Can't happen here?

[dogdollar]

You don't think so?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

...and the most disturbing thing is,(if this is any indication),that it seems most likely to happen when you need them the most.

DD

[KCShooter]

It amazes me to see how easily some people are led into doing things they have to know are wrong simply because they were ordered to do so.

Depressing video. My wife saw a second of this over my shoulder, and before I gave her the background on this story, she asked me if this was the U.S.

The good news is that the actions shown in that video led to legislation in several states, including mine, that made it illegal for law enforcement to confiscate guns simply because of a disaster.

[dogdollar]

The good news is that the actions shown in that video led to legislation in several states, including mine, that made it illegal for law enforcement to confiscate guns simply because of a disaster.


It was illegal in Louisiana when it happened. :D

DD

[kenhwind]

If THEY declare "Martial Law" all bets are off IMO.

[Aguila Blanca]

If THEY declare "Martial Law" all bets are off IMO.
That's true, but the circumstances under which martial law can legally be declared, and the specific people by whom it may be declared, are a lot more limited than some people (including a lot of military brass) think. Martial law had not been declared in Louisiana, despite the National Guard being there. The civilian authority was still (nominally) in charge. They were just doing a lousy job of carrying out their responsibilities.

Sometimes that wonderful, military "can do" attitude is not a blessing. Remember Alexander Haig when he was White House Chief of Staff? "I'm in charge here!"

Well, no, Alex, you're not in charge. Under the Constitution, in fact, the Chief of Staff does not even exist. Get out of my way.

Too many people in the military are accustomed to thinking it must be a certain way because they think it should be that way. Ditto for a majority of politicians.

[kenhwind]

That's true, but the circumstances under which martial law can legally be declared, and the specific people by whom it may be declared, are a lot more limited than some people (including a lot of military brass) think.
I understand and agree but:
The current Administration has its own rules, so does the U.N.
Edit: Mr President believes we need a "National Police Force"

[dogdollar]

Just in case there is someone not familiar with the situation.....
This happened in the days following Katrina and the levee breaks that caused the City of New Orleans to flood. There was no power, water, or gas; most of the city was deserted. Temperatures were in the nineties with unbelievable humidity. There were dead bodies laying in the streets and floating in the floodwater. Gangs of murdering looters were going home to home. The police force was basically non-existent - what you generally had, if anything, was a few National Guard, some local cops, some regular army all working together.
And what did they decide to do?
Confiscate honest, legal citizen's weapons, thus making them incapable of defending themselves.
Check the three 200+ pound cops beating the 70 year old woman in order to "disarm" her.
I wonder if anyone was chasing the bad guys?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHcajIRcBvA

[d90king]

Jindal has addressed this already so that it can never happen again. Both HR 5013 and a similar one by Vitter HR 5441...

That said one never really knows what "could" happen...

[wbb]

The police and guardsmen entering homes without a warrant, taking your legal property, and forcing you to leave at gunpoint is ILLEGAL. I am glad there were no viloent confrontations from people who were defending their rights, but I wonder what would happen to someone that refused to give up their firearms and thus led to a shootout with the so called "good guys" ????

[Patriotic]

They would be killed protecting their Constitutional right.

[bugman53]

I really want to say that I would defend my rights with deadly force. But really what can you do? I mean they have family, kids; they are just doing a job there not the ones that need to be punished. I think there needs to be clearly stated that in law that a citizen has the right to defend their rights using any force necessary without any legal prosecution. But then the extremist would be shooting cops for a speeding ticket. So what can we do if this happens ageain?

[Patriotic]

Bugman53, you are so correct, they are just doing their job but in doing their job they must accept responsibility. I think of the Nurnberg trials after WWII where Nazis were on trial for war crimes. Their defense was that they “were just following orders”. That excuse did not relieve them of the responsibility for their actions. I know members of our military can question and refuse an order if they believe it is an unlawful order. What about guardsmen, ATF agents and LEOs? If they truly believe in our country and their responsibility to uphold the Constitution then they would disobey the unlawful order to disarm law abiding citizens. How many would walk away and say this is wrong and I will not be a part of this? During the American Revolution, colonists stood their ground against a repressive government at the time. I pray we never get to this point of defending our rights again because there will be a lot of sorrow on both sides.

[bugman53]

Good point. The cops should have refused to take the wepons. I would hope if the time ever came to disarm americal that the cops would refuse or step down.

[Old Fashioned]

I believe that the state (La.) enacted legislation to make sure that never happens again but the question that should be asked is "where was the governor" when that was happening. The governor made a big dealt of it after the fact but where was he during the fact?

[Skytower]

Since the levys were found to be inproperly maintained, the emergency response was poorly handled, and communications systems were wiped out, how else would a governor deal with this "minor" problem? People don't need rights. This is an emergency!
Now, he's just trying to save face after the fact. IMO.