Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
What do you call a government that doesn't protect your life or property, then comes in to steal your stuff and prevent you from protecting yourself? Dave Kopel says none dare call it New Orleans.
|9.10.05 @ 12:29PM|#
How much would you like to bet that, a la Cincinnatti, almost
none of the cops on the NOPD actually live in the city?
A department that knew and respected the citizens it serves would
understand the distinction between an armed homeowner and a
dangerous criminal.
|9.10.05 @ 12:55PM|#
What do you call a government that doesn't protect your life
or property, then comes in to steal your stuff and prevent you from
protecting yourself?
Business as usual?
|9.10.05 @ 1:00PM|#
joe,
You're probably right. Then again, remember that a large number, if
not a majority, of the seizers are not NOPD.
Some NO Cop|9.10.05 @ 1:28PM|#
How am I supposed to loot when there's all these armed property owners around?
|9.10.05 @ 1:37PM|#
crimethink,
Is that actually true? I read a quote from General Honore stating
that "his people" - which I took to mean the military - weren't
seizing guns or driving people off. It was my understanding that it
was law enforcement.
Lotta rumors around - I could be wrong.
|9.10.05 @ 1:43PM|#
Well, I just found one Katrina evacuation that no purist
libertarian can take issue with:
http://www.ferret-fact.org/KatrinaResources.htm
You can have my ferret when you pry it from my...
|9.10.05 @ 2:02PM|#
Larry A,
Yeah, only problem being that in order to get your case to the
Supreme Court, you have to be alive. With all those dead bodies
floating around, I don't think the po-pos would have a problem
covering up a little overzealous public safety enforcement...
|9.10.05 @ 3:13PM|#
Thanks to Dave for the article. It really sums up a lot of the
various facets of the confiscation effort and gives a good metaview
of what's happening.
The article has been cross-posted for discussion on The High Road
Here.
Also, a project has been started to document these abuses Here.
Vic Napier|9.10.05 @ 3:39PM|#
The thing that surprises me is how the government has trampled
over rights and legal tradition with such impunity. Sending federal
combat troops to operate against American citizens is an outrage,
but nobody said a thing. Same with seizing guns and dragging people
out of their homes, not to mention forced interment and a news
blackout. This forum has been the only place that I have seen any
dissent, and there is not a lot of it even here.
The only way to preserve rights is to challenge government
intrusion upon them, but it doesnt look like that is going to
happen. I guess 20 years of inspecting kids backpacks and lockers,
tolerating police roadblocks to catch drunk drivers, and the
gradual gutting of the Fourth Amendment have taken their toll.
People have forgotten what happens when governments go out of
control in the name of collective safety. Its a good thing that
most of the WWII vets are no longer around to see how thier kids
and grandkids treated thier gifts of democracy and loyal
dissent.
|9.10.05 @ 3:53PM|#
I have not heard anything about federal combat troops "operating" against American citizens. The NO PD and LA state police however, are a different matter..
|9.10.05 @ 4:01PM|#
Vic Napier,
Federal troops are not at this time engaged in any type of law
enforcement. For them to do so, the President would have to evoke
the Inssurrection Act which he has not done.
National Guard troops can engaged in law enforcement because they
are deputized under the authority of the Governor of the state.
|9.10.05 @ 4:06PM|#
It's been discussed a little here. One problem is the cruel nature of soveriegn immunity. Sure, some cops may be fired, but in the end who will any suits be settled against? In the case of peacefull citizen self defenders vs the state, even if the state is found guilty, the citizens will be paying their own award out of pocket in the form of taxes. It's only a meaningless symbolic victory to defeat yourself, the actual perpetrators will walk free.
|9.10.05 @ 4:10PM|#
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy (volokh.com), an interesting
discussion between Dave Kopel and Orin Kerr regarding the
interpretation of the statute authorizing a state of
emergency.
I hope Orin Kerr's view will prove to be incorrect. If his take
prevails, I can see a government declaring a state of emergency as
a pretext to disarm the citizenry. Or are there other laws
explicitly preventing that?
Even though, what would keep them from disobeying those laws? Seems
the Second Amendment isn't worth much.
Shannon Love|9.10.05 @ 4:14PM|#
I have come to the conclusion that anyone who does not at least
wish to retain the choice of whether to keep a personal weapon or
not thinks of themselves in their hearts as a serf.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about this episode is that
whomever is doing the political calculations on the mayor's team
thinks that this is a politically tenable step to take and that the
people of New Orleans will not punish the mayor or the party at the
next election.
Vic Napier|9.10.05 @ 4:15PM|#
Check it out:
Army Times:
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1077495.php
I think I first saw this linked on the Drudgereport, and that
underscores my orginal questions -- how come this is the only place
that I have seen any dissent?
|9.10.05 @ 4:29PM|#
Firsthand
account of a guy who went to New Orleans.
Offered as what it is. For all I know the story is completely made
up, but the same could be said of other firsthand accounts linked
here, too.
|9.10.05 @ 4:33PM|#
how come this is the only place that I have seen any
dissent?
You don't read a lot of gun-related forums, do you?
Vic Napier|9.10.05 @ 5:33PM|#
No Mediageek, I do not read too many gun related forums. Maybe I
am not expressing myself well enough.
I am very surprised that the obvious excesses occurring in New
Orleans do not arouse more Americans. The story I linked above
about the 82nd Airborne beginning combat operations against
Americans they characterize as "insurgents" was not buried in some
radical website. It was published by the Army Times and linked on
Drudge. I am certain that many people read it, but I have yet to
hear anything in the mainstream media questioning the legality of
such an operation.
I am not an attorney, but I think Shannon is correct about the use
of troops requiring the Insurrection Act. Insurrection implies an
organized uprising against government authority -- a crime based on
politics and principle. What we saw in New Orleans was just plain
old violent street crime. Aside from one story in the New York
Times, I have not seen anything about the legality of using combat
troops in a law enforcement capacity. That sort of thing is usually
left up to the National Guard.
Maybe I am getting too mired in the legal details and
Constitutional issues surrounding this situation. What I am so
amazed about is the lack of dissent from ordinary Americans.
Everyone who posts here or on the gun rights sites has a special
interest axe to grind, and that's fine. But how come we aren't
seeing a cross section of Americans expressing outrage on the
evening news, or in newspaper articles, or anywhere else?
|9.10.05 @ 5:56PM|#
"I hope Orin Kerr's view will prove to be incorrect. If his take
prevails, I can see a government declaring a state of emergency as
a pretext to disarm the citizenry."
The "national emergency" proclaimed during World War II was still
in force in the early 1970s, and for all I know is still in effect.
Since we are, as the NRO crowd never tire of reminding us, "at war"
and need to accept a curtailment of our liberties for the duration
(in order to protect those same liberties, of course) it would seem
that ample grounds for declaring a state of emergency are already
present.
|9.10.05 @ 6:07PM|#
"Maybe I am getting too mired in the legal details and
Constitutional issues surrounding this situation. What I am so
amazed about is the lack of dissent from ordinary Americans.
Everyone who posts here or on the gun rights sites has a special
interest axe to grind, and that's fine. But how come we aren't
seeing a cross section of Americans expressing outrage on the
evening news, or in newspaper articles, or anywhere else?"
A decade or more of the public watching "Cops" will inure you to
anything.
|9.10.05 @ 6:25PM|#
Vic -
I too am not a lawyer, but read someplace (and too lazy to find
right now) that this Bush didn't use the act because he was afraid
of the implications of doing so, even though his father used the
act during the LA riots in order for the government to take
control.
My point is that if this is the case, it seems that the
Insurrection Act, may not legally require an insurrection. At least
not in the way most people probably define the term.
|9.10.05 @ 6:27PM|#
Clarification - I think it's completely horrendous that the US
government can take people's lawfully owned firearms when they are
most needed. Without an ability to protect oneself, what exactly is
"freedom"?
Anyway - my previous post was simply trying to answer a question,
not define my beliefs.
|9.10.05 @ 6:30PM|#
How much would you like to bet that, a la Cincinnatti,
almost none of the cops on the NOPD actually live in the
city?
New Orleans has a residency requirement. All officers must live in
Orleans Parish, which is contiguous with the city. It's Article X
of the Municipal Code, which is searchable at www.municode.com.
|9.10.05 @ 6:51PM|#
Dave Kopel:
There is no shortage of police officers and National Guardsmen
who will obey illegal orders to threaten peaceful citizens at
gunpoint and confiscate their firearms.
Right. They're illegal orders, so they're crimes and those who
issued the criminal orders, as well as those who carried them out,
should be prosecuted and if found guilty, punished. The victims who
had their guns confiscated should attempt to press charges. They
should also seek civil damages.
We should contact our congress people...
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
...and tell them that we do not want our any of our tax monies
being used to support these crimes.
This is tyranny and unless we resist and stop it, we will live
under it.
|9.10.05 @ 6:52PM|#
Vic-
I agree with you.
However, to be quite frank, as long as they have food, water,
shelter, a big screen tv with at least 13 channels of shit to
choose from and a sixer of Bud Ice, most people could care
less.
That is the sad reality of this country.
|9.10.05 @ 7:23PM|#
M,
Does "Orleans Parish" include the suburbs around New Orleans?
Living the burbs isn't the same thing as living in the city.
|9.10.05 @ 7:34PM|#
Joe:
No, it does not include suburbs outside the city limites. The
boundaries of Orleans Parish and the City of New Orleans are the
same. The City of New Orleans and the Parish of Orleans operate as
a merged city-county government. Ray Nagin is technicaly the mayor
of Orleans Parish, but he is commonly referred to as the mayor of
New Orleans....
|9.10.05 @ 8:00PM|#
What the hell is "anarcho-tyranny" but a "right-wing" attempt to
demonize anarchy?
Repeat after me: Chaos is bad. Anarchy is good.
I'd go so far as to say anarchy is the ONLY way to deal with
situations approaching chaos...
when Newtonian Libertarianism has a phase transition into Quantum
Libertarianism.
Jennifer & Thoreau,
Here's a picture of the gun my daughter just bought:
http://personalsecurityzone.com/cgi-win/order/prodlist.exe/PSZ/?
Template=ProdDetail.htm&ProductID=19760
|9.10.05 @ 8:09PM|#
Thank you, M. I stand corrected.
I suppose that's the difference between a Southern city and a
northern one. Discrimination in the South, be it racial or
class-based, was always a way of managing close proximity.
Discrimination in the North has always been about maintaining
separation.
M, what would you think of the broader statement that the cops in
the NOPD are not actually of the communities they oversee?
|9.10.05 @ 8:09PM|#
as long as they have food, water, shelter, a big screen tv
with at least 13 channels of shit to choose from and a sixer of Bud
Ice, most people could care less.
Isn't that what America is all about?
Oh, and the weaker soon became the prey of the stronger in the
Convention Center and Superdome? I thought those were just a bunch
of exaggerated fairy tales?
|9.10.05 @ 8:09PM|#
joe,
I have no idea if these numbers are right, but I saw them in a
letter to CityBeat, the "alternative" Sinincincinnati rag.
> While claiming that the Cincinnati Police Department is
understaffed, both
> candidates have omitted some interesting figures about the
department compared
> to other cities: Cincinnati has 31 police officers per 10,000
residents while
> San Francisco has 29, Louisville has 27, Columbus has 25 and
Lexington has 19.
> The salary of an entry-level officer in Cincinnati is $37,487;
in Columbus
> it�s $30,480, in Lexington $30,274 and in Louisville $27,689.
All figures are
> for the year 2000.
The Repuglycun running for mayor here wants 200 more cops.
I don't see much relevance about whether cops live within or
without a city.
|9.10.05 @ 8:30PM|#
M, what would you think of the broader statement that the
cops in the NOPD are not actually of the communities they
oversee?
I know I'm not M...
Part of the problem with the NOPD is that they are part of the
communities overseen. The chaos and violence you saw is part of the
city, and inevitably officers get caught in it. Before Katrina
Nagin was considering putting an elimination of the residency
requirement on the ballot. The same arguments made in Cinti apply
to a greater degree here, that it is hard to keep good officers
when you make them live and work in the same craphole. There's much
better social order in Hamilton County, Ohio than in Orleans
Parish. Where Ruthless lives is at least an order of magnitude more
lawful than most of Central City or the 6th-9th Wards in
NOLA.
Kopel should read Chris Rose's column today. Rose, camped out
Uptown, had his guns taken then returned an hour later without
explanation.
|9.10.05 @ 8:42PM|#
Ruthless, "I don't see much relevance about whether cops live
within or without a city."
It's not geography, it's community. Do you think your n'hood would
have seen those riots if the department had been staffed and led by
people from your hood?
Dynamist, "Part of the problem with the NOPD is that they are part
of the communities overseen. The chaos and violence you saw is part
of the city." There are many different communities in a city. How
many Staten Islanders born into the NYPD do you think consider the
residents of Harlem to be their neighbors?
And in a southern city (and one of the great tragedies of American
history is the devolution of New Orleans from a cosmopolitian city
to a Southern one over the course of the 20th century), the
community-on-community relations tend to reflect a certain set
order.
|9.10.05 @ 8:53PM|#
So joe, help me out here, is it better if officers come from the community they patrol or not? 'Cause you seem to be trying to have it both ways.
|9.10.05 @ 10:06PM|#
"It's not geography, it's community. Do you think your n'hood
would have seen those riots if the department had been staffed and
led by people from your hood?"
joe,
As I said, I think it's beside the point. The point is there are
too damn many cops and too much policing mentality. It's just
another government scam.
I'm just returning from as good as it gets in the 'hood.
Watched Kim "I've tried other enemas" Clijsters defeat Mary Pierce
with the TV on mute while playing The Rough Guide to the Music of
Pakistan. I had loaned this CD to my buddy, Waki Paki, who said the
first cut was a guy from his home town.
The Intelligent Designer is in his laboratory with his black cat
and all is well on the third quivering blob from the Sun.
|9.10.05 @ 10:30PM|#
i bet 50 bucks ruthless looks like the dude from akron
family.
you should totally check them out, btw, ruthless.
|9.10.05 @ 11:01PM|#
dhex,
Looks are not important are they?
But for an image, think of me as the stunted little brother of Rick
Flair, Nature Boy.
Or big brother?, as I'm older than he.
On many occasions, when I've entered the immediate 'hood here, I've
heard Nature Boy's call as friendly greeting.
(Actually the first few times, I almost soiled my trousers.)
|9.10.05 @ 11:03PM|#
"I am not an attorney, but I think Shannon is correct about
the use of troops requiring the Insurrection Act."
I don't know if Shannon's right about the Insurrection Act, but I'm
sure she's right about the serf thing.
|9.11.05 @ 12:37AM|#
...I'm sure she's right about the serf thing.
For sure. And the actual deprivation of personal weapon liberty can
lead to a status worse than that of a serf. More like a slave.
|9.11.05 @ 5:07AM|#
joe: New York is not New Orleans. The comparison is of limited
value. Yet another unique aspect of NOLA is the intermixing and
proximity of crappy areas and "rich" areas. The wealth is along the
avenues and the poverty is within the superblocks they define
(generally but sufficiently). What one might afford on an officer's
salary pretty much puts the residence in a marginal n'hood full of
marginal characters.
Take away the block-by-block geography, and you've still got an
interwoven "community". The cops and the thugs both eat at Gene's
and go to Saints games. There aren't many cops from the old-line
old-south families; it's urban black policing urban black. Are
house niggers and field niggers of the same community?
|9.11.05 @ 10:36AM|#
Does sovereign immunity still apply in the face of illegal
orders? By which I mean, I know that a NOLA homeowner could not sue
the city for damages if his house were looted during the storm or
its immediate aftermath (since cops aren't legally required to
protect any individual's property), but what if the house were
looted after the illegal confiscation of weapons and eviction from
the house?
I don't know of any precedents for this, either way.
|9.11.05 @ 11:10AM|#
Again, the Feds are trampling the US constitution and no one
does a damn thing about it. It's frightening how the Bush
administration claims to be American at all since their tactics and
outlook towards the "sheep" of our country state otherwise.
Just wait till someone detonates a suitcase nuke on our soil.
Martial law is coming and due to the flagrant abuses by the
government thugs, our once mighty nation will succumb to civil
war.
Prepare now, the fall of the American empire is near and we have
our "leaders" to thank for pushing us all down this road to
tyranny.
|9.11.05 @ 11:21AM|#
Ando,
Are you temping for gaius marius?
My faith in complexity leads me to believe it won't happen the way
you're predicting.
|9.11.05 @ 11:55AM|#
Residency laws for city employees is all about assuring a solid
voting block for encumbant mayors.
There isn't an iota of evidence to support the claim that city
employees who reside in the city are better, in any fashion, than
employees of cities without such a rule.
One would expect an enlightened libertarian to DEMAND something
beyond a mere assertion that people who live in the city will
better serve it for solely that reason.
I've lived in Boston for 30 years. There hasn't a measurable bit of
difference provided in performance, anywhere, due to the relatively
recent enactment of a residency law. If anything, having everyone
working for the city, living in the city, breeds an atmosphere of
corruption.
Besides, how many better candidates refuse to apply for city
positions because of this unreasonable restriction on personal
freedom?
No one in their right mind would condone a private company making
residency a requirement without providing a compeling AND
DEMONSTRABLE reason.
The proof of my assertion is in the fact that the Boston Police
union has successfully negotiated innumeral loopholes that have
outraged the teachers union. Every employee knows its a joke. It
continues because it assures a large, union led, turn out. In a
city where local elections see very low turnout, having an
entrenched block at your disposal virtually assures reelection.
Vic Napier|9.11.05 @ 3:07PM|#
Ando:
I don�t think things are quite as bleak as you suggest in your
post. I was heartened this morning to see an article in which the
commander of active duty troops in New Orleans is quoted as saying
that his command will have nothing to do with evicting people from
their homes.
"Federal troops will not be involved in the direct evacuation in
any way, of any one, from their home. That is a local and state law
enforcement task not to include federal troops," Honore told CNN's
"Late Edition."
(http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/11/D8CI3A8O0.html)
He sounds emphatic about it, doesn�t he?
Two things strike me as notable about this comment. First, here is
a government official explicitly rejecting power. That�s unusual.
We all want more power because it means security and predictably �
it�s a human trait common in everyone, but especially so in people
who rise to powerful positions.
You have to wonder what caused him to do this. It�s obvious that he
didn�t just think this up on the spur of the moment. This is
something he thought about or discussed with someone. Military
commanders don�t just make categorical statements rejecting
additional authority out of hand right without some deliberate
reflection.
Do you suppose that the prospect of the 82nd Airborne facing a
group of armed citizens refusing to be forcefully dragged from
their homes might have something to do with it? There is no doubt
who would prevail in such a contest, but imagine the cost. Is it
possible that the general has doubts about the legal or moral
implications of forced evacuations that prompted him to distance
himself from that operation?
There�s precedent for military commanders to refuse to move against
civilians involved in defiance of authority. Back in the 60�s a
group of Native Americans seized a building at the site of the
Wounded Knee massacre in South Dakota and were successful in
creating a stand off with local police that lasted several weeks.
(Sorry, but I don�t remember the details.) Law enforcement
officials, (who were very brutal and corrupt as it turned out),
called in the Justice Department, who eventually requested a
military assault.
I don�t remember the name of general commanding the Airborne
division that was asked to evaluate the success of an assault, but
he refused to have anything to do with such an operation. As I
recall he said something about being on the wrong side, and not
wanting his troops to be involved in a second Wounded Knee
massacre.
In an earlier comment someone said something about National Guard
troops being capable of committing illegal acts or atrocities. I
suppose that�s true � events like My Li and Kent State demonstrate
that such things are possible, particularly at the enlisted level.
One the other hand there are many military officers who are quite
knowledgeable about constitutional issues as well as history who
also take their oath to uphold the constitution very
seriously.
Anyway, Ando, I don�t think things are as bleak as you make them
out to be. I�m appalled that American citizens so cheerfully give
up their rights to over zealous officials, but maybe that
deplorable weakness is offset by the self-discipline of the
military�s officer corps to reject unlawful authority and immoral
acts. I hope so.
One other thing.
There has been a lot well-deserved criticism of the media here, as
well as on other boards. The media may be dominated by self serving
and ghoulish people, but at times like this they are our only
source of information about what the government is up to. Remember,
there isn�t much of a communications infrastructure left to
transmit messages from locals. If you are anywhere on the Gulf
Coast and don�t have a satellite phone the only person likely to
hear you is the person next to you.
Freedom always has a price, but sometimes it�s not so obvious. The
cost of the Second Amendment is things like drunk and jealous
spouses killing one another and drive by shootings. We are willing
to pay that price because we feel the right to have firearms is so
fundamental to our democracy.
The price of the First Amendment is being subjected to ideas we
find offensive, such as pornography or Nazi literature, and images
that some individuals will find quite traumatic, such as the body
of a loved one being recovered from a drainage ditch.
My heart goes out to the victims of such terrible things, but we
cannot allow our compassion for the suffering of a relatively small
number of individuals to undermine our fundamental rights. (Just to
put my credentials in the open, I volunteer at a local social
service agency four hours every weekend to care for a drive by
shooting victim. It�s been five years since the shooting but the
result is still gruesome. I guess that�s how I pay my dues for an
armed citizenry � looking at the price every week.)
The benefit of such costs is worth the end result, in my view,
because it is imperative that we are informed about what our
government is up at all times � even in a domestic crisis. No,
especially in a domestic crisis.
Any thoughts?
Vic Napier|9.11.05 @ 3:09PM|#
Geez, I didn't think I went on THAT long. Sorry folks. I'll keep it much shorter in the future.
|9.11.05 @ 3:53PM|#
I don�t think things are quite as bleak as you suggest in
your post. I was heartened this morning to see an article in which
the commander of active duty troops in New Orleans is quoted as
saying that his command will have nothing to do with evicting
people from their homes.
I'll admit to being a cynic with a low view of human nature, so
take that into consideration when you think about this, but in some
ways, the fact that this isn't the military being evil makes me
feel WORSE.
Here's why: it's no secret to regulars on these threads that I
really, really loathe Bush and his administration, and blame them
for a lot of what's wrong with the country today: Iraq war, PATRIOT
Act, Abu Ghraib atrocities, detention without trial, and many
more.
But as bad as this administration may get, there's one good thing
about it: it can't last more than another three years. So,
concerning anything bad which is a direct result of W, we can hope
the worst will be over soon. Thus, if it were the military, under
Commander-in-Chief GWB, confiscating guns and evicting people from
their homes. . .well, I could at least tell myself "This too may
pass. Wait for 2008, or even 2006, and hope for better
things."
But no. This is a completely different level of government, and the
political party professionally OPPOSED to GWB. So these legal
atrocities in New Orleans, combined with all the other Republican
horror stories and Democrat horror stories of the past few years,
make me really despair: this (meaning all that's going wrong with
our country) isn't just the fault of one man, one group of people,
or even one political party. This is an entire system
that's corrupted to the core.
And I really can't see any way of fixing it without turning our
country into something completely unrecognizable as America.
|9.11.05 @ 4:20PM|#
And I really can't see any way of fixing it without turning
our country into something completely unrecognizable as
America.
Like it isn't now?
Vic Napier|9.11.05 @ 7:30PM|#
Jennifer and Wilbert:
First, I disagree with your assessment that the entire system is
broken. The fact that we are here exchanging these ideas is proof
of that. The problem is that most other people are not as informed
or opinionated about constitutional issues as we are. They just
don't realize how important it is. We can affect this simply by
engaging our friends and neighbors in respectful conversations
about the issues. I'm not urging anyone to get into debates or to
attempt to change anyone's mind - simply to address the issues, lay
out the logic, and move onto a conversation about football or
something.
It's amazing what small groups of people can do when they approach
issues this way. In fact just one person - John Woolman -- single
handedly convinced Quakers along the Eastern seaboard to free their
slaves and renounce slavery with quiet and respectful debate. It
took many years, but by the 1830's not a single Quaker retained
slaves, even those in states that eventually joined the
Confederacy.
One other thing, and I promise to keep it short. Change will happen
whether we like it or not. We can't go back to the 60's, 70's, or
80's. It's a different world now with challenges we have never had
to deal with before. We can't meet today's challenges with methods
that might have worked well in response to challenges of the
past.
The thing that must not change, however, are the principles upon
which we base our responses. That's where the constitution,
morality and ethics come in. We must maintain the integrity of our
principles at all costs. For example, I'm not against gun control
because of the Second Amendment. I'm for the private ownership of
weapons because of the principle that ultimate political authority
should lie collectively among the governed, and when government
becomes tyrannical it becomes the duty of the people collectively
to seize power back. Hopefully that seizure is accomplished through
the courts and the ballot box, but sometimes…
An armed and determined citizenry might have prompted the general
in New Orleans to distance himself from seizing guns and dragging
people out of their homes. Time will tell.
|9.11.05 @ 9:04PM|#
"And I really can't see any way of fixing it without turning our
country into something completely unrecognizable as America."
Jennifer and others,
America needs to be incognito.
Our main problem is being too cognito.
It's not mandatory that wealth should be the gateway drug to
cockiness/cognito.
|9.12.05 @ 7:29AM|#
Or, Vic, you could take the viewpoint that the government doesn't care what people say because they know it doesn't matter. How many Americans still think Saddam was behind 9-11? Or that WMDs were found in Iraq? Or that GWB's Vietnam record was more honorable than Kerry's? Words don't matter anymore--the only thing the government has reason to fear anymore are incriminating photographs. That's why we'll never see the Abu Ghraib photos, and that's why the media is currently forbidden to see what the military is doing down in New Orleans. (Guys with guns facing down reporters with notebooks--I can't get too excited about modern freedoms when THAT is going on.)
|9.12.05 @ 7:36AM|#
And another thing I remembered: how many times have we seen stories of cops confiscating cameras or memory cards because they don't want their actions to be seen before the world? No, our government will let you SAY anything you want; you're just not allowed to VERIFY it in any way.
M. Simon|9.12.05 @ 11:55AM|#
Saddam was behind WTC1. What are the odds that he had nothing to do with WTC2?
|9.12.05 @ 12:14PM|#
Saddam was behind WTC1. What are the odds that he had
nothing to do with WTC2?
See what I mean, Vic?
Larry A|9.12.05 @ 3:51PM|#
Shannon Love: Perhaps the most disturbing thing about this
episode is that whomever is doing the political calculations on the
mayor's team thinks that this is a politically tenable step to take
and that the people of New Orleans will not punish the mayor or the
party at the next election.
But what are the chances that people being forcibly evacuated at
this point will be living in New Orleans for the next
election?
Vic Napier: Freedom always has a price, but sometimes it?s not
so obvious. The cost of the Second Amendment is things like drunk
and jealous spouses killing one another and drive by
shootings.
Not really. Britain has imposed nearly complete gun control, and is
now working on a law to ban kitchen knives with pointy ends. "Drunk
and jealous spouses killing one another and drive by shootings" are
rapidly increasing, to the point that the violent crime rate is
several times that of the U.S.
Vic Napier|9.12.05 @ 7:03PM|#
Jennifer:
Please tell me that you posted under M. Simon, or that you and a
buddy coordinated that post. Please.
Larry:
Direct me to objective evidence to support your statements. It's
not that I don't believe you, I just don't want to. If what you say
is true it challenges the implications of a study I did several
years ago. Risk taking and violence might be genetic traits of
Americans, but not Britons or native European. I'm not asserting
that this is true -- it is just an implication of isolated research
results. Fascinating in any case. Go to www.vicnapier.com and click
on the Risk Homeostasis link if you are interested.
|9.12.05 @ 10:16PM|#
Not really. Britain has imposed nearly complete gun control,
and is now working on a law to ban kitchen knives with pointy
ends.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
I'm having a hell of a time finding an "objective" source that
compares US and UK violent crime rates. Although I believe the US
crime rate has been declining, while that of the UK has just
suddenly risen, but the US probably still has the higher rate.
(Just my impression from reading several online articles while
trying vainly to find a definitive answer.)
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/041105.html
PS: I think a claim that Australia's violent crime rate has risen
as a result of gun control may be on firmer ground. (But
ditto.)
|9.13.05 @ 11:43AM|#
Testing. I posted to this thread last night, from my usual computer, and got a response that new participant's messages will be reviewed before posting. The post never showed up. Gonna see what happens now when I hit "Post."
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245