How Many Of Y'all See THIS As The First Step To UN Intervention....HERE? - Page 2

How Many Of Y'all See THIS As The First Step To UN Intervention....HERE?

This is a discussion on How Many Of Y'all See THIS As The First Step To UN Intervention....HERE? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; It's going to lead to the sheeple accepting that we "need" the military on the street to control crime Its about desensitizing the population to ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29

Thread: How Many Of Y'all See THIS As The First Step To UN Intervention....HERE?

  1. #16
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,979
    It's going to lead to the sheeple accepting that we "need" the military on the street to control crime
    Its about desensitizing the population to "accept" Troops in the city.

    Kinda like the frog in the boiling pot of water.

    We missed a dang good opportunity to make good after Katrina hit. The smart thing to do would have been to let Mother Nature take it over and build somewhere else. Eventually, it would have been a great place to fish with all of the structure underwater...done properly it would have been a great shot in the arm for the tourist industry.

    Instead, Blanco calls in the guard because she cant handle it. She aint capable of handling it, her "stellar" record on the matters of responsibility and taking charge speak for themself. This whole matter of New Orleans has been nothing but an opportunity to experiment ever since it started.

    First, they illegaly confiscated guns...and got away with it.

    Now, they are using armed troops as cops and those troops are set up to fail from the very get go. The National Guard is not trained to act as police. They will violate the rights of citzens simply because they know no better. They are trained to act as soldiers, not police.

    The Governer is using the acts of a few gangbangers to justify mobilizing the Guard. Not only is it just plain wrong, but it is irresponsible and misguided, but that comes as no suprise to anyone that has watched her actions ...or rather inactions in the face of emergency.

    The right response would be to give the troopers a bit more latitude in areas of crime...a "crackdown" of sorts. Find the gangbangers and take it to them. Put them in jail and throw away the key. If they offer armed resistance, shoot them and be done with it...fight fire with fire.

    Instead,she call out the "Guard".

    Stay tuned....the experiment continues...


  2. #17
    Senior Member Array elkhunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    562
    I think this will have a certain amount of "working out" to do. Maybe an "incident" or something worse (though I hope not.) But remember what happened in San Francisco? The gun ban was reversed!

    It's the "pockets" of liberal rule that remind the rest of the country how bad it can be.

    Kansas and Nebraska have just gone CCW.
    Wisconsin is trying with narrow losses.

    Frog in the pot? Maybe. But the pot is turning RED too, not Blue.

    2 more of my "optimistic" cents. (I'm almost up to a nickel.)
    It’s so much easier now days, to "Love and honor" my wife, when she is armed, and shoots a better group than I do. (Till death do us part, eh?)

    “The way you get shot by a concealed weapons permit holder is, you point a gun at him,” the Sheriff said.

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,054
    Seeing as how hundreds of NO cops left their post during the storm and I assume many of those positions haven't been replaced, I am not surprised.

    $20 says the NG's guns are unloaded with an empty mag in place, just like during the storm.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  4. #19
    Senior Member Array Tom357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Richmond VA
    Posts
    1,068
    As a first step to UN intervention on US soil - I don't think so. The UN may want the authority to control US soil as a supra-government body, but there are enough people opposed to the violation of US sovereignty that I doubt it will happen.

    As a first step toward imposing martial law at the drop of a hat in anti-gun cities - much more likely. This is the slippery slope in action. It was a no-brainer to bring in the NG and impose martial law during the disaster. How much easier it is, now, to call in the NG and impose martial law for lesser circumstances, particularly for weak leaders of dysfunctional governments.
    - Tom
    You have the power to donate life.

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Fargo
    Since it is the La. National Guard, rather than the regular army, this is a purely state matter and probably isn't illegal/unconstitutional.
    We are in a grey area. NATIONAL guard use is hardly a STATE matter, IMO.

    The only constitutional issues I see happening is if the NG soldiers enter a residence, then you will have 3rd Amendment issues to deal with. People thought that amendment would never be tested and is useless. Let's see how they think of that amendment when NG soldiers come barging in. As stated above, NG soldiers have no power of arrest, they are not law enforcement and then issues of 4th Amendment rights will come into play. The 4th Amendment applies only to LE and government agents. Seeing as how the NG is a government agency (technically) it can violate one's 4thA rights and also, as aforementioned, violate the 3rdA as they are soldiers. The finicky definition of the word "quartered" is left up to interpretation.

    Furthermore, I think with the "conservatively stacked" SCOTUS, they will interpret as being in the victim's favor. Then again, with the induction of the DHS into the ranks of national security, I wouldn't be surprised if they held "quartered" as being consistent with the Webster's definition.

    This will be interesting to say the least.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array tanksoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,133
    Using the National Guard under state control for law-and-order missions has been legal and common for at least 50 years. Using the Militia for similar missions has been happening since this nation was founded. It's been done for dozens upon dozens of hurricanes, tornados, floods, blizzards and civil unrest incidents overt the years.

    Nothing has changed, what's the big deal?
    "I am a Soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

  7. #22
    Senior Member Array tanksoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,133
    Under either US Title 32 (Federal money, state-control) or State Active Duty it's perfectly legal and hardly unusual.

    What do you think the National Guard was doing in all those airports post-9/11?

    Even under Title 10 (Federal-money, Federal-control) it's not a Constitutional issue. Nothing in the US Constitution says that Soldiers can't enforce the law.

    Posse-Commitatus from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

    The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed in 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement.

    The original act referred only to the United States Army. The Air Force was added in 1956, and the Navy and the Marine Corps have been included by a regulation of the Department of Defense. This law is often mentioned when it appears that the Department of Defense is interfering in domestic disturbances.

    Legislation
    The relevant legislation is as follows:

    Sec. 1385. - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
    Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

    Limits on the Act
    There are a number of situations in which the Act does not apply. These include:

    National Guard units while under the authority of the governor of a state;
    Troops when used pursuant to the Federal authority to quell domestic violence as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles riots;
    Troops used under the order of the President of the United States pursuant to the Insurrection Act
    In December 1981 additional laws were enacted clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies—including the Coast Guard—especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance) while generally prohibiting direct participation of Department of Defense personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews.
    Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if civilian law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threat involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a Nuclear or Radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect U.S. military preparedness.
    The United States Coast Guard is not affected by the act during peacetime.


    Quote Originally Posted by freakshow10mm
    We are in a grey area. NATIONAL guard use is hardly a STATE matter, IMO.
    Last edited by tanksoldier; June 23rd, 2006 at 07:36 PM.
    "I am a Soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

  8. #23
    Senior Member Array Zundfolge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by elkhunter
    It's the "pockets" of liberal rule that remind the rest of the country how bad it can be.

    Kansas and Nebraska have just gone CCW.
    Wisconsin is trying with narrow losses.

    Frog in the pot? Maybe. But the pot is turning RED too, not Blue.

    2 more of my "optimistic" cents. (I'm almost up to a nickel.)

    I agree.

    I used to be VERY pessimistic. I was CONVINCED that the AWB would be renewed, I was CONVINCED that Kansas would NEVER get CCW (its part of the reason I moved away from the city of my birth, Wichita Kansas), I was CONVINCED that Nebraska would NEVER get CCW.

    In addition, Kansas has either passed (or will soon pass) a "Stand Your Ground" law.


    I think the lies told about guns and gun owners by the MSM are unraveling. I see less and less American Sheep who believe that gun control will do a damn thing to make their streets safer.

    I am, however, beginning to see a serious balkanization of the US because gun control and anti-gun attitudes seem to be expanding in the blue states while the red states get freer.

    San Fransisco gun ban (even though it was overturned)
    New Jersey poised to outlaw ammunition possession by "non licensed folk"
    New York RINO Mayor calling for national gun control.
    California keeps pushing the bullet serialization nonesense.

    But frankly these signs of anti-gun progress are in my estimation localized phenomenon.


    The days of mass anti gun attitudes across the country are gone. Most of the sheeple don't care about guns and don't think gun control is a good (or bad) thing so they aren't pushing for it.


    For the first time in a LONG time, I am an optimist.


    Now is the time for the RKBA movement to go on the offensive ... I think its time to start chipping away the NFA and I think the place to start is on suppressors (either get them down to the $5 stamp, or get them treated like handguns ... then eventually we get them as restricted as any other plumbing supply).


    We've been on the defense for so long we don't know how to recognize victory.

  9. #24
    Distinguished Member Array dimmak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    1,752
    I wondered what Nagin meant by "chocolate" mayor....
    Now I know....

    The New Orleans voters got what they wanted....
    Now maybe they'll learn from it.....
    "Ray Nagin is a colossal disappointment" - NRA/ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox.


    "...be water, my friend."

  10. #25
    Member Array mcclearypl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beech Grove, Tennessee
    Posts
    125
    The mayor of New Orleans destroyed his very corrupt police force with lack of leadership after the storm. The cowards ran in mass and left the good people to the wolves. Then he stole the weapons of the good people leaving only the bad guys with guns. Then the people of New Orleans elected him to office again. Now he asks for help to protect his poor defenseless people. They are getting just what they want and elected and we will pay the price to bail them out. PS There were some very good officers in New Orleans that stayed and did the job and then some after the storm and I have nothing but praise for them. God Bless em.
    Philip L. McCleary
    Security via CCW
    and a lot of practice
    Dispatchers have the best jobs
    we tell the police where to go and they have
    to do it. Policy manual says so.

    de N4LNE

  11. #26
    Member Array CrashVector's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    47
    To avoid a huge long tirade, i will simply say the following as a lifelong Louisiana resident:

    Nagin is a complete FOOL. The people that voted him back into office are ignorant....they got a free ride thanks to Nagin, and they aren't going to screw themselves out of free government housing and a monthly check.

    The national guard troops are NOT needed. 85% of the police force remains on duty in New Orleans...only 52% of the residents have returned. They have a HIGHER officer to citizen ratio now than they did before the hurricane. This is just another example of New Orleans sucking all the taxpayer's money into the city for yet another useless waste of time and money.

    HAs anyone seen the state's budget for the city of New Orleans lately? That waste of a city gets a disproportionatly high percentage of the state's budget compared to other cities. With the amount of money thrown blindly at that ONE city, they should be able to pave Bourbon Street with gold leaf. Instead, it's the same old city that smells like urine where more than 70% of the residents depend on the government for their housing, food, and money. Basically, people in other areas refer to New Orleans as the "black hole of Louisiana" because money keeps being thrown in by the truckload, but it seems to just dissappear without any tangible results or improvements...and that was BEFORE the hurricane.

    New Orleans has the problems that it has for a REASON. I'll give you three guesses what that reason is.

    Military troops shouldn't be on the streets checking people's ID, nor should they have arrest powers. Police/military state much?

  12. #27
    New Member Array pissed-ol-pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    11
    Whats wrong with "Gun Control"???
    I am a very firm believer that every one should be taught to get a second shot on target in less than a 2 seconds!
    And in view of the hardware people get attatched to, some degree of gun control is necessary to acomplish this.

    People control / rights control is a different thing all together. In a pinch, I think most national guard and military folk will recognize an illegal order (to combat civilians en mass) and act per their training, and refuse to obay. At some point, A NG trooper may find him or herself facing a relative in the street.
    I still don't know that I don't know.
    p-o-p

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802
    Quote Originally Posted by tanksoldier
    Using the National Guard under state control for law-and-order missions has been legal and common for at least 50 years. Using the Militia for similar missions has been happening since this nation was founded. It's been done for dozens upon dozens of hurricanes, tornados, floods, blizzards and civil unrest incidents overt the years.

    Nothing has changed, what's the big deal?
    Did you read my original "qualifier" when I first posted this thread:

    ExSoldier's NOTE: S'pose it doesn't work? S'pose there is a shift in who controls WHAT on the national scene....S'pose a Somalia type plan were to emerge to ask for UN "Peace Keepers" to come onto US Soil and "control rampant gun crime?" NOTE this is not an anti-UN SHTF scenario. PLEASE DON'T ruin this thread with wild Rambo assertions. I just want to see where all this "send in the national guard to disarm the bad guys" mentality might be leading.....

    I'm not really arguing the use of the national guard in a SHORT TERM "emergency" other than the fact that martial law should be imposed so that the civvie cops don't get caught up in guard tactics & doctrine! I really interested to see if this is a "prep" to a next level.

    We have certainly made some serious gains in favor of the 2nd Amendment during this Administration and at the State levels; the latter due mostly to the fact that the states haven't had to fight off the certain deluge of anti-gun bills sure to result if the Congressional control shifts as it may in 06 or if the Oval shifts in 08! What might be the effect on any or ALL of these state laws if a federal law was passed specifically to negate them? Federal law trumps state law. That's the nature of "Federalism."

    I don't however for one minute believe we are any "safer" from the gun grabbers than we were in 1994. Surely y'all know that starting on the 4th of July, the UN is holding a conference that will last two weeks. It's possibly the "next step" to grab our guns.

    Don't kid yourself that at some level of thought...somewhere up the ladder these events aren't in some way connected. Maybe NOT directly. But I promise you that somebody, somewhere is paying close attention.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  14. #29
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,979
    For the first time in a LONG time, I am an optimist.
    0

    Not me. Although you are correct in the fact that the states have made great gains in firearms, it is negated by the fact that in this country, the U.N has more voice than it ever has before.

    More and more of our legislators and even our Presidents are giving the U.N. leeway in our decison making processes more than ever before, all in the name of being one big happy global environment.

    We've been on the defense for so long we don't know how to recognize victory.
    Thats is because we are not there yet. If we were "victorious" the U.N. wouldnt even attempt to hold a conference on the 4th of July on a total gun ban. Instead, they hold it intentionally on our day of the celebration of Freedom...and it is no accident. They will not stop until their goals are met and we are just about the last nation on earth that "allows" its citizens to have much in the way of firearms.

    I don't however for one minute believe we are any "safer" from the gun grabbers than we were in 1994. Surely y'all know that starting on the 4th of July, the UN is holding a conference that will last two weeks. It's possibly the "next step" to grab our guns.
    Amen to that.

    Don't kid yourself that at some level of thought...somewhere up the ladder these events aren't in some way connected. Maybe NOT directly. But I promise you that somebody, somewhere is paying close attention.
    Yesterday 02:03 AM
    In the world of Politics, NOTHING happens by accident and there are no coincidences.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Divine Intervention???
    By oneshot in forum Bob & Terry's Place
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 10th, 2010, 09:48 PM
  2. the dangers of intervention
    By seawolf1956 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: April 20th, 2009, 11:28 AM
  3. Intervention Rule?
    By madmike in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: April 20th, 2007, 08:50 PM
  4. Step by Step Pictorial: AK Stock Change
    By Phil Elmore in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: December 13th, 2006, 04:58 PM
  5. Intervention v. Non-Intervention
    By Miggy in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: October 20th, 2005, 10:46 PM