faced the prospect of permanent, considerable erosion of our 2nd amendment rights. Those who would demand the Forfeiture of such rights would not be the government, but citizens who would have been outraged by the gun crimes committed during the crisis. (of course itâ??s possible that it wouldnâ??t have ended that badly but would you want to chance it?)