New Orleans Gun Grab
________________It is described as a "most disturbing" read, "the story of the injustice imposed on law-abiding New Orleans residents by prowling bands of thugs and then their own government in the aftermath of the Hurricane Katrina disaster."
"The authors. . .detail individual tales of gunowners defending their homes. . .in lawless days after the hurricane struck and their brutal treatment afterwards by police. . .after NOPD Police Superintendent Eddie Compass ordered: 'No one will be able to be armed. Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.'"
The book also discusses the "Second Battle of New Orleans" in which the NRA fights to have the unlawfully police-confiscated guns repatriated to their owners. "It is a story of abuse of government power, and after reading it, you too will say 'Never Again.'"
However, the article fails to mention that it was a George Bush-led Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms that was executing this order to illegally disarm legal firearm owners of their weapons, thereby denying them the right to defend their homes and property.
Confiscating firearms on the street during a national or local emergency is a logical tool to control street violence. But invading homes and confiscating legally-held firearms in a criminal activity carried out by tax-paid thugs.
Legally-owned firearms were seized from non-criminal citizens while in their own homes under the George Bush government. Does this sound like the actions of an administration sworn to uphold the Constitution?
It seems constitutional rights are not rights when President Bush says they are not. A constitutionally guaranteed right is inviolable, even in times of crisis. If it is taken away, it is no longer a right.
Labels: bush suspension of civil rights, new orleans gun grab, new orleans katrina denial of constitutional right
posted by rangeragainstwar at 6:30 AM
10 Comments:
frankly, nobody knows how they will react to disaster. nobody even knows how they will react from disaster to disaster. each time is different. it's the old sophocles point of never being able to step into the same river.
personally, the folks who concentrated on property defense rather than helping those in desperate need disgust me. to be in a search for a small measure of comfort or sustenence and find, instead, drawn weapons and/or blackwater mercs drawing their fucking lines is the most sub-human behavior i can imagine.
as much as i respect the rights to self defense, the folks who so eagerly sieze an opportunity to do that worry the shit out me.
but, then again, i am reminded often that i have, for a long time, been a documented attitude case.
anon,
True dat, but only if you follow the Vince Lombardi school.
It's not cricket, and the wise player knows he will not always be the strongest, and knows it benefits him, too, to follow the rules of the game.
MB,
The N.O. tragedy showed us just how civilized and compassionate we really are, and to whom.
Re. your statement, "It's the old sophocles point of never being able to step into the same river" --
rare is the time I will ever be able to amend your recall of history, but I believe it was the pre-Socratic Heraclitus who reminded us of that truth. Minor point.
it might have been heraclitus that sophocles used for creon's words in the antigone.
the era would have been spot on for the heraclitus to be in common use.
p.s. i cheered the koreans who defended their stores in the king riots as loudly as i condemn the assholes who were blockading bridges and protecting "goods" that might have kept folks alive and eased suffering in new orleans.
Mb, i roger your transmission .
My point is that rights are mighty loosely interpreted these days.
Your points are well taken. jim
MB,
Antigone -- what timeless writing. Thanks for bringing it to mind.
during the run-up to iraq i wrote a piece that was called "why the bush administration should be forced to watch the antigone on a daily basis.
the questions raised in that work are timeless. what is the duty of the individual to god, to the state, to family, to conscience? what is an individual to do when those duties and interests conflict?
like many of the greek dramas, it does not answer those questions clearly. no bright lines are drawn. the inference is that there are no bright lines. no clear solutions.
it also shows that failure to ask all of the questions may lead otherwise good people to acts that are unspeakable.
creon's rigidity and devotion to the state destroys his family and ultimately himself. antigone's blind devotion to her brother has very little to do with duty, she is striking out at her uncle, and her city.
reverence for the gods is not used as something to enrich the soul and human life, it is used as a tool and weapon.
that it ends so badly for all is no surprise.
the set and setting of the story were classified as "history" to the athenian audience. thing was, they were struggling with all of those exact same questions and issues at the time of its performance.
strange, how one of the bitterest, longest and most devastating wars in man's history gave rise to some of its most sublime artistic expressions.
so far, the best we seem to manage is dancing with the stars.
MB,
The juxtaposition of Antigone with dancing with the Stars is chilling.
This is an interesting observation: "strange, how one of the bitterest, longest and most devastating wars in man's history gave rise to some of its most sublime artistic expressions."
Perhaps if one approaches one's dilemma with some gravitas, a nobility of mind has the opportunity to emerge from the struggle.
But in arrogance and denial, diversion-seeking entertainment rules. Maybe that is what we are witnessing.
MB,
Re. Dancing with Stars, it's sort of like our Generalship who are dancing with wolves, right?
Post a Comment
<< Home