I've attempted to shed some light on a situation I was familiar with (Hurricane Katrina response) only to take fire from folks that weren't there, or who believes what the media would have your believe. It is what it is I suppose.
I'm not going to waste any more energy responding to this topic, as I'm convinced that some folks just want to argue, or "snipe", and it isn't constructive or informative. If you have additional questions concerning this topic, that you think I can answer, send me a PM.
Seeing the Katrina video again really pisses me off all over again. When I see it I lose all perspective for right and wrong regarding law enforcement. During that time and as a result of their actions, I would say in all honestly, I could not distinguish them from any other gangster or gang of robbers. My apologies to all the Leo's on the site, but the video doesn't lie, and there's no two ways about it; our government violated those folks rights and in some cases grossly violated. IMO, the person or persons responsible for the orders should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as any other dictator against the people. It's hard to pass judgment on all the personnel for following orders, be it right or wrong, maybe not impossible, but certainly difficult with regards to just how many were involved. During situations such like Katrina, confusion and chaos will take over and it's hard to know just how individual authorities will react to such an order. Cutting the head off the snake is the only real way to battle such an order given by anyone or any group of individuals. IMO, that's where the focus needs to be place. Without the order, there will never be a consfiscation order to worry about in the first place. JMO. :bier:
My trepidation is that our POTUS has four years to appoint jurists to the SCOTUS. We are on a slippery slope now and he will have the opportunity to replace any number up to four current justices. Remember, we are only protected now by one vote. If we lose that edge, the 2A could become unconstitutional by order, hence any gun control laws would become constitutional, hence any LEO would not be violating their oath by following orders.
[QUOTE=OldVet;2548770]As an admendment to, and therefore part of, the Constitution, 2A cannot be "unconstitutional." It would have to be repealed, which takes an act of Congress.
That's why the prohibition of alcohol in 18A had to be repealed in 21A and not ruled unconstitutional.[/QUOTE
I appreciate the clarification, but it does not allay my fears of the slippery slope and the eventual agenda and outcome.
I am sure the POTUS would welcome a revolution, it would speed up his quest to confiscate all weapons, for our own protection, under the terms of the NDAA and AUMF. Folks, we are presently experiencing the daily attacks to strip us of our rights by this administration and they will continue. I would suggest that everyone should read the NDAA and the AUMF. Keywords to remember while reviewing these documents are "Battlefield" and "habeas corpus"
I am not a lawyer and by no means an expert of the law but it is evident that if there was a revolution in the making the POTUS could declare the US as a battlefield under the NDAA. IMO, based on his present agenda, he would immediately salivate just at the mention of the word "Revolution". It would justify his means to complete his promised "CHANGE"
I am not a LEO so I can not say what they would do if that law was passed. However over the pass few years you can see where the Government is headed by what they say and do.
Most of Police cars you see every day have had the words " To Protect and Serve " removed from their Cars.
Some Police department are now using pilot drones to spy on their civilian population.
Home land security has stocked up on millions of round of ammo.
They have attacked to 2A on a regular basis.
They insist that a person that breaks into your home to attack you has more rights than you do. Hurt them and you have to prove you were in the right to defense yourself.
And several politicians have even said that the job of the Police Department is not to keep you FROM being robbed or Attacked, but to response to your 911 calls.
I hope you don't think I made any negative comments about Police Officers!!!!! I had 2 members of my family in law enforcement and retired. One due to 20 years of service and the other one due to an injury in the line of duty. My reference was to the Government only.
Am I missing something about the last two posts? What went wrong?
As a reserve officer on my towns small police department, we enforce local, county and state laws not federal.