North Carolina's plan for emergency? Ban Guns!!!

[leVieux]

How about learning to read for comprehension before spouting crap on the internet. That would be a fantastic start for any dialogue.

Excuse me, but, I am a LSU Faculty member and I can read just fine. I got my Doctorate 41 years ago.
Your stated opinion appears peculiar to me and I am disagreeing with you.
This is a "FORUM", remember?
leVieux

 

[Yrdawg]

Excuse me, but, I am a LSU Faculty member and I can read just fine. I got my Doctorate 41 years ago.
Your stated opinion appears peculiar to me and I am disagreeing with you.
This is a "FORUM", remember?
leVieux

Good but above reproach if you claim to be a Saints trainer

 

[kdick3]

I agree with what she did....

If statistics have shown us anything it's that criminals care weather or not something is legal.... Therefore, there is no need to be armed during a state of emergency! All the criminals are home sleeping! A state of emergency is like a criminal's vacation day! Shoot, we don't even need the protection of the police during state of emergencies!

 

[Baldrik78]

It doesn't make a tiny damn if you "just don't see it". Who in the hell do you think you are that your weak opinion should over-ride other citizens' basic rights?
And, what are you doing on this forum? the Daily Kos is over there, way to the left of B.S.
leVieux

This response does not make any sense. Mjolnir was stating that he did not see a lawful AND legal way of carrying during a state of emergency. NOT that he did not think we should be able to carry in a state of emergency.

Having a doctorate does not preclude you from misreading or from misunderstanding. It also apparently does not preclude you from being a complete ass.

If it did, I'm sure a number of my co-workers would be shoving me back into school

 

[leVieux]

This response does not make any sense. Mjolnir was stating that he did not see a lawful AND legal way of carrying during a state of emergency. NOT that he did not think we should be able to carry in a state of emergency.

Having a doctorate does not preclude you from misreading or from misunderstanding. It also apparently does not preclude you from being a complete ass.

If it did, I'm sure a number of my co-workers would be shoving me back into school

This is a forum. I disagreed with something he said. That is all. No need for
calling names.

Either way he "meant it"; I still disagree! OK? It was wrong, IMHO, no matter how one looks at it.

There is a difference between disagreeing and name-calling.

It is time to let this die.

leVieux

 

[Baldrik78]

Lighten up Francis.

Does that count as name calling too?

 

[CloudStrife]

This is a forum. I disagreed with something he said. That is all. No need for
calling names.

Either way he "meant it"; I still disagree! OK? It was wrong, IMHO, no matter how one looks at it.

There is a difference between disagreeing and name-calling.

It is time to let this die.

leVieux

So whether he meant it should be legal or illegal, you still disagree? How does that make any sense? You stuck your foot in your mouth, chief. Now you're choking on it. All you had to say was, "Oh, my mistake", or something similar.

 

[leVieux]

So whether he meant it should be legal or illegal, you still disagree? How does that make any sense? You stuck your foot in your mouth, chief. Now you're choking on it. All you had to say was, "Oh, my mistake", or something similar.

No, I did not stick my foot in my mouth. I don't care which way he meant that he "couldn't see" it, I believe that to be WRONG !

Who appointed you critic, anyway? I told you earlier to read others' posts to see their opinions.

This is a FORUM. We all have opinions. I disagreed with "Prodigal Son"'s opinion. I still disagree.

You are welcome to your opinions, but you are not welcome to attack others for disagreeing. Didn't your parents teach you common courtesy?

THAT IS ALL !

leVieux

 

[CloudStrife]

No, I did not stick my foot in my mouth. I don't care which way he meant that he "couldn't see" it, I believe that to be WRONG !

Who appointed you critic, anyway? I told you earlier to read others' posts to see their opinions.

This is a FORUM. We all have opinions. I disagreed with "Prodigal Son"'s opinion. I still disagree.

You are welcome to your opinions, but you are not welcome to attack others for disagreeing. Didn't your parents teach you common courtesy?

THAT IS ALL !

leVieux

Since you bring up common courtesy, let's look back at your initial reply.

"It doesn't make a tiny damn if you "just don't see it". Who in the hell do you think you are that your weak opinion should over-ride other citizens' basic rights?
And, what are you doing on this forum? the Daily Kos is over there, way to the left of B.S.
leVieux"

Now, let's see. You use "damn" and "hell" while saying his weak opinion doesn't matter. Then you accuse him being on the far left, which is generally considered an insult around here. I don't know what everyone else thinks, but your reply seems pretty aggressive and insulting to me. Didn't your parents teach you common courtesy?


Now let's look at Mjolnir's post that you attacked.
"I'm almost 100% certain that during any real emergency one would not be 'allowed' to carry firearms off of one's personal property.

OF COURSE, I'd like to lawfully and legally (not the same thing) carry during such times as would many of you but I just don't see it."

To put it in plainer english, he thinks people won't be allowed to carry firearms off of their personal property during in an emergency. In other words, this is his interpretation of current law. He continues by saying he would like to be able to legally carry. In other words, he would like for carrying during an emergency to be permissible in the eyes of the law. The term "lawfully" in that sentence refers to our right to protect ourselves at all times, hence he made a distinction between lawful and legal. However, regardless of what he would like the law to be, he doesn't see it being made so.
Now, you can disagree with him on a couple points. You can disagree with his first statement by believing that people would be allowed to carry a firearm off of their property during an emergency, or you can disagree with his second statement by believing that it is likely that the law will be changed. However, you cannot both agree and disagree.

 

[Tulse Luper]

^Nice AAR.

 

[Mjolnir]

Thanks for the demonstrated reading comprehension skills (and clarity), Baldrik78 and Cloudstrife.

Cloudstrife, you're ABSOLUTELY CORRECT (not "right") about your understanding of my position.

Now "from the horse's mouth":

I feel that I don't need "protectin'" by the law from the public-at-large in time of emergency. Some do; I don't.

The way our gov't reps have been behaving my entire life I do think I need protecting from gov't agents at times - especially in times of declared emergency.

I don't think I need a permit to purchase or carry.

We know Gov't tends to consolidate power. To get it to relinquish power takes monumentally more effort than stopping them from consolidating it in the first place.

In time of emergency, gov't wishes to have Final Authority over all. Having your loaded carbines in your personal vehicle and your pistols on your hip questions their "Final Authority" a great deal at times. Especially if gov't agents violate their oath of office...

So, "NO!", I don't forsee many (if any) States (much less large metropoli) adopting a strict interpretation (i.e., a CORRECT - not "right" - interpretation) of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in time of an emergency whether real or manufactured (which I think most are manufactured, anyway, to... consolidate power).

Would I violate the law? If I had to leave my property I'd be armed. Would it be LAWFUL? Hell yes. Would it be legal? No, probably not.

Truth be told if you're PROPERLY PREPARED you'd not have to leave your property anyway... My goal is to be properly prepared (i.e., water, food, medicines, EMT kit, survival kit, alternative power, fuel, blah, blah, blah...) so leaving my home is not very likely. You see, if you "do the proper thing" the law doesn't have to bite you in the arse.

Ask yourself if YOU were mayor or governor with the Communist media, Church "leaders", Socialist legislature and "Lefty" vocal political action groups would you really like to have armed persons running around under very high stress and confusion? I really wouldn't. Though many, obviously would and not be a problem. What I'd do (and do) is plead with the populace to PREPARE such that it isn't an issue.

Hope this clarifies my position, LeVieux.

 

[CloudStrife]

^Nice AAR.

What's AAR?

 

[Mjolnir]

What's AAR?

AAR = After Action Report

 

[leVieux]

Prodigal,

I was only disagreeing on that one point. I still hold that it is our laws and Constitution which should dictate rights and restrictions, not how anyone, especially the "authorities", FEELS about it. That would be, and was, ANARCHY.

If we cannot depend on our arms for family protection during a major disaster, when the police are looting and leaving, and there is no control or source of order; then, what good are our arms and our Constitutional Rights?

Remember, these out-of-state thugs were forcing their way into citizens' occupied homes, beating people in their OWN HOMES, and illegally confiscating LEGAL firearms. Our governor said it was illegal. Our local Federal Judge said it was illegal and enjoined the practice. Nearby Sheriffs said it was illegal. The LSP said it was illegal.

Only Ray Nagin and Bill O'Reilly still contend that it was legal and proper. What a pair of idiots.

My sons have had private conversations with General Honore's Aides and with some of the US military anti-sniper teams subsequently involved. The situation was actually much worse than the media showed. Our only real governmental "hero" was Dr. Frank Minyard, the Orleans Parish Coroner.

The Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office has since been consolidated into one office, held by Marlin Gusman, a well-educated professional officer. I hope that Sheriff Gusman includes civics lessons for his employees. This is probably a major improvement. The Sheriff can't be ordered around by a Mayor, the way that a Police Chief can. Thus, one more level of protection for our citizens has been secured. I would trust Gusman much more than any recent Mayor.

If we can't depend on our Constitution and our arms for protection in an emergency, then our whole government and situation is a SHAM. Maybe it is good that we are still having fervent conversation about this four years later. Maybe this should be a separate thread.

May GOD save the USA !

leVieux

 

[Mjolnir]

Prodigal,

I was only disagreeing on that one point. I still hold that it is our laws and Constitution which should dictate rights and restrictions, not how anyone, especially the "authorities", FEELS about it. That would be, and was, ANARCHY.

If we cannot depend on our arms for family protection during a major disaster, when the police are looting and leaving, and there is no control or source of order; then, what good are our arms and our Constitutional Rights?

Remember, these out-of-state thugs were forcing their way into citizens' occupied homes, beating people in their OWN HOMES, and illegally confiscating LEGAL firearms. Our governor said it was illegal. Our local Federal Judge said it was illegal and enjoined the practice. Nearby Sheriffs said it was illegal. The LSP said it was illegal.

Only Ray Nagin and Bill O'Reilly still contend that it was legal and proper. What a pair of idiots.

My sons have had private conversations with General Honore's Aides and with some of the US military anti-sniper teams subsequently involved. The situation was actually much worse than the media showed. Our only real governmental "hero" was Dr. Frank Minyard, the Orleans Parish Coroner.

The Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office has since been consolidated into one office, held by Marlin Gusman, a well-educated professional officer. I hope that Sheriff Gusman includes civics lessons for his employees. This is probably a major improvement. The Sheriff can't be ordered around by a Mayor, the way that a Police Chief can. Thus, one more level of protection for our citizens has been secured. I would trust Gusman much more than any recent Mayor.

If we can't depend on our Constitution and our arms for protection in an emergency, then our whole government and situation is a SHAM. Maybe it is good that we are still having fervent conversation about this four years later. Maybe this should be a separate thread.

May GOD save the USA !

leVieux

We agree. I simply have no faith in our gov't leaders to do the PROPER thing.

I was not aware of the details mentioned here, though. I work in NOLA - live in BTR. Let's get together some Friday (I'm off every other one).

 

[leVieux]

OK
I'm home recovering from cancer surgery but will try to go back to work on Monday.
Just drop a P.M.
leVieux