"The Second Amendment Backs Up the First Amendment"

[AnnieBW]

Okay, can I ask a serious question here? I had a conservative say this to me the other day, and I'm still trying to figure this one out. I read the history of the Second Amendment on Wikipedia (yeah, I know, it's a crappy source, but it was handy...) and found out that the whole idea of the "government disarming the citizens" stems back to King James II, who forced the English Protestants to disarm, but allowed Catholics to keep their weapons. Granted, this was a time when everyone carried a sword or a musket, and people in towns were expected to keep their own peace because there were no police. But, is this valid in 21st century America?

By the "Second Amendment backing up the First," does that mean that if you criticize the government and they come after you for it, you can legally start shooting? What about if, say, the Bush Administration had shut down the New York Times - impinging on their freedom of the Press? Could, say, the NYT owners wave a gun at Federal officials? Or, in a more likely case, President Perry (or Bachmann, or Palin) says that we're going to declare Pastafarianism an illegal religion. Does that mean that followers of the FSM can hole up in a compound and start defending their freedom of religion, a la David Koresh?

I mean, the last time I actually heard of "The Government" forcing people to turn in their guns was during Hurricane Katrina - and that was for public safety. Besides, it was a Republican Administration. Do people REALLY believe that "The Government" is going to force them to give up legally purchased firearms, or is this just another RW canard? I mean, some regulation of firearms is necessary, or we'll all end up like Chicago during the '30's. Nobody seriously wants that.

(FYI: while I do not own a gun, nor am I likely to, I grew up around hunters. I work around a lot of military, and people who are shooting hobbyists. My attitude is that if you feel like you need to own a gun for protection, or you're a hunter or hobbyist, have at it. Just keep it out of the hands of kids, and be careful with it. And by the way, can you come over to my place with your rifle and take care of the damn deer that are eating my azaleas? :D )

[villager]

1. We saw how that worked in the Bush years

If any of that were true, we'd be the freest fucking country on Earth.

[GreenStormCloud]

9. There would not have been enough support for a rebellion against Bush.

Remember that about half the country is RW, and in general RWs are more likely to be armed.

[villager]

67. "RWs are more likely to be armed"

So finally we agree on something!

[The Magistrate]

2. People Like That, Ma'am, Think It Means If Somebody Tells You To Shut Up, You Can Shoot Them....

Still, many of them are doing well to comprehend that two comes after one....

[SteveM]

70. I'm glad you are not a magistrate; you seem rather authoritarian.

Why don't you take the discussion seriously? Or is it too difficult to "comprehend?"

[Kennah]

3. It's not really direct cause and effect

So long as people are armed, it's a helluva lot tougher to silence them by killing them. This applies whether the people trying to kill one are the government, or some RW Teabagger 21st Century Sturmabteilung.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. ""The Government" forcing people to turn in their guns was during Hurricane Katrina "

And they did so illegally. Not only was it illegal for them to do so, but they destroyed, lost, or stole many of the firearms.

The people had no due process, all civil rights trampled, personal property stolen under color of law...

The fact that there were no riots and second amendment solutions does suggest something about how much they actually believe thier rhetoric though.

There's a technical truth to it, but it's mostly hyperbole.

[MyrnaLoy]

6. "they destroyed, lost, or stole many of the firearms"

And yet you or the NRA was never able to produce one name of a person who lost a gun. Sure you have a video of an old women waving a gun around police officers who secured her weapon but you DO NOT HAVE ONE NAME of a person who's gun was confiscated.

This is the right-wing/NRA talking point the OP is speaking of. Yes the mayor talked about confiscation, yes the NRA filed a suit. That is your proof. What you never mention is the suit was dropped because Nagin admitted to securing guns. THE NRA NEVER PRODUCED A SINGLE VICTIM!! THERE NEVER WAS ONE!!

Now you made a claim, back it up. Get us a list of destroyed weapons and who owned them. You claimed, now prove it.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Not my fault you missed the nightline episode with the barrels full of water, rusted weapons, etc.

Seriously, did you not see that?

[MyrnaLoy]

10. and yet

you still have no names. Sure I've seen police departments destroy guns before. Happens all the time. They do find guns every now and then. Come on man, give us names.

Oh and you saw them destroy UNCLAIMED guns. Guns found in UNSECURED LOCATIONS. At least be honest.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. This was before the injunction and the city started returning them.

If you do the math on this article, about 160 firearms were returned, when the city required an affadavit including the serial number, or a bill of sale, in order to claim a firearm.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27087738/ns/us_news-life

Somewhat difficult to produce either, when your home is gone. I could, because i keep a copy in my safety deposit box. Most do not.

[MyrnaLoy]

14. so then

you do have names!!! Great, lets see them, the poor, poor people who needed their guns. I can't wait to meet them. Let's see the names.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Are you kidding?

That single MSNBC article is the only mainstream news reference I can find that hasn't been archived or deleted. The rest of this shit all leads back to the NRA site, or crazy shit like PrisonPlanet or Fox News.

Do you dispute that the number of weapons reducing by 160 or so, indicates that some people actually came and managed to claim their firearms?

I can't even find the actual injunction issued by the Judge. This shit is just gone, for the most part.

[MyrnaLoy]

17. so no

you don't have any actual plaintiffs in this case? Not the NRA who was just a front, sort of like the mob. I mean real people. Any names?

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Downthread.

[aikoaiko]

98. Percy Taplet

Read the whole article and then give Percy a call if you don't believe the source.

NEW ORLEANS — Under pressure from the National Rifle Association, police this week began returning guns confiscated after Hurricane Katrina.

The police department is making the guns available three days a week. At the close of the second day Wednesday, police said only 17 of about 700 weapons had been returned.

Police and soldiers removed guns from houses after the storm flooded the city, and they confiscated guns from some evacuees.

The NRA and other groups sued the city, saying it took away people's means of protection amid the lawlessness that gripped New Orleans.

"Natural disasters may destroy great cities, but they do not destroy civil rights," said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, which joined the NRA in the lawsuit.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192347,00.html#ixzz1Y7ul97fs

[AnnieBW]

79. People were freaked out

Yes, I'm surprised that people didn't react to the round-up of weapons, either. But, I think it was because people were freaked out by just seeing their whole city drown. Yes, it was illegal. But, the point that I was trying to make was that this happened under a REPUBLICAN, gun-rights-friendly administration. If they had really given a crap about the rights of people to own firearms, they would have said something when the city or state (whoever it was) did it.

[oneshooter]

93. Both the Mayor and Police Chief of NO were Democrats. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

5. The order to confiscate guns after Katrina originated from the mayor...

...and Chief of Police. It didn't come from Bush. It would help your argument to keep your facts straight.

The phrase, "The Second backs up the First" means that the people retain the means to rebel against the government. From our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Such an action is extremely high risk. The government will shoot back at rebels. But if enough people support the rebellion, then it can succeed. Unfortunately, one of the risks of a successful rebellion is that most rebellions turn into tyrannies themselves. Anyway, the purpose of the second is to ensure the populace has a reasonable ability to try a rebellion if things get bad enough.

[MyrnaLoy]

8. keep your facts straight also

name 10 people who had a gun confiscated, name 5, name 3. We've done this, you already know there were no plaintiffs. You have a video of an old lady waving a gun. The police secured it. Come on, you keep making this confiscation claim now back it up with actual victims. NAME 3! You say there were hundreds so name 3!

[GreenStormCloud]

11. Please show where I said there were hundreds.

I simply said that the order came from the Mayor and the Chief of Police. I said nothing about how many were confiscated. Please keep your facts straight.

You may wish to note that Congress considered the gun confiscation serious enough The Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 (H.R.5013, S.2599) was passed in 2006 that outlawed such action. Even Obama voted for the act. So the problem would appear to be more serious than one lady.

Now lets see what a little bit of googling can turn up about the gun seisures by NOPD after Katrina.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08-nra-katrina_N.htm
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — City officials have agreed to return hundreds of firearms that police officers confiscated in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, part of a deal to resolve a lawsuit filed by gun lobbying groups.

The settlement agreement filed Tuesday in federal court calls for the National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation to drop their case if the city follows a plan for returning guns to owners who had them seized by police after the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane.

LIsten to this statement by the Chief of Police. He says that all guns will be confiscated, no one will be allowed to be armed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo&feature=related

Here is wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_firearms

Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order by New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, National Guard troops, and US Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. "No one will be able to be armed," Compass said. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." Seizures were carried out without warrant, and in some cases with excessive force;...

Here is a DU thread about it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6451400 I think you will find it interesting.

There is a book about it.

The Great New Orleans Gun Grab Gordon Hutchinson (Author), Todd Masson (Author) There are 15 reviews of the book on Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Great-New-Orleans-Gun-Grab/dp/0970981333

But according to you it never happened. Your credibility just took a major hit.

[MyrnaLoy]

12. you ever get those names

of those poor people who had their guns ripped from their cold wet hands? I'm still waiting

[GreenStormCloud]

27. I don't have to provide names to prove that it happened.

See edit of post 11. You have the Chief himself talking about it.

[MyrnaLoy]

29. So no

you have no actual plaintiffs. Yup, that's the truth you've finally realized. No actual plaintiffs for your mock outrage. 700 guns without one plaintiff. Mock outrage noted.

[Remmah2]

52. ABC Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo

[MyrnaLoy]

81. so you

have the names of the victims?

[rrneck]

59. Youre funny. nt

[SteveM]

71. Calm down and consider most gun-owners don't want ANY registration...

Your predictable shrieking misses the important point: The reason most people do not want gun registration is that they don't want the government to have a list of people owning guns; it kinda defeats the purposes of owning firearms in the even despotic government actions (like the one during Katrina) take place. So, you really expect folks to come forward and say: "Hi! I'm a resident of New Orleans
If I (or anyone) had my gun seized in a similar fashion, I would go to the government entity which did such and ask for the firearm back, in as good a condition as when it was stolen. If it didn't come back in the manner described, I would hire an attorney to sue for the weapon, and for damages (including punitive), and ask the record be sealed.

Now that you know this, you can keep waiting to your heart's content!

;-)

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Who claimed the (at least) 160 firearms then?

Nobody?

[MyrnaLoy]

18. I'm asking

you for the names. I've been asking since Katrina. You claim confiscation, I want to know who they were.


P.S. you do know there wasn't any confiscation right? The guns they picked up were from unsecured locations. You know, like abandoned houses with guns in them. I would sort of think it would be sort of smart to get abandoned guns off the street, ya know kids and gangs may get them. Who knows though, the police department may be so afraid to secure anything next time. That seems to be what the NRA wanted. Maybe some kid may find your gun after a disaster, ya never know.

So names?

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Actually, Nagin admitted they did.

I've given you one name other than the old cat lady.

The police department is NOT going to release names from the weapons claims, only numbers of weapons claimed. (greater than 17)

I cannot find the court documents nor the actual injunction itself, only media reports of the injunction.

[MyrnaLoy]

23. Have you ever wondered why

you can't find any names? For something this huge!!! Guns confiscated!!! People in need of their guns!! Wouldn't common sense say that if the NRA had an actual name they would have used it on thousands of fundraisers? Wouldn't they put their photos on their magazine? Wouldn't those poor people with their guns ripped from their hands be on all the talk shows? Wouldn't at least one of them posted on a discussion board somewhere?

Do you know why this hasn't happened? Really? You don't think if the NRA had actual people they wouldn't plaster them all over the place? Seriously? One photo of a guy getting his gun back would raise hundreds of thousands for the NRA, why have you never see that photo?

Do I really have to answer? Seriously? I'll ask again, give me three names. That's all.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. See post 22.

I will obtain the court docs. It will take time.

I would like to see for myself.

[MyrnaLoy]

30. it's about 30 dollars

from the New Orlean's district court. You won't be the first to see there were no plaintiffs.

[petronius]

32. Digging around the SAF site I found a few of the documents, including the complaint

and the final consent decree.

http://saf.org/legal.action/new.orleans.lawsuit/complaint.declaratory.injunctive.relief.pdf
http://saf.org/legal.action/new.orleans.lawsuit/memo.in.opposition.to.defendents.motion.to.dismiss.pdf
http://saf.org/legal.action/new.orleans.lawsuit/consent.order.final.pdf

The plaintiffs were SAF, the NRA, and one local resident (Teel) who had his firearms taken from him. SAF and the NRA represented all their local members, which is common for organizations of that sort

It's been explained here ad nauseam that lists of people who lost firearms are not likely to be available in public outside of scattered contemporary new articles, and there's no reason to think they would be. The city will know the names of firearm (re)claimants, and SAF/NRA probably has a witness list, but neither of those are obligated to be disclosed.

The key points are that the city (and other entities) admitted to confiscating guns, and admitted they possessed hundreds or more confiscated firearms. The court ordered the confiscations stopped, and later ordered the city to make substantial efforts to return the guns. Based on the acknowledgments from the city and court, there's no doubt that unlawful confiscations occurred in the aftermath of Katrina.

Your interlocutor's persistent demand for names is irrelevant, and a weak attempt to deflect attention from the known facts and historical record...

[MyrnaLoy]

34. ad nauseam

700 weapons. No plaintiffs.

Confiscated is different from securing weapons from gangs and children. You knew that though, you just need the mock outrage.

"The city will know the names of firearm (re)claimants, and SAF/NRA probably has a witness list" Public document chief, no way a judge sealed it. FOI request? Yeah, sure it's sealed LOL.

And with total blind faith you believe that the NRA wouldn't exploit at least one of these people. Not one has ever come forward publically. This was NOT confiscation!! This was securing weapons!! Nagin had to admit to it! They did call for SECURING weapons! Sure he chose his words poorly and it cost them a mock outrage lawsuit by the NRA. This was NEVER confiscation!!

I'll wait for the names as I have since Katrina. Funny, no one has found a real plaintiff. Odd. Ohhhh the mock outrage by 700 American's who had their precious weapons ripped from their hands!!! Odd, they've never blogged about it. Odd, they've never been on an NRA fundraiser. Odd.

[petronius]

43. What do you think 'confiscate' means? Because whatever definition you use is

apparently quite different from what the judge in this case thinks the word means. :shrug:

The city acknowledged taking private property under (mistaken) authority of law, and the judge ordered them to knock it off and give the guns back. The plaintiffs were SAF and the NRA on behalf of their members, and Buell Teel. No other names are needed or easily available. (As an aside, you don't seem to quite know what "plaintiff" means.)

It's obvious that you desperately need to believe that nothing happened or that what happened was right, with your weasel words about "securing", "abandoned", "gangs and children" (:rofl:), etc, but the historical record is perfectly clear. New Orleans and other entities crossed the line, and the court corrected them....

[MyrnaLoy]

44. judge really?

you do know this never went to trial right? You should do a little more research and rejoin the discussion a little more prepared.

[petronius]

45. It was dropped when both parties agreed to a permanent injunction, which

is issued by a judge. See my links in Post 32...

Did you really believe there was no judge involved? :shrug:

[MyrnaLoy]

46. Well since it was

filed yes there was a judge. I'm saying it never went to any sort of trial, the NRA dropped the case after the city agreed to admitting to securing weapons. I know, I know, you want me to say confiscate but most of the world knows that didn't happen. Well the NRA and it's minions think it happened. You see confiscate normally means they won't be giving them back but since people could pickup the UNSECURED weapons then nothing was really confiscated now was it? Is a car parked illegally confiscated? LOL, no we know it's not. Is a gun left unsecured confiscated? Ahahahaha no, we both know it's not.

You keep up that mock outrage though because it's funnier than shit.

[Remmah2]

55. Irony?

"The agreement calls for the city to post a notice on its Web site that explains how gun owners can claim their firearms."

I'll bet all those NOLA confiscation victims were e-mailing the NRA and blogging right after the hurricane...in their flooded, roofless homes or from the internet terminals at the shelters.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. It's called a settement.

Normal legal procedure, when both sides agree to terms before or during trial.

Since there was no easy avenue for people to claim their firearms, it amounts to de-facto confiscation. I mean really, demanding proof of sale? Seriously? I don't have a receipt for ANY of my firearms, they were acquired so long ago.

[petronius]

62. As the city exhibited no intention of returning the firearms until it was sued

and ordered to do so by the court, the event fits your implied definition of confiscation then, doesn't it? Really, it doesn't stop being confiscation just because they didn't get away with it. And, it really doesn't matter if the city acted with the 'noble' intention of 'protecting the children' - the city and its agents/associates were legally in the wrong.

The city confiscated (i.e. took, under color of authority, private property with no intention of returning it) legally-owned property directly from individuals and from private property in the owners' absence (calling a home from which a person fled a hurricane "abandoned" is a bit screwed up in its own right, but that's another topic). The city had every intention of 'disappearing' the weapons until it was sued. The city agreed to the injunction after the fact, acknowledging its actions (and probably because it knew it would have lost at trial).

All of your squirming and word-play can't change the basic facts: the city unjustifiably confiscated lawfully owned-property, and would have gotten away with it if not for the suit...

[spin]

61. Florida now has laws against the confiscation of firearms during an emergency as does the Federal .

government.

The 2011 Florida Statutes

Chapter 870
AFFRAYS; RIOTS; ROUTS; UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLIES

870.044 Automatic emergency measures.—Whenever the public official declares that a state of emergency exists, pursuant to s. 870.043, the following acts shall be prohibited during the period of said emergency throughout the jurisdiction:
(1) The sale of, or offer to sell, with or without consideration, any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description.
(2) The intentional display, after the emergency is declared, by or in any store or shop of any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description.
(3) The intentional possession in a public place of a firearm by any person, except a duly authorized law enforcement official or person in military service acting in the official performance of her or his duty.

Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the seizure, taking, or confiscation of firearms that are lawfully possessed, unless a person is engaged in a criminal act. emphasis added
History.—ss. 4, 5, ch. 70-990; s. 1401, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2006-100.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0870/Sections/0870.044.html

Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006

The Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 was a bill introduced in the United States Congress intended to prohibit the confiscation of legally possessed firearms during a disaster. Its provisions became law in the form of the Vitter Amendment to the Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans Chief of Police Eddie Compass ordered police and National Guard units to confiscate firearms from citizens who remained in the area.

***snip***

On July 12, 2006 Senator Vitter proposed Senate Amendment 4615 (the Vitter Amendment) to Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (H.R. 5441), to prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law.<3> The proposed amendment was subsequently modified to contain the provisions of the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006. However, the temporary surrender of a firearm could be required "as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation".

Passage

On July 13, 2006, the Vitter Amendment passed the United States Senate 84 to 16. It was retained by the conference committee. President George W. Bush signed the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act on September 30, 2006 and it became Public Law 109-295.<4>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act_of_2006

<[Page 120 STAT. 1355>]

Public Law 109-295
109th Congress

An Act

SEC. 706. <<NOTE: 42 USC 5207.>> FIREARMS POLICIES.

``(a) Prohibition on Confiscation of Firearms.--No officer or
employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed
services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal
law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal
official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other
person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or
emergency, may--
``(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure
of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under

<[Page 120 STAT. 1392>]

Federal, State, or local law, other than for forfeiture in
compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal
investigation;
``(2) require registration of any firearm for which
registration is not required by Federal, State, or local law;
``(3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any
rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any
firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession is
not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or local law; or
``(4) prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person
otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or
local law, solely because such person is operating under the
direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in
support of relief from the major disaster or emergency.

``(b) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to
prohibit any person in subsection (a) from requiring the temporary
surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of
transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a major disaster or
emergency, provided that such temporarily surrendered firearm is
returned at the completion of such rescue or evacuation.

***snip***
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ295.109

[Atypical Liberal]

50. How were the secured?

This was NOT confiscation!! This was securing weapons!!

So how, exactly, where the weapons, which have nameless owners, "secured"?

[oneshooter]

60. Don't expect an answer. She never answers questions about her rants. n/t

[SteveM]

74. Where IS that pic about the knight being amputated, blow by blow?

[Remmah2]

65. In NOLA during Katrina the police were doing their fair share of looting.

Not limited to firearms. Seems the police, entrusted to "protect and serve" let the population down in a major way.

[SteveM]

73. That tar gettin' a little sticky? nt

[GreenStormCloud]

26. You believe the NOPD? N/T

[MyrnaLoy]

31. you got any plaintiffs

on that lawsuit yet?


"We took guns that were stolen that were stashed in alleyways. If we went into an abandoned house and a gun was there, absolutely we took the weapons," he said. "Obviously there were looters out there. We didn't want some burglar or looter to have an opportunity to arm themselves." I'll add to keep children from finding them. http://www.policeone.com/community-policing/articles/128275-New-Orleans-police-giving-back-weapons-confiscated-post-Katrina

Confiscation is so different from securing dangerous weapons from gangs and children.. You know that though, you just need the mock outrage.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. I don't have to provide names to prove that it happened.

I have supplied sufficient evidence. And the NRA did win a lawsuit against the city, so obviously the judge believed the NRA.

What do you have to say regarding the Chief's statement. I notice that you choose to ignore it.

If it didn't happen, why did Congress pass the bill that it did in 2006 outlawing such seizures. LA legislature passed a similar act the same year.

You fail.

[MyrnaLoy]

37. nope

wrong again. The NRA dropped the case after the city admitted to their claims. No. I didn't ignore the chief's statement, I answered it upthread. And no, you have no plaintiffs once again.

And finally, no there was no confiscation. It was about securing loose weapons. It was a myth, the only thing was a poor choice of words by Nagin. Either way, the NRA was going to make some sort of case. Mock outrage with no victims. 700 weapons without a victim.

Confiscation vs unsecured, you know I'm right. Abandoned weapons in unsecure locations. What did you want, gangs and children to find them? Is that the safety first the NRA wanted? 700 abandoned weapons, how many children might they have killed? Yeah, Nagin was guilty, guilty of choosing his words poorly. I'm glad 700 unclaimed weapons are off the street. You should be also.

[GreenStormCloud]

38. You believe the NOPD. I don't.

I lived in New Orleans for six years, 1978-1984. I don't trust the local government at all.

And I have provided plenty of evidence. You are sounding like one of those 9-11 conspiricay theory people, ignoring all evidence against you case.

Why did congress see the need to an act to prevent future gun confiscations if it didn't happen?

What post number did you respond to the Chief's statement that only the police would have guns, all others would be taken up?

[MyrnaLoy]

39. Which

says a lot.

[GreenStormCloud]

41. I have a policy of not arguing with 9-11 conspiracy theorists.

No matter what evidence you show to them they ignore it. You are behaving exactly like them. I have shown sufficient evidence for any lurkers who may be reading. I will leave you to rant to yourself.

[MyrnaLoy]

42. hahahahaha

great! No names yet huh?

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Well, that certainly explains why Nagin and co. agreed to settle with the NRA.

[gravity556]

69. So a bad storm is reason to suspend the 4th and 5th amendments?

"If we went into an abandoned house and a gun was there, absolutely we took the weapons,"

The house still belonged to the owners, there was no warrant issued for a search, and the individuals who evacuated from that house were certainly not given due process of law before being deprived of property. Would you similarly favor suspension of the first amendment in the event of natural disaster? Maybe let the politicians decide what information can be disseminated?

You keep demanding names of victims, but when they are provided, you dismiss them, nattering about mock outrage. Maybe you can't manage to work up a bit of real outrage when some two bit idiot mayor decides that your rights don't mean a fucking thing, but those of us who actually value our rights as citizens of the US, the outrage was very much real. You don't recall the story about the neighborhood that was surrounded by flooded areas but not flooded itself, do you? The residents banded together to repell looters. Nagin's goon squad attempted to confiscate their firearms and were told to go fuck themselves.

The outrage over these illegal and unconstitutional confiscations was real enough that quite a few states passed laws specifically prohibiting siezure of private arms in a disaster area. You can hem and haw and obfuscate all you want, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter. But by all means, please continue with the shrill denials and foot stomping-it's rather entertaining. :)

[SteveM]

72. "I want the names of those who were in the Communist Party with you, Mr. Kazan!"

[Remmah2]

53. The police may have stolen up to 700 firearms.

http://blog.nola.com/updates/2008/10/nra_to_settle_suit_over_katrin.html

"In April 2006, police made about 700 firearms available for owners to claim if they could present a bill of sale or an affidavit with the weapon's serial number. Halbrook, however, said few people could present proof of ownership after Katrina, which flooded 80 percent of the city."

[MyrnaLoy]

82. so

you have the names of those who guns stolen? 700 guns, give me 5 names.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Ok, challenge accepted.

Source, AP:
Percy Taplet, 73, said the National Guard and state police confiscated his shotgun when they arrived to tell him to leave his house. When he tried to get his gun back this week, police told him he would have to contact state police.

"I won't ever see that gun again, believe me," Taplet said. "It's gone like everything else in that storm."



As of mid-2006, the police department itself indicated 17 weapons returned, so I don't really see any need to provide you names, given the lack of information released publicly by the police department.
http://www.policeone.com/community-policing/articles/128275-New-Orleans-police-giving-back-weapons-confiscated-post-Katrina/

The police department will not identify the people who claimed weapons. You're not serious right, thinking they would? We only have names of victims that went to the media and identified themselves.

Is (minimum, early before the injunction was issued) 17 weapons satisfy your question?

[AtheistCrusader]

22. So, I will bookmark this thread.

I will request a copy of the injunction from the NRA, and the LA court system as well as the lawsuit. This will take time. I will PM you with a reminder when I have located the information. Expect this to take weeks.

[MyrnaLoy]

40. you do know this has been done

there are no names. But it's about 30 bucks, New Orleans federal court. Good luck!!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

102. You have been given names.

You have been given links to all manner of information.

Ignorance is when one is unaware of the information.
Stupidity is when one has been educated yet refuses to accept the facts.

Guess which one you're demonstrating?

[MyrnaLoy]

28. Do you not understand

that I'm asking for plaintiffs in the lawsuit? Was Percy part of the lawsuit? No, he wasn't. Let's say I give you ole Percy though, I'll use your source:

"Percy Taplet, 73, said the National Guard and state police confiscated his shotgun when they arrived to tell him to leave his house. When he tried to get his gun back this week, police told him he would have to contact state police."

Well did he? Did he try to get it back? A quick Google search lists only Percy as a victim. Was he being transported to a safe area? If you were a police officer would you have allowed Percy to take his shotgun on a bus? On a boat? Do you know Percy, I don't. So with that, was his gun confiscated or secured? You know the answer, be honest. The mechanism was in place for him to retrieve it, he was told who to contact.

Now before you go all "he had to jump through hoops" to get it back. I find your car after a storm do I have to prove it's yours before I give it back? You don't wanna talk about how registration would have helped ole Percy do you? No way you wanna do that.

I'm going to use your link one more time, "police said only 17 of about 700 weapons had been returned". OK they have 700 weapons. The NRA files a case, calling it confiscation. 700 weapons. 700 weapons ripped from the cold wet hands of Americans! Or, maybe 700 found unsecured weapons? Now you want us to believe the former, 700 weapons ripped from the hands of honest Americans!!! The outrage!!!

700 Americans. Who are they? The NRA files a lawsuit on their behalf, who are they? You have old Percy, police trying to help him get to a secure place. Common sense says no way is Percy going to take his shotgun to that safe place right? I know, I know, it's a stretch equating the NRA with common sense. The police don't know ole Percy, they know he has a shotgun and needs help. After the storm they tell old Percy where he can get his shotgun. Did he try? I can't find an answer to that. I do know why they took ole Percy's gun. You know why also. Safety. You know that as well as I do, it's the same reason they disarmed that poor old distraught woman. The mock outrage was noted though.

I'll leave you with this one thing from your source. It's dated 2006, 5 years ago. One name. Percy. Did he follow law enforcements instructions for the safe return of his shotgun? 5 years. Who cares right? You care that it was taken, that's the mock outrage. Do you think ole Percy's shotgun had a serial number on it? Would you have been ok with the officers writing it down next to Percy's driver's license or SSN? You know the NRA would have sued over that also.

See, this isn't about ole Percy, it's about mock outrage. The confiscation that never was. It was about securing weapons in a dangerous situation. The mock outrage was just the NRA icing. 700 unsecured weapons, a lawsuit with no plaintiffs. You know the answer. it's right in front of you.

http://www.policeone.com/community-policing/articles/128275-New-Orleans-police-giving-back-weapons-confiscated-post-Katrina

[AtheistCrusader]

33. They never said 700 americans.

Some individuals have claimed so, but that does not reflect reality.

[MyrnaLoy]

35. Dude

I used your own link!!

"that does not reflect reality" LOL, there's a lot of this confiscation crap that reflects reality! LOL.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. I'm not sure what part of this is difficult to read. I'll highlight the important bit.

"NEW ORLEANS- Under pressure from the National Rifle Association, police this week began returning guns confiscated after Hurricane Katrina.

The police department is making the guns available three days a week. At the close of the second day Wednesday, police said only 17 of about 700 weapons had been returned.

Police and soldiers removed guns from houses after the storm flooded the city, and they confiscated guns from some evacuees."


Some. As in a few. No honest news source ever claimed that 700 people were stripped of their firearms, as many were found in empty houses during searches, etc. Some people WERE stripped of their weapons, without having committed a crime. The heads of local law enforcement stated they would do exactly that. There are witnesses (and a video) that corroborate this.

None of the people who actually had guns taken, need be on the lawsuit for it to have served it's purpose. (The city settled, even though, possibly they could have gotten it thrown out on the fact the NRA was not an aggrieved party)

It doesn't matter if it was just one person, it is STILL outrageous. Outrageous that they thought they had the lawful authority to do this in the first place, outrageous that they actually did it, to at least a few people.

[SteveM]

75. I think she declared victory and flew off the embassy roof. nt

[MyrnaLoy]

83. nope

still here. you got any names for those 700 weapons? Come on, 5 names.

[MyrnaLoy]

77. I see your point

"of about 700 weapons had been returned" They all must of come from one guy then? All 700 of them? You can see that I'm quoting your source right?


Now back on point. "Some people WERE stripped of their weapons, without having committed a crime." Who were they? Must be someone, they've never come forward, why?

A State of Emergency was declared, which does give unique powers to the state government similar to those of martial law. On the evening of August 31, 2005, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin nominally declared "martial law" and said that officers didn't have to observe civil rights and Miranda rights in stopping the looters. Federal Martial Law didn't really exist in Louisiana's constitution.

The NRA and you guys must hate Louisiana's constitution.

[AtheistCrusader]

99. The lady in the video

and the retiree I mentioned above, were not looting.

Can you cite where the governor has the power to abrogate civil rights?

[MyrnaLoy]

87. Well this one was easy to tear up

your post, "confiscated guns from some evacuees"


So you would allow a bunch of evacuees on a crowded bus with weapons? Really? Be honest. You would have let armed, scared, hungry people on a crowded bus with weapons? Really?

[AtheistCrusader]

100. Of course.

I'm on a crowded bus most weekdays.

Why would one refuse to allow citizens onto a bus with a lawfully possessed firearm?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

105. Yep - sure would.

The government is not supposed to be your parent and one does not give up his rights merely because Momma Nature has had a bad day.

[Uncle Omar]

48. No reelected

The Mayor and Chief of Police was a republican...no wait they were a

[Francis Marion]

25. If the Freedom Charter says you have the right to

...speak your mind, meet in public, vote, and have your privacy respected,
and to keep and bear arms by right,
and yet, your government infringes upon your gun rights any time they choose:

such a situation corrupts the intended parameters of government as it conditions the people to exchange real freedom for slavery.

So the Second Amendment may back up the First, Third, Fourth... if its plain text is meaningfully respected by lawmakers.

But if the Second Amendment is instead denied the people by lawmakers- where the 'hands off' language could not be plainer- then the whole document is a meaningless variable.

Which spells the end of the American Revolution and of our Freedom as Americans.

If We, the People, don't guard our rights jealously from harm and government overreach- all our rights, not just some- we get Jim Crow, Clinton's "assault weapon" ban, Katrina gun confiscations, Patriot Act, and God knows what is to come.

[Uncle Omar]

47. Stupid Post

Wikipedia is not a honest source as you said. Guns have been reclasified in different states to get rind of them. The Street Sweeper and other shot guns were turned into a destructive devise. The 50BMG is ban in Kalifornia. Why I dont' know? In every state firearms are regulated for the honest people. The crook however does not follow the thousand of laws restricting gun ownership. A good example is the crime in Chicago. Google this.

[iverglas]

63. snork

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=461170&mesg_id=461345

Uncle Omar
Wed Sep-14-11 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
31. No need for people to own guns
Only the police need to have guns. Guns cause violence and murders.

And all those people replying as if ...

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gejohnston]

49. History correction

You are thinking of the mob wars in the 1920s, when the Genna crime family, led by Al Capone, decided they wanted the whole pie. The few roving bandits in the 1930s like Dilleger etc. stole their sub machine guns and BARs from national guard and police armories.

[Atypical Liberal]

51. The second amendment allows use of force to protect other rights.

Granted, this was a time when everyone carried a sword or a musket, and people in towns were expected to keep their own peace because there were no police. But, is this valid in 21st century America?

Yes.

By the "Second Amendment backing up the First," does that mean that if you criticize the government and they come after you for it, you can legally start shooting?

No.

Revolution is never legally sanctioned by the current government in power. This does not mean that revolution, even armed revolution, has never been necessary, good, or successful.

The second amendment insures that you have an armed population. Should that population determine that its rights are being oppressed to the point where armed resistance is necessary, they will be able to do so. But such action would never be legal, even though our Declaration of Independence advocated it.

What about if, say, the Bush Administration had shut down the New York Times - impinging on their freedom of the Press? Could, say, the NYT owners wave a gun at Federal officials? Or, in a more likely case, President Perry (or Bachmann, or Palin) says that we're going to declare Pastafarianism an illegal religion. Does that mean that followers of the FSM can hole up in a compound and start defending their freedom of religion, a la David Koresh?

No one can say what will be the spark that sets off a rebellion. If it gains no traction, then the rebels are just "fringe lunatics" who get carted away. If it gains traction, then they are "freedom fighters". Could the shutting down of the New York Times instigate armed rebellion? Who knows? Could the repression of a religion instigate armed rebellion? Who knows?

You know what the biggest thing is that sparks rebellion, including all the recent uprisings we have seen? The price of food.

I mean, the last time I actually heard of "The Government" forcing people to turn in their guns was during Hurricane Katrina - and that was for public safety. Besides, it was a Republican Administration.

Actually, it was Democratic Mayor Ray Nagan who ordered the confiscation of firearms. And while the government may have claimed that what they were doing was for "public safety", the fact of the matter is it was illegal for them to do so.

Do people REALLY believe that "The Government" is going to force them to give up legally purchased firearms, or is this just another RW canard?

It has happened before, in the United States and elsewhere. See the UK and Australia for large-scale examples. We have already discussed Katrina, but also see the SKS fiasco in California.

I mean, some regulation of firearms is necessary, or we'll all end up like Chicago during the '30's. Nobody seriously wants that.

The biggest driver of crime in Chicago in the 1930's was the same driver of crime in Chicago today: organized gangs fighting over the illegal, prohibited drug business. Chicago continues to have some of the most stringent firearm regulations in the country and it makes no difference. It makes no difference because there is a shit-load of money at stake in the illegal drug industry, just as there was with alcohol in the 30's.

[AnnieBW]

88. Okay, Let me ask something else

Let's say that President Bachmann outlaws Islam in the U.S. Or forces Muslims living in America (whether they are citizens or not) into interment camps, like they did to the Japanese during WWII. Do Muslims then have the right to shoot at those U.S. Marshals (or whomever) is coming to take them away?

[gejohnston]

90. nice loaded question but

the best answer is that we have a massive get out to vote campaign, develop and use counter-measures to deal with voting suppression schemes, etc to prevent that from ever happening.

[Atypical Liberal]

95. "The right"

Okay, Let me ask something else Let's say that President Bachmann outlaws Islam in the U.S. Or forces Muslims living in America (whether they are citizens or not) into interment camps, like they did to the Japanese during WWII. Do Muslims then have the right to shoot at those U.S. Marshals (or whomever) is coming to take them away?

Did the Jews have the right to resist being rounded up by the Nazis?

If you are asking is it lawful for them to do so, then almost certainly the answer will always be no. No government is ever going to have laws that say that the people can forcibly resist its own laws. Any government that contrives to do these kinds of things to its people will always do so in accordance with laws that are contrived to enable it to do so.

But do people have a natural right to resist tyranny? Absolutely. Our founders recognized this and stated such in our Declaration of Independence:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

It is extremely oppressive for a government to round up people and put them in camps for pretty much any reason, save perhaps to quarantine people in a time of disease. Certainly for the color of their skin or whatever religion they believe in. I think people have a right to resist such abuse by force of arms.

I like to think that if someone tried to round up me and my family and evict us from our home and livelihood that I would stand up and resist such tyranny.

[ileus]

58. I can't even take care of the deer that eat my veggie garden...

[Remmah2]

66. You might try.

A good German Shepherd. The original definition of loyalty and to protect and serve.

[ileus]

68. My neighbor has one...his garden wasn't a victim this year.

Seems my wiener dogs that I let in at night aren't the best guard dogs eh?

[oneshooter]

76. Try using mothballs. Deer hate the smell and will not hang around. n/t

[PavePusher]

64. A few things....

"I mean, the last time I actually heard of "The Government" forcing people to turn in their guns was during Hurricane Katrina - and that was for public safety."

How was depriving the lawful of one of their means of defense during a time of lawlessness "for public safety"?


"...or we'll all end up like Chicago during the '30's."

That was a function of organized crime, directly related to a government prohibition on something most people wanted. Had little to do with guns themselves. Those guns were just as freely available before the 18th Amendment, yet there was not the level of crime that existed after it took effect. Hmmm.....


"And by the way, can you come over to my place with your rifle and take care of the damn deer that are eating my azaleas?"

While I realize that was mostly in jest, it is indicative of an issue most gun restrictionists wilfully ignore: If you aren't prepared to take care of minor problems on your own, you have to get assistance from those who are, whether that be private citizens or public servents. And that too is O.K.... until they then rail against the very tools that they need to fix their issues. 'Tis a puzzlement.

[AnnieBW]

86. Dude... it was a JOKE!

"While I realize that was mostly in jest, it is indicative of an issue most gun restrictionists wilfully ignore: If you aren't prepared to take care of minor problems on your own, you have to get assistance from those who are, whether that be private citizens or public servents. And that too is O.K.... until they then rail against the very tools that they need to fix their issues. 'Tis a puzzlement."

Dude, it was a JOKE! Lighten up already!

[PavePusher]

104. Which I aknowledged...

"I realize that was mostly in jest"

But your joking comment was tangent to the truth that I pointed out.

[RSillsbee]

78. This would have been a really interesting thread

had it not been willfully derailed

I mean, the last time I actually heard of "The Government" forcing people to turn in their guns was during Hurricane Katrina - and that was for public safety. Besides, it was a Republican Administration. Do people REALLY believe that "The Government" is going to force them to give up legally purchased firearms, or is this just another RW canard?

I find it interesting that in the first line of this paragraph you cite an instance on govermental gun confiscation and in the very next line ask if people really believe the government would try to confiscate their guns. Why shouldn't they? it's happened.


Why should people not believe that the government would want to ban classes of weapons ? They did it in 1994. One of the planks in Obama's campaign platform was a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban why should people believe he means what he said?

[AnnieBW]

84. Why does someone need an assault weapon?

Seriously. I'm not a hobbyist, nor a hunter, so I don't know. What use is there for a civilian (non-military or police) to have an assault weapon? I'm just wondering.

[gejohnston]

89. good question, long answer

"assault weapon" as you understand it is a propaganda buzz term to refer to semi automatic rifles and carbines that have cosmetic features similar to military rifles, which are often assault rifles. There are also internal differences to prevent converting them to fully automatic. Assault rifles, using the proper technical term, are machine guns and are regulated much more tightly since the 1930s (National Firearms Act of 1934).
Functionally they are no different than semi automatic rifles that happen to have wood stocks instead of pistol grips etc.

There was a time when your mom and dad's deer rifles (if they are bolt action) were military "assault rifles". There is a good chance that they use either the .30-06 or .308 rounds. Both are more powerful than modern military rifles. Then it became a sporting arm, Same with rounds. IOW, it is simply the logical progression from "tactical to practical" to quote the History Channel. A common example is the SKS rifle, which is an "assault weapon" in places like California and uses the same round as the AK-47. It is also a popular deer hunting rifle in the US and Canada. The AK round is about as powerful as a .30-30.
None of this is new, after WW2 the M-1 carbine was popular with police and farmers alike (and was still used by the military through the 1960s and is still used by militaries today). Since it has a wooden stock and no pistol grip, it is not thought of as an "assault weapon."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

The true military/technical term for assault weapon refers to flame-throwers, rocket launchers etc.
I hope this answers your question and I also hope my digressions did not bore you too much.

[spin]

91. If you are serious watch this video by a cop (Officer Leroy Pyle ) that discusses the difference ...

between an assault weapon and an assault rifle.

The Truth About Semi-Auto Firearms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

Ten minutes of your time may help show you the difference between an assault rifle and an assault weapon.

However that really does not answer your question. Many hunters prefer a semi-auto rifle over a bolt action rifle or a lever action rifle as it offers a quicker follow up shot. When hunting game such as deer most states limit the rounds that the magazines of the rifles hunter use to five rounds or less. We are not talking about a spray and pray type of hunting in those states.

I'm more of a pistol shooter than a hunter who uses a rifle or shotgun. I don't really own any handguns that would qualify as an assault weapon as none of my weapons holds more than 10 rounds. However I do know a number of shooters who do own handguns with a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds. I personally see no problem with this as a person with practice can change a magazine quickly as shown in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI&feature=related

I also prefer a revolver over a semi-auto pistol but with the right revolver and practice, you can also shoot very quickly as shown in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw&feature=related

Now admittedly the people in these videos are much faster than the normal shooter. However to be fair, an experienced shooter can change a magazine or reload a revolver very rapidly and therefore the amount of rounds in the weapon is basically irrelevant. Assault weapons are often defined as holding over ten rounds.

Now if you have made it this far, the point I am trying to bring out is that another assault weapons ban is basically a "feel good" law which does little to stop the problem of mass murders in our nation. A far better approach would be to finance and improve the NICS background check so as to faster input the names of violent criminals and those who have been legally adjudged as having serious mental problems from buying a firearm at a dealer. Obama supports this idea.

I personally would like to see the NICS system extended to all private sales of firearms including gun shows. This could be accomplished but would be a hard fight with lots of opposition from the NRA and conservative gun owners, but would make far more sense and yield far better results than another ban on assault weapons.

Now I realize that if you made it this far, you may still have questions or may even support a ban on assault weapons more than you did before.

Please reply with your comments or questions.

[RSillsbee]

92. I don't think I can add to the two answers you already have

for your question but I would like to revisit the interesting dichotomy cited in your paragraph above.

In one line you cite an instance of government gun confiscation and in the next line you can figure out why people would believe the government would do that.

It's almost like if i started a thread about how people show up in the gungeon drop a bunch of loaded questions about gun confiscations , assault weapon bans, registration and start asking why people even need "assault weapons". And then say " why would anyone think that people troll the gungeon looking for fights" (not that anyone would actually do that of course)

[oneshooter]

94. I do not see any reason for the Police to have full auto weapons. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

96. Already good answers, but here is another: Why NOT own them?

Why does someone need an assault weapon? Seriously. I'm not a hobbyist, nor a hunter, so I don't know. What use is there for a civilian (non-military or police) to have an assault weapon? I'm just wondering.

You've already been given great answers, but here is another:

Why not own them? Most "assault weapons" discussed around here are assault rifles, such as civilian, semi-automatic versions of the AK-47, and civilian, semi-automatic versions of the M-16, typically known as AR-15s.

It's important to realize that all rifles, let alone assault rifles, are hardly ever used in crime. For example, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, about 300 people are killed with all rifles, let alone assault rifles, every year. This is half as many as are killed using hands and feet, and less than are killed using knives.

So while there are crimes and homicides committed with assault rifles, they are relatively few. So there is no real reason to control access to them. Handguns kill far, far more people and are used in far, far more crimes than rifles. And this should not be surprising: handguns are concealable and far more portable than rifles.

[GreenStormCloud]

97. In America I don't have to show "need".

Do you NEED your computer, air conditioner,color flat screen TV, microwave, etc. People did just fine without them in the 1950s. You have them because you WANT them. Same with some of the guns we have.

[PavePusher]

103. An "assault weapon" is any weapon used to assault someone...

and can therefore be anything.

Which of the following is an "assault weapon", not suitable for multiple purposes?

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/bolt-action-model-770.aspx

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/pump-action-model-7600.aspx

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-750.aspx

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-25.aspx

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/shotgun-families/autoloading-versa-max.aspx

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/shotgun-families/pump-action-model-870.aspx

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/tactical-families/tactical-shotguns.aspx

What features make one or another unsuitable for hunting or sporting purposes?

[MyrnaLoy]

85. yeah

would have been if there had ever been any actual victims. Instead it was just an empty lawsuit for publicity.

[AtheistCrusader]

101. Which explains why the city and Nagin settled.