NRA Statements So Far on NOLA Problem

[Amelia G]

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegisla...d.aspx?ID=1731

NRA-ILA Comments On Situation In New Orleans

Friday, September 09, 2005

Numerous media sources are reporting on a campaign by New Orleans city authorities to confiscate lawfully-owned firearms from people in the city. Louisiana statute does grant the government, during a state of emergency, broad powers in regulating and controlling firearms.

However, we have seen not just with Hurricane Katrina, but other similar situations, that when police are unable to control the criminal element, people turn to the one freedom that protects all others--the Second Amendment.

While one can certainly understand the dire predicaments of all those affected by Hurricane Katrina, as we have learned throughout history, campaigns to disarm the lawful do nothing to disarm the criminal. And in truth, these restrictions make citizens less safe. Despite the valiant efforts of many law enforcement officers and rescue workers, too many of those left in the wake of Katrina are ultimately responsible for their own security and safety and that of their families and loved ones. This is especially true when communication is virtually non-existent and police can't be quickly summoned to respond to calls for help. At these times, lawful gun ownership is paramount to personal safety.

Of course, the entire situation in New Orleans is constantly in flux. But rest assured NRA is monitoring this situation very closely and will address any activity by the government that unduly infringes upon the rights of lawful gun owners at the appropriate time. As we learn more, we will report to our members accordingly. In the interim, however, we join with all Americans in offering our thoughts, prayers, and assistance to the victims and survivors of this terrible natural disaster.

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegisla...d.aspx?ID=1725

ATTENTION TO ALL LOUISIANA - MISSISSIPPI - ALABAMA FIREARM DEALERS

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) are currently experiencing technical difficulties when attempting to call 1-800 numbers, via telephone, due to hurricane Katrina.

If you are unable to reach the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Section Call Center at 877-324-6427 or the FBI NICS Section Customer Service at 877-444-6427, the FBI NICS Section is providing you with an alternate telephone number to process your FBI NICS Firearm Checks.

Please attempt the 877 call center and/or customer service numbers first, if your call can not be completed as dialed then please hang up and call directly to the FBI NICS Customer Service at 304-625-0259. Telephone number 304-625-0259 will connect you directly to the FBI NICS Customer Service where you can request your firearm background checks.

We are sorry for any inconvenience this interruption may cause you and are working diligently with your telecommunication providers to correct the problem. Thank you.

[Kidthorazine]

although i support the right to bear arms and think that confiscating lawfully owned firearms in this case is probably a bad idea i think the NRA is completely full of shit and has a secondary agenda that has nothing to do with protecting our constitutional rights so i try to ignore them as much as hmanly possible

[One Eyed Cat]

I hope someday people start thinking about the underlying truth: Government simply *can't* protect us.

OEC

[Amelia G]

I hope someday people start thinking about the underlying truth: Government simply *can't* protect us.

OEC

I think that, in theory, a wholly benevolent and completely totalitarian Big Brother could protect a country with closed borders. The only problems with that are the following:

(1) Dictators are never benevolent.
(2) The USA has borders which can't be closed due to both size and geography.
(3) Freedom is integral to all the good parts of being human.

[Amelia G]

PS I won an NRA-sponsored marksmanship award when I was around 12 and have had a soft spot in my heart for them ever since. I bet every NRA lobbyist is really unhappy right now. They have a right to be angry with the amount of money they have donated to put in office people who were supposed to uphold the 2nd ammendment.

[Morning Glory]

that's bullshit. I really hate that they say having a gun is the "one amendment that protects all the others." what about Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi, they frought for the rights of free speach, free essembly, free press, and free worship and what happend to them? 0h yeah, they were shot and killed by people who upheld the right to "protect" the second amendment AGAINST all the others.

[Morning Glory]

I just think it's really funny on so many levels that guns kill far more people every year then crack. oh, I'm sorry, crack doesn't kill people. people kill people.

[Amelia G]

I think crack should be legal and schools should educate students about it and individuals should make their own choices about their own bodies. And, once they have made their choices, they should live with them, not become a burden on the state.

I'm a fan of freedom. I believe in self-actualization and self-determination. I believe in teaching a man to fish and letting him feed himself. I believe that most people will make decent decisions about how to lead their own lives, given the opportunity. I believe that the guys who wrote the Constitution did a good job.

Maybe if Martin Luther King had had good armed bodyguards, he would have lived to share his light with the world a lot longer. I respect his right to choose to do things the way he did, but I think his assassination is just proof that decent people need to be armed.

[Morning Glory]

non-violence isn't just an alertnative it was an only way. I'm sure that many indians would have used guns if they had that option, but history shows us that they really wouldn't have been any better off for it. and perhaps more poigniant is MLK you think he could have had such a powerful effect on society if he used violent force, or would he had just been written off as another black guy on the street with a gun? would people have reacted that way in the 60's? do people react that way today? I think new Orleans is a very clear indication that they do.

[Morning Glory]

reducing people to paranoia that everyone is out to get them and that you can't trust anyone is not my idea of advancement of civlization. if that's the case we might as well give up right now. I don't need a gun because, aside from those anti-social maniacs going on indiscriminate shooting sprees daily, most people just don't seem to want to kill me whever I go. I solve my problems without violence and so I don't have much to worry about in the way of escalating a situation so that it leads to violence back on someone elses part. most people at least value self survival so they are not going to put themselves ina situation where someone wants to shoot them so casually. on the otherhand you have the itchy trigger fingers of the likes of the NRA that just can't wait to justify thier solution to a problem, that seems to me to be what caused it in the first place.

PS. most of these cooks also love to prattle on about the federal government overstepping thier authority, but whenever the time comes for them to have any influence they are right there with thier hand in the cookie jar.

[Kidthorazine]

I agree with morning glory about non-violence being far superor to violence as a way of solving problems and a lot of times it works but on the other hand sometimes non-violence just doesnt work id rather have a gun and not ever have to use it than need a gun and not have one but anyways i still hate the NRA

[Morning Glory]

yeah I understand that and I kinda feel the same way. but like lots of kids get killed by guns that people have lying around or where they think they can't get to them/don't know, and that's prety shitty. and that's kind of the unfortunate thing about a gun, for it to be effective you kind of have to have it be easy to use.

[Amelia G]

A lot of people who believe in the 2nd amendment are speaking up now and I don't know what cookie jar they could have their hands in.

Of course, violence is the worst way to solve a problem. That is why it should be the last resort. But someone who knows you may be armed is less likely to become violent. A criminal who has good reason to believe a respectable citizen is not going to be armed is much more likely to violate that person's rights.

[One Eyed Cat]

I have the right to defend myself and my loved ones as an option of last resort. It has nothing to do with using violence to advance personal or social goals. The government has a duty to act, but this?? We need to seriously rethink the duties we have as a civil society.

OEC

[Morning Glory]

haha. that reminds me of the scene in bowling for columbine where he's like 'well ya know when they said you have the right to bear arms, that's kind of vague ya know? I mean how do you define arms? I don't think the founding fathers had machine guns in mind when they wrote that. where do you draw the line? is it ok for each citizen to own a nuclear bomb?' and the crazy ass freind of the unibomber is like 'I wouldn't want to own a nuclear bomb, what do you think i'm crazy?' haha.

[Amelia G]

I have the right to defend myself and my loved ones as an option of last resort. It has nothing to do with using violence to advance personal or social goals. The government has a duty to act, but this?? We need to seriously rethink the duties we have as a civil society.

OEC

More like remember the social compact than rethink it.

[Morning Glory]

and for all you critics, let me save you the trouble of digging deep for that insightful counterpoint: yes, michael moore is a little heavy set.

[One Eyed Cat]

Generally speaking, you would only use handguns in self-defense. Michael Moore is a hyperbolic ninny, similar to those he criticizes.

OEC

[Tequila Zaire]

that's bullshit. I really hate that they say having a gun is the "one amendment that protects all the others." what about Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi, they frought for the rights of free speach, free essembly, free press, and free worship and what happend to them? 0h yeah, they were shot and killed by people who upheld the right to "protect" the second amendment AGAINST all the others.

Would you rather them drowned? Stabbed maybe? Many great and not so great men have fallen to premature deaths long before the age of the gun.

The gun is simply a tool, no more evil or good than the man who weilds it. It has no other purpose than to bring death, be it for war, hunting, or yes...murder.

You want bullshit? Try having to listen to such inane notions that to remove one tool/weapon from society some how cures the ills of an entire society. I do love it so when those who hire private security tell people like myself to do away with my weapons...the most dangerous men in our history have been the first to rally for the disarming of the populous. I'll take history's side on this...not the rantings of an idealist.

Pandora's box has been opened gentlemen...lets not act as if we can close it again.

[Morning Glory]

you're right that is bullshit. show me how many disarmed soceities commited genocide. it wasn't the disarming that was the problem it was the fact that the people like the nazis had the weapons in the first place. if THEY were the one's that were disarmed instead of the jews, i'm pretty willing to bet that the holocaust wouldn't have happened.

i'm not saying that removing one tool or weapon would solve all the ills of society, i'm stipulating that to remove one tool or weapon would sovle all the ills of society that were casued by that tool or weapon. it kind of makes sense if you actaully use logical reasoning.. but I guess thinking is out of the question, wouldn't want any idealists on our hands.

[Morning Glory]

they can have your gun when they pry it from your cold dead hands, and at that time my hands will be warmly embracing a freind. so go ahead and laugh at me.

[karyn]

from the national review

"upon assuming power, the Nazis relentlessly and ruthlessly disarmed their German opponents. The Nazis feared the Jews — many of whom were front-line veterans of World War One — so much that Jews were even disarmed of knives and old sabers.

...

On November 9, 1938, the Nazis launched the Kristallnacht, pogrom, and unarmed Jews all over Germany were attacked by government-sponsored mobs. In conjunction with Kristallnacht, the government used the administrative authority of the 1938 Weapons Law to require immediate Jewish surrender of all firearms and edged weapons, and to mandate a sentence of death or 20 years in a concentration camp for any violation."

[Tequila Zaire]

non-violence isn't just an alertnative it was an only way.

Thank you for that I needed a good laugh this night. Violence is the supreme deciding force when you get down to brass tax. Look at the great men who thought they were above using force...martyrs to their cause with pretty words and strong ideas left in their wake. Those acted with force...and violence achieved what those pretty notions that sound great on a podium called for. You left out a great many militant organizations that changed society in the 50's and 60's just as much as the non violent ones.

The majority in power does not fear a disarmed minority. Never has and never will.

I'm sure that many indians would have used guns if they had that option, but history shows us that they really wouldn't have been any better off for it.

They did use guns. Along with traditional weaponry that in the style of warfare they fought worked brutally well. The Indian Wars of the 1800's alone prove that...however it was far more than the well armed white man that beat them. Lack of unity, back choice of allies, and the inability to adapt to the changing world around them doomed their culture...until they eventually learned new tactics and strategies. Now the picture is quite diffrent with some of those tribes weilding considerable power in their respective regions.

and perhaps more poigniant is MLK you think he could have had such a powerful effect on society if he used violent force, or would he had just been written off as another black guy on the street with a gun? would people have reacted that way in the 60's? do people react that way today? I think new Orleans is a very clear indication that they do.

Seems you forgot Malcolm X and his movement that was unafraid of using the threat of force and strong words to achieve the goals of the day. He sadly suffered the same fate...only much more in common with gandhi. Killed by those who were "on the same side".

The violence that predated the "official" start of the Civil Rights movement of the 60's was a clear indication that direct force, passive resistance, and the right public figures were needed to gain any change. Some days you play the victim...some days the executioner.

Make no mistake...their is a darker side to that age that goes well beyond the known lynchings, recorded events for public consumption, and well known atrocities. Take organizations like the KKK...you don't deal with them at every step with legality and reason. Sometimes you must assassinate them...be it physically or psychologically.

Violence is like a mistress with multiple talents, uses, and shades...be it directly to shed blood or slowly to cause anihilation over generations. Take a look at old demographic tables...like old census records for example. Some regions were taken back through the use of every tactic in the book...and in some cases naked agression was and continues to be used.

It works. It's results are evident. They will continue to be no matter what idealist, visionary, or martyr comes along and wishes otherwise.

You can discredit, protest, and view violence with all the disgust in the world...but you cannot ignore it and you cannot rip it from mans heart and mind.

Their is violence in some form in even the most peace loving...one simply needs to find the right conditions to bring it out of them.

[Morning Glory]

yeah once again, the united states and britain established a law which required germans to surrender thier weapons. it was because a group of right-wing militants stockpiled weapons and disobyed that law that they were able to take power away from all the other law abdding citzens that lived in peace with each other and the rest of the world. is it true that if everyone else had the politcal power and armaments as the nazis that they wouldn't have been able to take over? yes that's true. but it's just as true that if the people that were violent and agressive didn't have arms then there would be no problem becuase the rest of the peopel armed or not weren't the one's that were being violent.

[Tequila Zaire]

you're right that is bullshit. show me how many disarmed soceities commited genocide. it wasn't the disarming that was the problem it was the fact that the people like the nazis had the weapons in the first place. if THEY were the one's that were disarmed instead of the jews, i'm pretty willing to bet that the holocaust wouldn't have happened.

Show me a disarmed society...not one exists. Only in books, fairy tales, and in the blind rantings of men like yourself do they exist and only in clouded minds that have no vision to see the need for protection...reason cannot save you from the ambitious...or the tyranical. The nazi's used intimidation, fear, and ego to gain their weaponry...and millions followed them to the slaughter...the educated, the enlightened, the patriotic, and the peace loving.

I don't know about you...but I'd sure want person protection against that. On all levels.

'm not saying that removing one tool or weapon would solve all the ills of society, i'm stipulating that to remove one tool or weapon would sovle all the ills of society that were casued by that tool or weapon. it kind of makes sense if you actaully use logical reasoning.. but I guess thinking is out of the question, wouldn't want any idealists on our hands.

It's not logical reasoning it's blind faith...what you seem to ignore is that the violence that guns cause will not go away because you take guns away...murder would continue...genocide would continue...and every other deliciously vile thing that makes for potent nightmares would not see an end. The genocide in rawanda was largly carried out by the machete...and now in south africa the gun laws put for the exact reaons you stated have seen an escalation in same crimes only with such classic weapons as the dagger, crossbow, and other sharp implements.

When you want to kill...you will kill. Be it with ease or difficulty you will kill.

[One Eyed Cat]

they can have your gun when they pry it from your cold dead hands, and at that time my hands will be warmly embracing a freind. so go ahead and laugh at me.

Or you may be the victim of violent crime with no means of defense. I wouldn't laugh either way.

OEC

[Morning Glory]

and as far as malcom x goes, since the CIA's officail goal was to bring down the black panther party including admited assasinations and covert infiltration tactics, I have a hard time believing that malcolms death is what it seems.

[Tequila Zaire]

yeah once again, the united states and britain established a law which required germans to surrender thier weapons. it was because a group of right-wing militants stockpiled weapons and disobyed that law that they were able to take power away from all the other law abdding citzens that lived in peace with each other and the rest of the world. is it true that if everyone else had the politcal power and armaments as the nazis that they wouldn't have been able to take over? yes that's true. but it's just as true that if the people that were violent and agressive didn't have arms then there would be no problem becuase the rest of the peopel armed or not weren't the one's that were being violent.

If if I put a gun to your head...I indeed hold power in that situation. But if I hold a gun to your head in a room of a hundred then we are 50/50. I kill you and more than likely the mob kills me...just because an organization wishes to use naked agression to take force does not mean it will be sustained. Military coups have failed because of this...at the end of the day the will of the people decide fate...not a gun or any weapon.

The Nazi's did not have power because of their weapons or even their tactics...the people gave them all they dsired and in turn gave the people what they wanted...a sense of superiority, power, elite standings, order, prosperity....they looked away at the slaughter commited in their name and denied it all when the butchers bill came due....

People not weapons hold the ultimate authority...weapons can be made useless and countered with time and technology...the beast inside men cannot.

[Morning Glory]

Or you may be the victim of violent crime with no means of defense. I wouldn't laugh either way.

OEC

maybe.. maybe not. either way i'm going to rest easy tonight and not worry about all the maybes of the future. and that's really the bottom line- for the great privallages that guns have bought, they have never brought anyone security because you always have to worry about who else might have one as well.

[Tequila Zaire]

and as far as malcom x goes, since the CIA's officail goal was to bring down the black panther party including admited assasinations and covert infiltration tactics, I have a hard time believing that malcolms death is what it seems.

Few do..was not the point. The fact remains he fell at the hands of those able to take him down. The will of those that desired it acted that day...and in that era...the majority in power wanted him dead.

Just like they want ANY minority leader with such power. It's not by chance we've not seen such leaders rise and that the most high profile opponants of the majority and government just happen to be from that very majority.

[Tequila Zaire]

maybe.. maybe not. either way i'm going to rest easy tonight and not worry about all the maybes of the future. and that's really the bottom line- for the great privallages that guns have bought, they have never brought anyone security because you always have to worry about who else might have one as well.

That's why you learn to shoot first.

It's what lets me sleep easy at night. Security can be defined many ways and not take into account the ability to wipe out your enemies...often time...like in the security of some nations...it's in the knowledge that OTHER nations will take the heat and violence for them.

On a human level it's like having a bodyguard...which many men of peace employ...or even the most stingently idealist band that must play at a venue with security....

Funny thing that word...security...it can mean exactlythe opposite of what it imply's without question.

[Morning Glory]

If if I put a gun to your head...I indeed hold power in that situation. But if I hold a gun to your head in a room of a hundred then we are 50/50. I kill you and more than likely the mob kills me...just because an organization wishes to use naked agression to take force does not mean it will be sustained. Military coups have failed because of this...at the end of the day the will of the people decide fate...not a gun or any weapon.

The Nazi's did not have power because of their weapons or even their tactics...the people gave them all they dsired and in turn gave the people what they wanted...a sense of superiority, power, elite standings, order, prosperity....they looked away at the slaughter commited in their name and denied it all when the butchers bill came due....

People not weapons hold the ultimate authority...weapons can be made useless and countered with time and technology...the beast inside men cannot.

I know that you are right and I agree with you. I just don't see the point though, what does a room full of dead people prove? it really doesn't matter anymore.

and the deadliest weapon of all that the nazis implimented was one that required no force at all to weild- publicity.
which takes us back to the entire point of this whole thing, my point all along was that you shouldn't believe everything you see on Tv and you can't always trust people that are supposed to be looking out for you.

[Tequila Zaire]

I know that you are right and I agree with you. I just don't see the point though, what does a room full of dead people prove? it really doesn't matter anymore.

and the deadliest weapon of all that the nazis implimented was one that required no force at all to weild- publicity.
which takes us back to the entire point of this whole thing, my point all along was that you shouldn't believe everything you see on Tv and you can't always trust people that are supposed to be looking out for you.

Not a room of dead people...in that scenario..it would be two. The victim of the gun...and the victim of the mob. Or in a bigger sense like in a coup...the victims of the people or rebel army that was against the coup. Like in Liberia...crazy civil war that was.

But to end my views on all this on a more honest note...

" ...and at that time my hands will be warmly embracing a freind. so go ahead and laugh at me."

If indeed we all would admit or be allowed to feel that way...we'd be in a better world. My only hope is that more men like yourself stand up and not allow the violence of the world to silence you all. Men like yourself are very much the david against goliath...but like david you have a wicked aim, agility, and damned good luck on your side. My hats off to ya...not at thing to laugh at that is.

[Morning Glory]

it's a hard line, and indeed many people that promoted peace met violent deaths, but today people still remember them so they succeeded in some way. I don't claim to be comparable to them, I really just want to live my life the best that I can, and I think that to do that is to try and get along with the people around me, even if they kill me, until that day I still have to live with them. haha. I think most people want the same thing too. people just tend to get carried away looking at the big picture and they forget the small one.

[Hypnotic Vampire]

I have a huge arsenal of deadly weapons in my home.




It's called a 'kitchen'.

[Dark Z]

I tell ya what. Coming from a Family of Cops and Soldiers, there's no way we'd ever give up our guns.

Once you've dealt with real criminals, Rapists, Murders, high-end drug dealers, and the like, you realise that there's only one thing that can save you when the crazies come a callin, and that's a firearm.


We've tried most of the "Non Lethal" (aka "Less lethal") weapons

Air Tazers: Range is too short, and you only get one shot.
Hand Tazers: Range is non existant. Might as well use a baseball bat.
Pepper Balls: Decent effect on average person, but as inaccurate as any paintball gun, and innefective on someone that's high on crystal meth or something similar.
Sticky Foam: Too cumbersome to be used at home, and really only available for riot and prison control. range is very short, but it's probably the fastest acting of the non lethal weps.
Ring Airfoil/Bean Bag Rounds: Decent knock down power, but require a rifle/shotgun, and have accuracy problems, (and take time to reload between each shot.
Rubber/Composite Bullets: Not a bad option, but "Knockdowns" are not exactly "Non Lethal" as they're pretty likely to actually put a hole in someone. I do have an uncle that has the first three shots of his pistol loaded with knockdowns.
Good Old Fashioned ammo:
Hollowpoint: Makes a BIG BIG hole, and kills fast. Best option when you don't want to give an advesary a second shot at you.
Full Metal Jacket/Unjacketed: straight bullets, they go straight through until they hit something. Gives your target a decent chance, but can be dangerous to non-combatants in the general direction behind the target.
Frangible Ammunition: Similar to the Unjecketed, but designed to break up when it impacts something hard. Won't go through buildings, but if it hits a bone inside of a target's body, it can break up and tear through the target's internal organs.

It's nice to think about the "Big Picture" and how you shouldn't use weapons upon the unsuspecting populace. However, in reality, legal guns are used against criminals, and Illegal guns are used against civilians. (as most criminals that use guns against people have previously lost their right to even touch a firearm.)

I mean, it's interesting to give "High-evil motives" to villany, but really it's the common everyday sociopathic id-centric "badguy down the street" that poses the greatest threat to any single person. (At least, that's been my experience.)

And since calling for help usually doesn't do much but help the cops catch your murder faster than otherwise, I'll keep my guns, and control over my own life.

[Morning Glory]

or here's a better idea: grant people the freedom that they are supposed to have and legalise victimless "crime". then you won't have to worry about people shooting at you when you come to take them away. and here's the even better news: that will get rid of most of those other crimes too because people won't have to resort to armed robbery to make a living after they are disinfranchised for smoking a joint.

[Howrangi]

being from The Great State of TEXAS they have a law called The Texas homestead act. that gives the property owner the right to use dealdy force to protect anything on thier property. just thought you guys would like to know.

[Morning Glory]

makes sense, we can't have any mexicans getting the crazy idea of trying to take back thier land.

[Tequila Zaire]

makes sense, we can't have any mexicans getting the crazy idea of trying to take back thier land.

They lost it in the poker game fair and square.