Leave Or We'll Drag You Out

[Dragoon68]

Business, Though Not as Usual, Starts Stirring in New Orleans

Why do we need to force residents out of their homes if business is starting to stir in New Orleans? Who's going operate those businesses?

Note the predicted influx of contractors. They, like the public servants and the volunteer workers already there, are immune to the "toxic" water and won't be in the way. The journalists who've arrived to save us all by creating an endless stream of tear jerking documentaries are certainly immune from the vilest of venom and disease.

We need the residents back in New Orleans as soon as possible before their city is taken over by outsiders.

By the way, in speaking with one particular refugee family this morning, I heard again that in many cases, such as their own, the problem is not damage to their home but lack of employment near their home until commerce is restored. They, like a lot of other folks I've met, are just needing a little help to tide them over until things get going again. Of course, many others have no home or possessions left save those they brought with them or those in fiancial accounts. Some don't have anything except the help their getting and their own God given talents and motitvation. They're going to make it!

The best thing we can do is start moving people back home where there are no significant problems. They'll get busy doing constructive things to restore their communities and will generate an economy on that alone. That will create more opportunities for others to start coming back as well.

The worst thing we can do is hold them in large congregations doing nothing. Now, in those places, there's a real risk of disease rapidly spreading.

It strikes me strangly that we know how to help third world nations learn and do these things yet in our own country we feel helpless without the government telling us what's best "for our own good".

 

[Dragoon68]

Duplicate posting deleted.

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by emeraldctyangel:
Poncho, if your that stupid, owning a weapon isnt going to make you smart.

Okay, so...what's your point?

 

[poncho]

I couldn't help noticing how drunk and delirious the people looked in your posts Dragoon. Especially those two guys "not going anywhere" must be they ran out of booze early or missed the party altogether. And those papers they're reading, what are they anti government propaganda leaflets?

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by poncho:
I couldn't help noticing how drunk and delirious the people looked in your posts Dragoon. Especially those two guys "not going anywhere" must be they ran out of booze early or missed the party altogether.

They're a real "threat" to rescue and recovery operations. There's a whole lot more of these type "bad guys" still in New Orleans that must be removed "for their own good". Some of them even have guns! We can't have that! Citizens with guns is simply not acceptable especially when there's a possibility some really bad guys might be around. Only the government can have guns. They will protect us. It's easier for them that way and they can be safer. Besides, they know what's best for everyone and will decide. The government has a "state of emergency" now and must use every bit of that power possible to protect everyone from themselves.

For a serious comment: It absolutely amazes me that there's not complete "outrage" from citizens all over the country over this forced evacuation and confiscation of citizen's weapons. Either people just don't care, don't understand it, don't think it can happen in their community, or actually believe it's okay.

 

[poncho]

Multiple choice?

A) Either people just don't care.

B) Don't understand it.

C) Don't think it can happen in their community.

D) Actually believe it's okay.

E) All of the above.

I'd have to go with E, all of the above. The thing that gets me is the people that make excuses for it.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by poncho:
Multiple choice?

A) Either people just don't care.

B) Don't understand it.

C) Don't think it can happen in their community.

D) Actually believe it's okay.

E) All of the above.

I'd have to go with E, all of the above. The thing that gets me is the people that make excuses for it.

You're correct, poncho, it is all of the above. It is a shame.

 

[Dragoon68]

Troops Won't Force Evacuations

It's good that federal troops will not be used to force evacuations although, to the best of my knowledge, that wasn't being considered to begin with. LTC Honore doesn't make policy but he sure does articulate it very well. Remember, he's the one that was seen and heard reminding his troops, as well as local police, that they were there to help the citizens - not fight them as in a war - and that they shouldn't point their weapons at them.

How, if the Governor would only be concerned enough about supporting those who've stayed, the state troops could also be prevented for joining in that effort.

The Mayor, I'm afraid, is "delirious" with his new found power and now, that the crisis of the impending storm has passed and the subsequent free reign of violence is over, he is able to subdue those residents "in the way" of rescue and recovery "for their own good".

The Mayor, by the way, is still missing about 300 of his city police officers. Where are they? Where were they? I do expect some have met with personal misfortune but I've got a strange feeling a lot of them are in refugee centers or, maybe, even amoung the "holdouts" still in the city. We have no way to know for sure but it will be interesting when, and if, that is revealed to us.

Of course, there will be no shortage of media in the area to document every bit of money making news. They even demand space on the rescue boats. They are also immune to the "toxic" water like all other the thousands of non-residents arriving in New Orleans. They're not "in the way" like some residents might be. The courts would probably protect their right to be present while ignoring the basic right to be armed or to defend one's self and property or to make decisions for one's self in the midst of this "state of emergency".

Perhaps these reporters, in the public interest of course, will even film one or two of those "holdouts" who defy the city's order as they're taken away like criminals by police who should be used to help them protect their property. Some have sworn to defend their rights to the death. I sincerely hope that does not become necessary.

 

[Dragoon68]

Police won't force holdouts' removal

Police won't force holdouts' removal:
Capt. Marlin Defillo said authorities will continue to go house-to-house informing residents that they are in violation of mandatory evacuation
orders, "but we will not physically force them out of their homes."

This is good at least from the standpoint that the order won't be enforced albeit not rescinded. Perhaps the Mayor realized they were going to have a serious fight on their hands from people wanting to make decisions for themselves and not bothering anyone else by doing so. It wouldn't be very good if residents and law enforcement officers exchanged violence on top of all the hardship already endured.

Police won't force holdouts' removal:
Officials conducting house-to-house searches have attempted to coax holdouts to leave their homes but had not yet physically forced anyone out.

New Orleans resident Kay Vereen said Sunday she was told by members of the California Highway Patrol -- among the many out-of-state
agencies aiding relief efforts -- that she "will be refused food and water."

"They were polite but firm and said that there was a mandatory evacuation, and was I aware of it; I said yes, but I was choosing to stay," she
said.

Those residents that were previously intimidated into leaving, by the obvious display of authority and potential use of force, should be brought back home if that's what they want. They also shouldn't be refused available water and food because of their decision to stay.

Where are the rest of the New Orleans police?

It's not over yet! The next step is get the government to recognize and fully respect the right of citizens to be armed if they so desire and to free to use those arms to defend themselves, their families, or their property from harm, damage, or theft.

This whole business was a stupid unjustified action by the Mayor.

All citizens should take careful note of these events and judge them as clear insight into what can be expected for local, county, state, and, maybe, even federal officials in future emergency situations. We should actively push to make certain that laws granting emergency power to such officials limit that power to those acts that are truly in the interest of "common good" and truly necessary.

 

[OCC]

Originally posted by Dragoon68:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daisy:
There are gas leaks throughout the city. The standing water is toxic with rotting corpses, fecal matter and petroleum. There is no source of clean water, no way to dispose of sewage. The danger from fire, ironically, and disease is immediate.

They understand the risks are willing to take them just like the thousands of people who will be in the area working for the government agencies, the volunteer organizations, and the contractors hired to do the clean up work.

It's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. It's our choice to take the risks we want and it's our right to protect our property even if its flooded, burned, fallen down, or worthless.

Only when what we do causes harm to another does our government, on behalf of other citizens, have a right to intercede and force us to do something we don't want to do. </font>[/QUOTE]That may be the reason for the forced evacuation. Granted, it should have been done much earlier when more lives could have been saved.

But if those people aren't forced out they could eventually harm other citizens. They could get very sick...diseases could be spread, etc. I also think government is there to protect people from themselves. That was a reason I believe, that God instituted it. They enforce laws, therefore they serve a role in protecting sinful people from themselves...sometimes.

 

[church mouse guy]

Next they will be closing the bars on Bourbon Street. Then we will know that it is a true disaster if the Kennedys have to go without alcohol. I can see Teddy now wondering where his little FEMA is....

 

[emeraldctyangel]

Originally posted by Dragoon68:
For a serious comment: It absolutely amazes me that there's not complete "outrage" from citizens all over the country over this forced evacuation and confiscation of citizen's weapons. Either people just don't care, don't understand it, don't think it can happen in their community, or actually believe it's okay.

I am not outraged. Growing up in Florida it was sheer madness to stay during an impending hurricane. More often than not, we came home to a few downed trees and no power. Minor inconveniences compared to sticking around protecting my fridge full of food or something equally replaceable.

When Andrew hit, we were all missing stuff. We learned the actual meaning of Matthew 6:21.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by emeraldctyangel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dragoon68:
For a serious comment: It absolutely amazes me that there's not complete "outrage" from citizens all over the country over this forced evacuation and confiscation of citizen's weapons. Either people just don't care, don't understand it, don't think it can happen in their community, or actually believe it's okay.

I am not outraged. Growing up in Florida it was sheer madness to stay during an impending hurricane. More often than not, we came home to a few downed trees and no power. Minor inconveniences compared to sticking around protecting my fridge full of food or something equally replaceable.

When Andrew hit, we were all missing stuff. We learned the actual meaning of Matthew 6:21. </font>[/QUOTE]We all need to be able to make our choice about what to do based upon what we believe is best for us. I can certainly respect a decision to evacuate when faced with an impending natural disaster. I can also abolutely respect a decision not to do so. It depends upon the individual and what risk they wish to take.

We've given our government broad power during a state of emergency to, basically, do what needs to be done. This is a good thing when it's needed, to the extent it's needed, and so long as it is not misused. During such limited periods some civil liberty must be put aside. The original focus was on dealing with war and insurrection.

Nothing about this power of government should be used to do more than what's absolutely necessary and all of it should be done only when it's truly needed for the "common good" and limited to specific actions to that end.

Forcing people to make "good" decisions for themselves is not the proper role of government. Government is not responsible to protect us from our own self.

We need to keep it that way.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by King James:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dragoon68:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daisy:
There are gas leaks throughout the city. The standing water is toxic with rotting corpses, fecal matter and petroleum. There is no source of clean water, no way to dispose of sewage. The danger from fire, ironically, and disease is immediate.

They understand the risks are willing to take them just like the thousands of people who will be in the area working for the government agencies, the volunteer organizations, and the contractors hired to do the clean up work.

It's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. It's our choice to take the risks we want and it's our right to protect our property even if its flooded, burned, fallen down, or worthless.

Only when what we do causes harm to another does our government, on behalf of other citizens, have a right to intercede and force us to do something we don't want to do. </font>[/QUOTE]That may be the reason for the forced evacuation. Granted, it should have been done much earlier when more lives could have been saved.

But if those people aren't forced out they could eventually harm other citizens. They could get very sick...diseases could be spread, etc. I also think government is there to protect people from themselves. That was a reason I believe, that God instituted it. They enforce laws, therefore they serve a role in protecting sinful people from themselves...sometimes. </font>[/QUOTE]There's a greater chance that all the people being brought in will be the source of harm to others than those that want to stay in thier own communities.

Government exists primarly to provide a framework of justice so we don't have to take it into our own hands and to provide for the common defense of our nation against our enemies.

Government doesn't exist to care for or provide for us or to make decisions for us about what's best for us.

A person who decides to defend themselves, their familes, or their property and take the risk of doing so is certainly not acting in a sinful manner.

The government, specifically in the case of New Orleans, should be more concerned with helping persons accomplish that goal whom are willing, able, and have elected to do so.

 

[Dragoon68]

The Mayor of New Orleans might do better to round up his missing 300 police officers. They could have been helpful in the initial hours and days after the passing of the storm when people were on their own to fend for themselves. He should be proud that many resisdents in the City were able to fend for themselves. Americans are good at doing that.

 

[Dragoon68]

National Rifle Association on 12 Sep 2005:
Disaster Can't Destroy Gun Rights

(Fairfax, VA) -- National Rifle Association leader Wayne LaPierre slammed New Orleans authorities Monday for seizing legal firearms from lawful residents.

"What we've seen in Louisiana - the breakdown of law and order in the aftermath of disaster - is exactly the kind of situation where the Second Amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect themselves, " LaPierre said.

"When law enforcement isn't available, Americans turn to the one right that protects all the others - the right to keep and bear arms," LaPierre said. "This attempt to repeal the Second Amendment should be condemned."

The New York Times reported last Thursday that no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to have guns, quoting the superintendent of police that "only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons."

A Louisiana state statute allows the chief law enforcement officer to "regulate possession" of firearms during declared emergencies. "But regulate doesn't mean confiscate," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist.

"Authorities are using that statute to do what the looters and criminals could not: disarm the law-abiding citizens of New Orleans trying to protect their homes and families," Cox said.

"The NRA will not stand idly by while guns are confiscated from law-abiding people who're trying to defend themselves," he said.

"We're exploring every legal option available to protect the rights of lawful people in New Orleans," Cox said, "and we're taking steps to overturn such laws in every state where they exist."

"Local authorities in New Orleans are turning nature's assault on human life into man's assault on human rights," LaPierre said. "Four million NRA members intend to stop this unconstitutional power grab."

Ask yourselves if you want your local police to confiscate your weapons especially at the very times you may need them most to defend yourself, your family, or your property.

Officials often use every opportunity possible to infringe upon this basic right of Americans including misue of this "state of emergency" to confiscate weapons.

The emergency at hand is not a war or an insurrection. The only person that should have their weapons confiscated are those arrested for criminal actitivty. They are the ones who pose a threat to public order.

 

[Dragoon68]

Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com on 12 Sep 2005:
Group: New Orleans Gun Seizures Ilegal

Following low-key inquiries that were met with stony silence and official indifference, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) today is calling for a federal investigation into reports of gun seizures from law-abiding New Orleans residents, and is demanding that officials there immediately account for all confiscated firearms.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb is also demanding that New Orleans police officials immediately stop the seizures, disclose where those firearms are being kept, how they are secured, the type and number of firearms involved, and how those guns will be promptly returned to their rightful owners, in the condition in which they were originally taken.

"I also want to know under just what authority New Orleans officials are confiscating lawfully-owned firearms from law-abiding citizens," Gottlieb said. "Where does it say that the state and federal Constitution can be nullified, even briefly, simply because of a hurricane? In every other natural disaster this country has ever faced, people retain their civil rights, including the right of self-defense, but New Orleans and Louisiana state officials have added the sin of arrogance to incompetence and negligence for which they must be held accountable when this is over."

Gun rights activists have been outraged by a film clip showing a police officer tackling an elderly woman who was armed, in her own home, and later removing her from the premises.

"We know this is only one incident that is being replayed incessantly, and that not all the circumstances are known," said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron, "but this incident, combined with statements by local officials, particularly Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass III, that nobody but police will be allowed to have guns, demands a full and complete explanation to the American public. Visiting police and National Guardsmen are in New Orleans to help hurricane victims, and the nation is grateful beyond words. You don't help people by violating their civil rights or the public trust."

"There are reports that residents who refuse to leave are being disarmed, anyway," Gottlieb added, "leaving them to the mercy of any lingering looters and thugs. If true, it is unconscionable. In the anarchy that reigned in the city for days, these armed citizens provided the only protection for their families, businesses and neighborhoods when many police walked off their jobs, and a few even participated in the looting, and the world knows it. The people responsible for making that decision should be immediately disciplined and relieved of command. Visiting officers from other jurisdictions involved in these confiscations should be immediately sent home.

"New Orleans is still part of the United States, not a police state," Gottlieb concluded.

Beware, friends, because you can be at risk from your own local government as much as you can be from the criminals among us! All it takes is one "delirious" Mayor and the police - your police - will, whether they agree or not, do his bidding. This, friends, is not the "liberty" I served my country to defend.

 

[emeraldctyangel]

Well Im all for more Government if they can actually invent a way to stop a hurricane in it's tracks. Till then, I dont really expect them to *do* anything except make the road to recovery less cluttered with media, con artists, and looters.

In most cities, NOT NEW ORLEANS, but most, if the mayor or other government official was just issuing delirious threats, I am certain other city officials would step in and put order in its place. Police officers dont blindly carry out orders...some of them actually know the extent of their authority.

 

[Dragoon68]

As I've previously stated, I have tremendous respect for and frequently support my brothers and sisters in the both the military and law enforcement professions having served in them myself. They are, overall, very dedicated servants of the nation who give far more than they receive.

I do have serious concerns about the militarization of civilian law enforcement; the disdain among many departments of government towards the lawful ownership, possession, and use of weapons by all citizens; the continued expansion of government control into aspects of individual life through power that was never granted to them by the people; the misuse of legitimate power in the name of a "state of emergency" or other critical issue; and the general tendency to regulate those law abiding citizens whom are compliant while not dealing aggressively and effectively with those who are truly engaged in criminal misconduct.

People have increasingly come to accept, believe, and even demand that our government - especially the federal government - solve all our problems and protect us from our own selves. In so doing we have created a huge dependency upon government and we are surrendering our rights to decide for ourselves what is best for us. We have created a monster that thrives by collecting and redistributing our money according to needs determined by others in a grand benefits for votes scheme. We have too many bureaucracies that are concerned with self preservation by expansion of their domains.

We disparately need to rethink our view of what government should do and how it should go about it going back to the beginnings of our great nation to understand more clearly what was done and why.

The suspension of any civil liberty is something we should always take very seriously and which we should always question and, more often than not, object. There are times when such action is appropriate for the government to take for the "common good" and our Constitution addressed, at least in one specific situation, that such was permissible.

Extracts from our national Constitution:
... The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. ...

... All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ...

Other legislation and executive orders have greatly expanded the "power" to suspend civil liberties far beyond what was originally intended.

The use of emergency powers should be confined to those specific things which are absolutely necessary for the specific situation. A mere state of emergency should not be misused to execute other actions no matter how "desirable" some elements of society might consider them. Actions of individuals that do not substantially bring harm to others are not the business of government.

Arguments can be made about the wisdom of remaining in your home during a pending natural disaster or following one. Arguments can be presented that doing so might bring harm to one's self. Arguments can be presented that future rescue might become necessary. Such things however have nothing to do with the "common good" or "public safety". What one does or doesn't do for themselves is their own responsibility. A possible future necessity for rescue does not harm others albeit it might inconvenience some sent to rescue them. Inconvenience to government is not the same as substantial harm to "public safety". Safety of government servants is not, in itself, a complete justification for restricting the civil liberty of all citizens.

The government is not responsible for, charged with, nor authorized to force people to do what's best for themselves. If we believe otherwise we will never stop telling each other what to do because we can certainly always find someone who knows best what others need to do. Natural disasters, individual tragedies, etc. do not alter the underlying liberty we, the people, demanded, fought to attain, continue to fight to preserve, and wrote into our Constitution as a documented reminder to any government servants who would dare try to deprive us of these liberties.

It is interesting how much public concern there is over the "rights" of criminals and terrorists verses the nearly complete lack of concern over the true rights of law abiding citizens.

 

[OCC]

"...solve all our problems and protect us from our own selves."
I do not believe the government exists to solve our problems. But they are instituted to be a check against sin...therefore they are A tool implemented by God to protect us from ourselves and I firmly believe that.

"If we believe otherwise we will never stop telling each other what to do because we can certainly always find someone who knows best what others need to do."
What's wrong with that though? We should always be telling others what to do and the one who knows best is the one with wisdom gained through life experience and knowledge of Scripture.

I will probably get shot here but I don't know if I see this "individualism" in Scripture that many Americans talk about. We are accountable to God, parents, the public, etc. Whether the government takes away people's guns (and I don't think they should) or not, citizens should obey the law. There is nothing in Scripture that gives people the right to carry guns but there is plenty in Scripture that talks about obeying authorities (good or bad) and the ONLY time you disobey them is when they want you to renounce your faith.

Also, criminals have some rights guaranteed them under law...are you advocating that they shouldn't?