This information provided by The Federal Observer, http://www.federalobserver.com
By John Longenecker
But when conditions change, officials swing into action to break their word, violate their oath of office, violate the law and bluff or force their will on the public.
This is the source of lawlessness: when officials break the law in professional incompetence, delaying of proper response and because-we-say-so oppression of the People.
To a constituent, officials lied.
The Condition: lawlessness in New Orleans.
The Problem: thugs shooting and civil unrest.
The Solution: Take away everybody’s guns and force evacuation, leaving the neighborhood unprotected.
The Reality: only the criminals will have guns, perpetuating the original problem as they return to the evacuation zone.
Exactly, please, how does law enforcement discern the good guys from the bad guys in what to confiscate from whom? If guns are being confiscated from thugs, what becomes of the thugs to follow-up on the suspicion of crime that justifies the confiscation?
Don’t expect much, folks, because the jails were opened there to release the felons for their own safety.
Brilliant, just brilliant.
There's a very sickening feeling about this. First confiscation, then they come for you. They call it mandatory evacuation, but they are still confiscating weapons and coming for you.
New Orleans already has one of the highest murder rates in the country, but it wasn't the law-abiding shooting at EMS. And it wasn't the law-abiding shooting it out with police.
Who do they think they're fooling? If they really wanted to stop the unrest, they could have taken into custody and relocated the thugs they released, but they didn't concentrate on the thugs they had in hand; they concentrated on the guns. Everybody's guns.
As an aside, I was contacted this morning by the Republican Party and asked for a $150 donation. Like Hell.
I answered that I was a member of my Party's Assembly District, and that we, along with other Republicans, decided to withhold donations and fundraising for the Party until the Conservatives did two things: secure and control the borders, and stop the restrictions on gun rights for the law-abiding.
My unwelcome telemarketer caller asked me if I would like to see Hilary Clinton in the White House for lack of conservative funding: the thrust of my reply was let the heavens fall.
No wonder the rescue efforts were delayed. No wonder the thugs were let out. The situation was allowed to deteriorate so officials would be able to cite unexpected changed conditions as an excuse to break their word and confiscate weapons as a dress rehearsal for other communities. This is not good. Where the hell were the conservatives in looking out for the individual?
To protect the community and our way of life, armed citizens are the most effective modality. Police can be overwhelmed and the people have an interest in defending their homes and their community as a whole. When facing a thug, the people have a very good idea of who is law-abiding and who isn't, and it is they who are best qualified to sort things out as they participate in the recovery of their community.
I dislike intensely the government's freezing people out of their own recovery plans. And I dislike the idea of disarming the law-abiding.
The mandatory evacuation -- where the community is one cesspool – may make sense for the next several days; I'm for non-mandatory evacuation; but confiscation of weapons is downright illegal, stupid, and I dare say predictable.
To use human tragedy to effect unauthorized and unwelcome political change is not new. Officials have been doing this for a very long time. Change the conditions and the consent of the people will follow in a spirit of cooperation.
What's next, confiscation of weapons in California following an earthquake? Why?
Confiscation of guns - for whatever excuse - is part of that use of human tragedy to effect political change, the kind the community doesn't want and which runs counter to the interests of the community. But, for some, it's now too late. They're disarmed and defenseless, and by their own consent. Even those with permits turn them in? Why?
What do you believe will happen next? What do you believe will happen this Fall when the City of San Francisco votes to ban guns, which they have on the ballot?
We've been had, friends.
And we're going to be had in the next crisis, too.
And the next, and the next.
September 07, 2005
John Longenecker is a former Los Angeles Paramedic, now a businessman, commentator and author. Visit his website at http://nationwideconcealedcarry.com
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: