Wouldn’t you rather have the upper hand? Or would you rather have to engage him in a hand-to-hand knife fight (which you would almost certainly lose, since the criminal would have way more experience,) and then die an extremely painful, bloody death?
“I’d just give him what he wanted, then.” Right?
What if what he wanted was to rape your wife and daughter?
But I’m sure you’ll have another change-the-subject nonargument for me, right DT?
A gun can’t defend against fascism? Tell that to the Bielski Brothers who helped Jews survive in Poland during WWII. They were able to hold their own against Nazis and save hundreds of lives.
But I’m sure you’ll change the subject about that too.
You live in a scary place of rape and murder. People are beating down your doors and you are defending them all the time. If I lived there I might believe in guns too.
Hahahah. Come on guys, this is Der Trihs we’re talking about. I’m surprised anybody bothers replying to his nonsense anymore. Every time something like this comes up, he makes the same tired and reckless accusation that we who support the Second Amendment will be the first to put our names on the fascist death squad sign-up sheet when neoconservative totalitarianism comes to America. He relentlessly equates support for gun rights with support for authoritarianism, racism, anti-intellectualism, homophobia, religious zealotry, or whatever conservative caricature he finds convenient, while refusing to admit even a shred of reason or reality that might disturb his prejudice.
It’s pointless to argue with him; he’d apparently rather cling to his bigotry than engage in honest debate. But then, what do I know; I’m just a stupid armed thug who can’t wait for a chance to start rounding up the liberals and the gays. :dubious:
Minnesota Permit to carry a firearm fundamentals: A companion guide to the Minnesota Permit to Carry a Firearm Course. by Michael Martin
Library of Congress Control Number 2008933390 ISBN 978-1-60702-536-8
I don’t understand you. You cannot concede the point that being a responsible gun owner (they do exist you know, and are the majority of gun owners, despite what you believe) can possibly help you out in a situation where lethal force MAY be necessary? Home invasion robberies, rape and murder don’t happen in the world you live in? And if they do, you’d rather just accept your fate rather than try to make an attempt to change the outcome for the better?
Jeez gonzo. Stick to talking about the Lions in the Game Room. On second thought, maybe that’s where your fatalistic outlook comes from!
The first and second amendments go hand in hand. The first is more important. The second defends the first. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
… And maybe not your library. My library has a small collection of entertaining books that happen to be fairly darn lethal.
That’s right. Both kinds of OED books. Dictionary and explosives.
Abbie Hoffman, for one.
To answer the OP. If they showed up and I had no warning that they were coming, then yes, they’re welcome to all firearms I have registered. I’ve forgotten the combo to the safe, hope you brought a forklift.
If I were forewarned then, I’m sorry officer, all my weapons were stolen yesterday, certainly you’re welcome to look around.
Right, because destruction on that scale never happens elsewhere.
Massive Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Avalanches, Tornadoes, Flooding, none of that has ever happened elsewhere in the country.
Wait, then he says “But never as bad as Katrina.”
Right, and before Katrina hit, there was never a hurricane as bad as Katrina. Oh, and how ‘bad’ does it have to be to confiscate legally owned possessions? Are we using Katrina as the lower cutoff? Or are we using it as ‘somewhere above the lower cutoff’? Who decides when we’ve reached this cutoff? Is there any recourse before this is enacted? Who decides what the cutoff is, if not Katrina as the lower cutoff?
The questions go on and on, but I think you get my drift.
ETA: What statute did the power for this come from? If the answer is “The President,” what prevents the President from doing this again, at his will? What if there’s a huge disaster, along the lines of Yellowstone not quite worst case scenario, can he do this across the entire country? Or can he only do it in the effected areas?
Katrina was a Category 3 storm when it made landfall. Category 3 storms are not that rare. It might have hit as a Cat. 5, and it might have hit New Orleans dead-on. Certainly people will pay more attention to warning next time; but I’ve heard that people were quicker to evacuate after Camille too. And yet they stayed in New Orleans for Katrina. ‘Circumstances that aren’t likely to be repeated’? The circumstances will be repeated; both the severity of the storm, and the complacency of people in its path. I think the misunderstanding is yours.
AFAIK, the idea was entirely Police Superintendant Edward Compass’s, and I don’t know if there was any statute at all other than the declaration of a “state of emergency”. The fastest reference I could find was Wiki’s Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina. Others might want to research it in more depth. Rather than quote the entire section, here are a few choice gems:
“Seizures were carried out without warrant”
“Even National Guard troops, armed with assault rifles, were used for house to house searches, seizing firearms and attempting to get those remaining in the city to leave.”
“(…)the difficulty in tracking seizures, as paperwork was rarely filed during the searches.”
“After refusing to admit that it had any seized firearms, the city revealed in mid-March that it did have a cache of some 1000 firearms seized after the hurricane; this disclosure came after the NRA filed a motion in court to hold the city in contempt for failure to comply with the U.S. District Court’s earlier order to return all seized firearms.”
I can’t imagine a worse scenario than another hurricane striking New Orleans sometime soon. I posted a thread about Dubai being an unsustainable city…what about New Orleans?
A city that resides in a sub-sea-level bowl within a major gulf and a gigantic river’s floodplain? OK.
I wonder how much of this was a result of “We’re in a severe state of emergency, evacuate NOW if possible!” and directed at those that ignored the repeated attempts to evacuate.
This would involve questionable decision-making on both sides, I’d say. What of the police officers who would (supposedly) be willing to kill their fellow citizens for resisting an unconstitutional attempt to disarm them?
Did I claim I was a Tough Guy? I said I might wimp out and feel ashamed for it. I was genuinely curious if those on this board who’ve expressed the belief that gun confiscation is Crossing The Line what they would actually have done had they been in New Orleans. One person has said they would resist. Some have said they wouldn’t have tried to stay in the city. Others have said that they’d hide their guns, or give in in the face of an unwinnable situation. In short, it sounds to me like most people here would hope to avoid a face off.
