Sponsors



  • Advertise on blogs

    The links directly above and below are advertisements only. The views and opinions expressed by advertisers are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Resistance is futile!

    Gullyborg is a proud capitalist, and encourages you to explore these NON-GOOGLE advertisements.


Shop Amazon


  • If you are going to shop, shop Amazon.com. Find just about everything you want from the comfort of your own home. By searching Amazon.com through this site, you are helping to support Resistance is futile!

  • Search Now:

Worthy Causes

Endorsements

Blogfamily

Dead Fish Wrappers and Bird Cage Liners

Carnival of Cordite Submitters

« Under who? | Main | 2008 GOP Presidential Straw Poll »

Friday, 16 September 2005

Comments

Rivrdog

#1:

Please put up something as an update on Kim DuToit's situation. either I or AnarchAngel has it covered on our blogs.

2#:

Hate to tell you, but the gathering of the information at the scene of a confiscation as you suggest would be considered gross insubordination by the officers involved, as they will likely be the type that is paid very little, works for a corrupt department and doesn't give a fig for the Consstitution. Gross insubordination will be punishable at the time by a severe thrashing, or worse.

How do you tell which are the "good" officers and which are the "bad"?

You don't. You can't tell, but here's a hint: If they come for your guns, they haven't read the Constitution, or CAN'T read the Constitution, or WON'T read the Constitution.

Use your own judgment, but in this case, you will have the elements of tactical surprise and familiar ground on your side, and if you waste those opportunities by witholding fire in your correct resistance, you have given up on the Constitution in advance, at which point you are a sheep, and deserve to be devoured by the wolves.

Publicola

I've heard some NRA apoligizing in my time, but damn. CNN isn't a first responder either, but it took them hours to file legal papers when they were told that reporters could not hitch a ride with the search teams. I really, really don't buy that the NRA is comparable to the feds in this situation.

The NRA just isn't the pro-gun group most folks think they are. When you view them as more of a sportsman's group then their timid & too late response isn't that surprising. If you view them as the "900 lb gorrilla of gun rights" then they have so far been ineffectual at best & possibly harmful in regards to NO.

& who wants to give odds on any NRA sponsored court case relying on procedural issues rather than a direct 2nd amendment or Right to arms question?

AJ Ashcroft? Mr. "individual right subject to 'reasonable' government restrictions"? We'd stand a better shot with AJ McCain - & I wouldn't feel warm & fuzzy about him either. Find a way to get Kozinski from the 9th circuit in the line up of possibles, then I'll be hopeful. As of now it seems like more of the same.

"And no matter how improper the orders from above may be, I would not for one moment hold it against a police officer if he defended himself with lethal force when an armed and potentially dangerous adversary refused to comply"

Would you blame a burglar if he used force to defend himself against a homeowner who was armed, dangerous & refused to comply? Does said burlglar have the right to self defense even when he is acting improperly?

"Furthermore, respect for the rule of law means winning in a court of law, not taking the law into your own hands."

The Rule of law means that the rulers follow the same law as those ruled. It is not disrespect for the rule of law to refuse to comply with an order that is beyond the power of someone to issue. & taking the law into your own hands? I assume you mean that we shouldn't vote on referendums? It is not "taking the law intoy our own hands" when you defend yourself, be it from thugs with badges or without.

& yes; resistance to cops in those circumstances will likely result in your death. But I always assume when someone is threatening me with deadly force, that they mean to make good on that threat whether I comply or not. Again, would you give the same advice if it was two or three gangbangers that busted up in your home & started ordering you around?

k, that should wrap up my disagreements with you this week. :P

Gullyborg

I'm sorry, but I assume that most people who are cops are honest people doing a dangerous job who have no desire to murder me. Call me naive.

Cops aren't going to beat you into submission when you peacefully hand over the gun and ask them to provide appropriate information.

It's easy to say that cops who "know the Constitution" aren't going to agree to take your guns. It's easier to say that cops have families to feed and rent to pay, and given questionable orders will decide to obey them and let the courts work it out rather than disobey and lose their jobs.

If you don't like the NRA, don't give them money. That's fine. But actively working against the NRA isn't going to win anything.

Gullyborg

>Again, would you give the same advice if it was two or three gangbangers that busted up in your home & started ordering you around?

Here's the difference:

Kill gangbangers, and you will get off on self-defense. The cops won't prosecute, and if they do, you'll get acquitted.

Kill cops, even if it is self-defense, and you WILL go to prison, if the SWAT team doesn't put a few dozen rounds into your skull first.

It's great to have prinicple... But... Priciple doesn't do you much good in the grave. You need to LIVE in order to have your victory in court.

Publicola

Well when the NRA stops actuvely working against me then I'll leave them be.

& perhaps you're right that cops won't kill you fter you've disarmed. Perhaps a burglar wouldn't either. I just prefer not to trust the benevolence of others who have rendered me defenseless.

Another assumption - that because you cmply the cops will nto present any further threat, even of a non mortal variety.

See cops are not honest people. They're not dishonest people either. They're people; some good, some bad & most somewhere in between. I see no reason to trust anyone I don't know, badge or not, with such power over me. & in the contet we're talking I find it discomforting that anyone else would trust them.

Publicola

& Gully, the same arguments could be made if it were two or three gangbangers (about not living through it).

As for prosecution - yes you'd run that risk if you survived. But there have been cases when cops acting unlawful were killed & the person went free. John Bad Elk v, US was I believe the SCOTUS decison that overturned a conviction in such circumstances.

But ultiamtely, death is not the most feared thing we have to face. YMMV but I'd much rather be dead or imprisoned than to be at the mercy of a thugs (or twelve) with a badge.

My main contention though was with your blind trust in the benevolence o fthe cops under such circumstances. Sure, if you wish to advise folks not to defend themselves I can see the pragmatic side (thinking you're escaping harm) but to put it in th eterms you did belittles the very real danger that anyone who disarms you poses.

Zendo Deb

After TEOTWAWKI every man I don't know and most I do are classified as "high-risk threat."

In NOLA we saw cops as looters and thugs (of the jack-booted variety). And enough people claimed that cameras were also confiscated that I am sure cops did things we haven't seen photos or video of.

Anyone - even wearing a uniform - who comes onto my property, into my home without a warrant from a judge is not a peace officer, but a criminal. Just because they don't view themselves as criminals doesn't mean I do.

And "from my cold dead hands" means exactly that. Anyone who doesn't believe that, should remove the graphic of the AR-15 and the keyboard from their website. As for me, give me liberty or give me death.

Gullyborg

> Anyone - even wearing a uniform - who comes onto my property, into my home without a warrant from a judge is not a peace officer, but a criminal. Just because they don't view themselves as criminals doesn't mean I do.

So... when they have a warrant, you surrender your guns?

I am disturbed (but not surprised) by these early comments.

New Orleans is certainly a disaster area, but it is not the entire United States. We are not talking about the complete downfall of American society where the Constitution has been burned and foreign invaders have declared martial law.

We are talking about a localized emergency, where local government has failed, and the federal government is stepping in.

If you are New Orleans and the cops take your guns and escort you to a relocation area, odds are pretty damn good that you will be able to find a lawyer and sue. And odds are good that, unless the cops can show you were in violation of gun laws (felon in possession, etc.) and they knew it at the time, you will win.

This is a big, big difference from TEOTWAWKI, were there will be no legal resource for you to follow after the violation. It's also a big difference in that, unlike the TEOTWAWKI scenario, there is the availability of safety and security after you have left the disaster area.

Yes, "from my cold dead hands" means exactly that. If you want to die, by all means, use armed resistance against a cop who thinks he is doing his job.

waiting to hear from some of my police readers now...

GunnNutt

Gully, great commentary! I agree w/you about the NRA. They have no troops of their own to deploy to stop the confiscations, but they will act decisively in the coming months and years to make sure that it will not happen again.

homebru


Comparing CNN and NRA doesn't make sense to me.

My (possibly faulty) understanding is that you have to have be personally involved in order to bring a lawsuit.

CNN was a "injured" party in the refusal of access. The NRA was not involved in the confiscations and thus had no legal leg to stand on.

Publicola

To bing the suit you do have to have standing. That does not mean that you cannot provide a lawyer to someone who does have standing if you lack standing yourself. & that is assuming that of the unknown number of gun owners who were disarmed none were NRA members.

After all, the NRA is seeking out folks now to file civil suits. It would not have been a stretch for them to "loan" an attorney to one of the people who were either disarmed or in danger of being disarmed in order to file a restraining order against the NOPD.

Criminal charges are anothe rmatter, as they mainly rest of whether or not a DA wants to prosecute &/or if a grand jury will indict.

But yes; you do have to have standing. No; the NRA wasn't tied up because of that as they could have offered legal assiatnce (through one of their attorneys) to anyone who did have sufficient standing.

Robin

that was an excellent commentary :-)

great job!

Jay Kominek

I'm largely in agreement with you Publicola, but it seems like it could be difficult for the NRA to get into enough contact with people in NOLA for them to 1) confirm the facts of the case (at least from the victim's viewpoint) and 2) loan the lawyer.

If it turns out that they've managed to hear from people with decent cases and they're still sitting on their ass, then I'll be very disappointed.

Tim

Being in a uniform does not magically keep someone from being a criminal. A police officer who violates the U.S. Constitution is a domestic enemy of the republic. Acquiescence and capitulation was not the response that led to the formation of this country.

Gullyborg

Remember that our founders tried to use peaceful means to address their grievances before turning to revolution.

There is NO justification for shooting at a police officer when your life is not in danger. We have courts. We have law. And as long as there are courts and lawyers ready to hear your grievances under the law, if you take that law into your own hands and promote violence against the government, then YOU are an enemy of the Constitution and our nation.

Dave

The private security guards who were not disarmed? This site:
http://www.alternet.org/katrina/25320/
alleges that some have been "deputized".

I find that difficult to believe, but if true makes the whole story even more interesting.

Harold J.

It is important for the rest of us who want to keep our rights that, if this happens in your local area, you comply and file suit instead of going "cold dead hands." Why? Because you will die, and the dead have no standing to sue.

David Koresh had his rights violated. But no one today can sue on his behalf to affirm the Second Amendment.

David Koresh also thought he could defend himself against the jack booted thugs. He was wrong.

If you think you are going to save your life by having a shoot out with the cops, you are going to die. And even if you manage to bump off a few cops and live to tell, you are not going to live long. The cops tend to dislike cop killers. It won't be long before swat teams swarm you, and they aren't going to be interested in bringing you in alive for a fair trial.

Is that your idea of "self defense"? because my idea of self defense involves actually staying alive.

And I want you to live, because I want you to sue. When you obey the law, then use the law to sue, you have the chance to put gun rights before the court. Barring a new constitutional amendment, we need the courts to finally affirm that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms for personal and civil defense.

We aren't going to get that if you get your ass shot up in defiance.

If David Koresh has allowed the ATF to come in peacefully, 83 people would be alive, and he could have gone to court. It was Texas. He would have won.

Don't be a Koresh. Save the defiance for when the courts let us down.

Publicola

Um Harold...Koresh offered to let the ATFU search his place numerous times. They kept declining. & by all accounts I've felt to be credible the ATFU opened up on Koresh right off the bat. In other words the ATFU started shooting first & with little to no warning. Koresh had many faults from what I've heard, but wanting to start a fight wasn't one of them. He was just trying to defend himself & his folk. So he's not the best example for the "from my cold, dead silent indignation" argument.

Also do you really think the courts will step up & be on our side? Their track record does not give me any confidence in them.

Gully,
The peaceful means the founders tried went on for a decade & a half. How long have we been seeking peaceful remedies?

& defense of property IS a justification for using forceful defense against anyone, especially when that property would render you nable to defend your life against the immediete threat.

Yes we have courts & we have laws. & in a very rare occurence those courts will protect us from those laws. Again I have little to no faith in the courts, based on what I've seen from them. The 5th circuit is inarguably the most pro-gun court we have, but even they said Dr. Emerson was justifiably prohibited from owning a firearm. Individual rights don't mean a thing when "compelling government interest" is a valid excuse for their dismissal.

& please, the "taking the law into your own hands" thing is inappropriately applied. You don't caution against that when people vote on referendums do you? I understand your point but the phrase itself always grated on me as an ackward construction considering the connotations implied.

& there is a difference between "promoting violence against the government" & protecting yourself & your property from an unjustified intruder. You make a distinction because some intruders have badges. I do not. If the courts are the salvation you seem to think they are then they'll also aquit when you use self defense against a badged unlawful intruder. If they won't then that weakens your argument that they'll do you any good if you just "turn them all in".

No; the enemies of the constitution are the ones who ignore it for their own needs. Disagree with me if you wish, but implying that I or any others who actually think the constitution has pragmatic weight are enemies of the country is a foolish & inaccurate charge. After all, in 1775 a few folks gathered to use force to stop legal gun control implemented by their lawful government. If we who only advocate defense are enemies of the country, then what would you call those folks in Lexington & Concord so long ago?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Contact Gullyborg


  • g u l l y b o r g A T
    g m a i l D O T c o m

Numbers!


  • Ignore this
    google91704c084091e61d.html