And Now, To The Anti-Household Officials.
What the Hell is going on?
Confiscation of weapons in New Orleans made the news, and then it was gone.
From The New York Times, September 9th:
Mr. Compass, the police superintendent, said that after a week of near anarchy in the city, no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns, or other firearms of any kind. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.
That order apparently does not apply to the hundreds of security guards whom businesses and some wealthy individuals have hired to protect their property. The guards, who are civilians working for private security firms like Blackwater, are openly carrying M-16s and other assault rifles.
From the Associated Press / Houston Chronicle of September 9th:
Police and soldiers also seized numerous guns for fear of confrontations with jittery residents who have armed themselves against looters. "No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons," Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley said.
On Thursday, in the city's well-to-do Lower Garden District, a neighborhood with many antebellum mansions, members of the Oklahoma National Guard seized weapons from the inhabitants of one home. Those who were armed were handcuffed and briefly detained before being let go.
Well, thanks a lot!
The subject's nearly vanished from the journalistic scene.
What is to be understood from these reports?
In my previous piece An Open Letter . . I imagined what the anti-household nuts must be saying in every speech they make, in every political stop they make, and why they couldn’t admit it to themselves and aloud before their loved ones. It is that in their politics, they perhaps do not fully realize – except in the deepest regions of their hearts, if anywhere at all – that they are destroying the households and the nation by their actions.
Such a statement would sound like this:
Darling/Sweetheart/Sir or Madam, I have gone on record as stating publicly that I will not use deadly force to protect you or the children, nor do I believe in others using deadly force to protect their loved ones or themselves. I do things to stop them. Please do not count on me to protect you in time of grave danger.
After all, if they confiscate guns from other households, they must not have any in their own homes, right?
In being a fly on the wall in the conversation of a much higher Official, I believe their version of it would go like this:
My love/Sweetheart/Sir or Madam: I have gone on record stating publicly that I will not vote in Congress/State Legislature/City Council to defend this country, nor will I permit other Americans to elect to defend this country, either politically or with all due military or homeland force. I do things to stop them at every turn, including disarming honest people – I can’t help myself. Please do not count on me to honor my oath of office.
The Wife/Husband/Ex/Sir or Madam answers:
I know. I can’t show my face. And yer a lousy lover. Patriotism and romance are related by unselfishness, neither of which yer good at. I understand. Now get out.
Funny how they seem to be the very last to know.
______________________________________
I have some questions to put into the ear of anyone prosecuting these people for civil rights violations or any other pleading to be later filed, not to mention those feckless Commissions that will be whitewashing the entire incident:
1. On whose authority are weapons taken from law-abiding citizens?
Justification for taking weapons as enunciated by officials is not legally enough. It may be tactically sound to disarm someone whom you might expect to resist you, but according to FOX News Legal Analysts, not to mention much study of the named City's laws, you cannot be forced out of your home with rare legal exception (i.e. a radioactive cloud), and these aren’t among such scenarios. And besides, most gun owners already know that.
And you cannot take away guns from law-abiding citizens without due process. Where is the due process here, some conditions which were allowed to deteriorate as a pretext to disarming the citizens?
2. How will these weapons be returned to their rightful owners, and when?
When the crisis is over – and in the middle of this evacuation, the troops have nothing to fear from reasonable, law-abiding civilians – how will these weapons be returned? Will they be destroyed? How are the civilians compensated?
The problem with officials and the dopes who want to keep their jobs at the expense of the liberty and homes of others is that these policies have a terrible habit of becoming permanent.
3. Whose fault is all this so-called anarchy, the pretense for the confiscation? Is it the fault of the law-abiding who will more than likely remain law-abiding? Or is it more the fault of officials who let this disaster come, knowing that looters will run the landscape, then corral the civilians into the solutions they had planned for them all along?
Let me answer these:
1. There is no authority, it was a bluff. A take-away based on the threat of force, to be later argued as a sortof consent of the gun owners.
2. They won't be returned. Once they've left the hands of the legal gun owners, irrespective of the reason, the bureaucracy will not return them.
3. The fault lies with the Mare and the Gubner who permitted the situation to escalate for who knows what reason.
And that’s what it’s come to. Situations are allowed to deteriorate until the public generally sees the gravity of the situation, then comes to accept the solutions already planned for them. This trading on human tragedy is not new to politics.
Execution of the good plan that was in place would have prevented all of this – the loss of life, the loss of property, loss of civil rights and the spending of billions upon billions in assets – but this wouldn’t fit into the officials' agenda. Gun control and disarming the public just wasn’t happening fast enough to suit them, and another trial balloon was needed.
Perhaps a sort of Property Czar will be appointed to apply funds of corporations contributing to satisfy the just compensation requirement of eminent domain once the cesspool has been cleaned up.
Then the real nightmare begins.
____________________________________________
John Longenecker is author of The Battle We Fight - Battling Potomac Fever To Recapture Our Homes And Communities, available at all booksellers. His website is www.NationwideConcealedCarry.com and his e-mail is, naturally, John@nationwideconcealedcarry.com
Confiscation of weapons in New Orleans made the news, and then it was gone.
From The New York Times, September 9th:
Mr. Compass, the police superintendent, said that after a week of near anarchy in the city, no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns, or other firearms of any kind. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.
That order apparently does not apply to the hundreds of security guards whom businesses and some wealthy individuals have hired to protect their property. The guards, who are civilians working for private security firms like Blackwater, are openly carrying M-16s and other assault rifles.
From the Associated Press / Houston Chronicle of September 9th:
Police and soldiers also seized numerous guns for fear of confrontations with jittery residents who have armed themselves against looters. "No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons," Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley said.
On Thursday, in the city's well-to-do Lower Garden District, a neighborhood with many antebellum mansions, members of the Oklahoma National Guard seized weapons from the inhabitants of one home. Those who were armed were handcuffed and briefly detained before being let go.
Well, thanks a lot!
The subject's nearly vanished from the journalistic scene.
What is to be understood from these reports?
In my previous piece An Open Letter . . I imagined what the anti-household nuts must be saying in every speech they make, in every political stop they make, and why they couldn’t admit it to themselves and aloud before their loved ones. It is that in their politics, they perhaps do not fully realize – except in the deepest regions of their hearts, if anywhere at all – that they are destroying the households and the nation by their actions.
Such a statement would sound like this:
Darling/Sweetheart/Sir or Madam, I have gone on record as stating publicly that I will not use deadly force to protect you or the children, nor do I believe in others using deadly force to protect their loved ones or themselves. I do things to stop them. Please do not count on me to protect you in time of grave danger.
After all, if they confiscate guns from other households, they must not have any in their own homes, right?
In being a fly on the wall in the conversation of a much higher Official, I believe their version of it would go like this:
My love/Sweetheart/Sir or Madam: I have gone on record stating publicly that I will not vote in Congress/State Legislature/City Council to defend this country, nor will I permit other Americans to elect to defend this country, either politically or with all due military or homeland force. I do things to stop them at every turn, including disarming honest people – I can’t help myself. Please do not count on me to honor my oath of office.
The Wife/Husband/Ex/Sir or Madam answers:
I know. I can’t show my face. And yer a lousy lover. Patriotism and romance are related by unselfishness, neither of which yer good at. I understand. Now get out.
Funny how they seem to be the very last to know.
______________________________________
I have some questions to put into the ear of anyone prosecuting these people for civil rights violations or any other pleading to be later filed, not to mention those feckless Commissions that will be whitewashing the entire incident:
1. On whose authority are weapons taken from law-abiding citizens?
Justification for taking weapons as enunciated by officials is not legally enough. It may be tactically sound to disarm someone whom you might expect to resist you, but according to FOX News Legal Analysts, not to mention much study of the named City's laws, you cannot be forced out of your home with rare legal exception (i.e. a radioactive cloud), and these aren’t among such scenarios. And besides, most gun owners already know that.
And you cannot take away guns from law-abiding citizens without due process. Where is the due process here, some conditions which were allowed to deteriorate as a pretext to disarming the citizens?
2. How will these weapons be returned to their rightful owners, and when?
When the crisis is over – and in the middle of this evacuation, the troops have nothing to fear from reasonable, law-abiding civilians – how will these weapons be returned? Will they be destroyed? How are the civilians compensated?
The problem with officials and the dopes who want to keep their jobs at the expense of the liberty and homes of others is that these policies have a terrible habit of becoming permanent.
3. Whose fault is all this so-called anarchy, the pretense for the confiscation? Is it the fault of the law-abiding who will more than likely remain law-abiding? Or is it more the fault of officials who let this disaster come, knowing that looters will run the landscape, then corral the civilians into the solutions they had planned for them all along?
Let me answer these:
1. There is no authority, it was a bluff. A take-away based on the threat of force, to be later argued as a sortof consent of the gun owners.
2. They won't be returned. Once they've left the hands of the legal gun owners, irrespective of the reason, the bureaucracy will not return them.
3. The fault lies with the Mare and the Gubner who permitted the situation to escalate for who knows what reason.
And that’s what it’s come to. Situations are allowed to deteriorate until the public generally sees the gravity of the situation, then comes to accept the solutions already planned for them. This trading on human tragedy is not new to politics.
Execution of the good plan that was in place would have prevented all of this – the loss of life, the loss of property, loss of civil rights and the spending of billions upon billions in assets – but this wouldn’t fit into the officials' agenda. Gun control and disarming the public just wasn’t happening fast enough to suit them, and another trial balloon was needed.
Perhaps a sort of Property Czar will be appointed to apply funds of corporations contributing to satisfy the just compensation requirement of eminent domain once the cesspool has been cleaned up.
Then the real nightmare begins.
____________________________________________
John Longenecker is author of The Battle We Fight - Battling Potomac Fever To Recapture Our Homes And Communities, available at all booksellers. His website is www.NationwideConcealedCarry.com and his e-mail is, naturally, John@nationwideconcealedcarry.com
<< Home