what this video does not mention is the huge contingent of blackwater mercenaries that were sent to new orleans during katrina.
*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by enoch.

NRA people are so freaking nuts. New Orleans after the storm was a disaster zone not normal America. Was it wrong to take the guns? Perhaps, but after the storm passed and life started to get back to normal, did they continue to take your guns? Of course not.

I refuse to suffer idiots anymore on these threads concerning the ass-raping of rights in the U.S. over firearms or the unwillingness or incapacity to learn form history. Some things never change, douchebags with guns wear uniforms, not nightgowns. Fuck me, surrounded by idiots on all sides, what the fuck to do?

*edit-I'ts really not that bad, there are more sane than unreasonably askew here on the Vidoesift. Guns r good, m'kaaaayy kids, you just need to understand what they represent.

This happened during Bush. So all these republicans can go suck on some nuts.

What does history teach us about guns?

And you never answered my question yesterday. Do negative externalities matter? Does the good outweigh the bad? If so, then how?

Fools like you are the problem

That's exactly when you need your gun the most.

Yup. Damned right BobKnight. Good guys with guns will always use them justly. Unless an emergency occurs and then it's every man for himself. Good thing I got my gun! I know I'll be drinking clean water.

I don't care if you're pro or anti gun regulation. I don't care if you have hundreds of guns

I welcome ANY honest discussion over the roles of firearms in America, Which is precisely why you cannot invite the NRA to the discussion. They're obviously biased. They are a lobby organization. They profit when guns profit. You can't be objective when your livelihood is determined by gun sales.

It's another case where effective government is hampered by private money.

In any case, the problem with what happened during Katrina depicted in this video has nothing to do with gun confiscation, it has everything to do with shitty cops making bad decisions. The video conflates these idiot cops beating up grandma with gun confiscation. two completely separate issues.

I am pro gun regulation, but yeah unless someone can explain to me a really good reason WHY they were confiscated (which I'm obviously not going to get from THIS biased video), I would be against gun confiscation in this situation as well.

The problem isn't gun regulation, the problem is appropriate enforcement of said regulation. This was a failure of New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass for giving that order to confiscate weapons. This was a failure of enforcement, not of regulation.

Are we going to hear about that from this video? nah, it goes against the NRA's profit motive. The only message of this video is play off your fears, not to inform.

It's really funny that part of the title of this video is "The Untold Story" because it seems they're not telling the rest of the story.

yeah, that kept nagging at me too as I'm watching that. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment was to help deter against unlawful search and seizures.

So why DIDN'T they use their guns to stop the police from taking their guns hrm?

Sticking to a document thats hundreds of years old, and refusing to budge on it.........sounds a lot like religion.

Amen!... um... I mean agreed.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd amendment says nothing about the right of the individual to bear arms. It mentions gun ownership in the context of a well regulated militia, which was the precursor to the American military. The current prevailing anti-government definition of the 2nd amendment is a fiction that has more to do with the revisionist history of 1980s conservative think tanks than it does with the intention of the founders.

source: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

additional reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

So then who exactly would you say fit the definition of "militia" as set by the founders during that time?
Could it be... The individuals bearing arms?
The shop-keeps, the farm-hands, the husbands, the fathers... the individuals who came together to form said militias?

Boom

A deep constitutional scholar such as yourself probably already knows this:

"For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”"

source: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

I can't wait till laser blasters are invented....'cause everyone is going to want a blaster.

Recent history teaches in the U.S., Russia, China, central Europe, that peeps without guns get slowly (or quickly) fucked by the people they think they elected or believe to be sovereign or otherwise appointed by God. All of these man-created entities, societies, governments, all mutate, collapse, etc.-What is the ultimate end of everyone being armed? Who cares. There will never be a time when this is true.

Look, it's real simple for me. Wealth and power and the abuse of both have brought humanity to the brink before-The fucks who have bankrupted the United States would that nobody looked their way for payback, would that their children (fuck everyone elses) will inherit their influence and power and wealth, and that this machine will continue until power is consolidated into the hands of a few-This shit hasn't changed for thousands of years-Walls protect from invasion, sharp sticks puncture eyeballs of the guy with a rock in his hand.
The negative externalities of there being a shitload of guns in a country?? What, these children being shot by a whack job? Again, address the cause of the cancer don't simply bombard the body with radiation.
You will never be able to guess when someone will snap in our society but there are definite warning signs to clue the somewhat lucid in, and NONE of that shit has to do with why Johnny should or shouldn't be able to have a weapon. Anything may be used as a weapon, including automobiles, but you don't see everyone up in arms to ban cars whenever a CRAZY FUCK, careens through a crowd of peeps on Rodeo Drive.

Historically, the worst atrocities with firearms are perpetrated by governments gone bad, now mine is inching again towards taking mine away??
Again sir, fuck that shit.

First, I agree that the NRA is totally nuts. Let's get that right out of the way.

During gun rights discussions on Videosift, I often hear "this isn't the wild west anymore", that gun ownership is no longer justified in modern society. Given that, when NO was reduced to something resembling a post-apocalypse movie, with burglars and looters a constant threat, and with authorities overwhelmed, isn't that exactly the time when people ought to have a way to protect themselves?

Confiscating guns at a time like this is no different than suspending habeas corpus for terror suspects or ignoring freedom of speech because people are critical of the government: that's what those rights are there for.

If you want to flesh out this vague and incomplete argument, I'll listen. Not to dash your violent fantasies, but history shows that gun fans are more likely to be the tyrants than to stop them.

Hitler deregulated guns and lowered the age at which one could own a gun. White conservative gun owners didn’t stand up to Hitler, they supported him. Many fought and died in defense of tyranny. It took the allied forces to liberate Germany.

White conservative gun owners did not stand up to tyranny in the pre-civil war American South either. Many fought and died in support of tyranny. Again, it was an outside army that had to come in and liberate the south.

Not a great track record.

When NRA/Tea Party types talk about violently overthrowing the government, that is tyrant talk.

There are over 200 million privately owned guns in America. There is no going back now... so what is the point of the endless right to arms diatribe?

Any change in the legal status of firearms only applies to the people you wouldn't mind having guns.

Guns are big business. The NRA is a lobbying firm. Change in legal status could cut into profits.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'confiscation, fourth amendment, illegal, national gaurd, FEMA, test run' to 'confiscation, fourth amendment, illegal, national guard, FEMA, test run' - edited by calvados

Damn I miss being able to break up quotes and reply to individual points.

I'll mark the points as I go through them.

1: Can you give me a modern example of when people with guns (individuals, not armies) prevented people being fucked over by governments/corporations? Because there's a metric fuckton of guns in the states and the same people who screwed you are still in charge. No, not government, silly, they haven't been in charge since the 70s. I meant Wall Street.

2: Isn't that exactly what this discussion is about? Last time I checked, no-one was talking about banning guns altogether, just putting some reasonable safeguards in place (high capacity magazines, background checks, etc)

3: The "why don't we ban cars" argument? Really? I've heard this rebutted countless times in the last month alone, so I'm kinda skeptical that you don't already know the answer, but here it is anyway. a) cars are not primarily used as weapons b) there are already strict controls on the who can use a car (licencing, driving tests) and how they use it (speed limits, dui, etc)

The Fed and the World Bank can only fuck the world because of the illusory stranglehold they have on the cattle-We believe their paper to be of value and that the system works. Hard to rally behind a rout of criminals in their palaces when food and fuel isn't available just like it's hard for a majority of citizens to mount a physical campaign on Washington for a protest.....logistics.

These measures to add incrementally, additional features, capacities, etc. to existing laws??? To avoid accusations of a totalitarian crackdown, you know the routine and those who would that the United States be gun-free zone have plenty of time and money and the fucking media in their pocket.

Get me started on the privilege of driving? I daily see morons who, if the required tests for a driving license sane, would be riding a fucking unicycle to work. This includes you dumb-asses who stay on your fucking cell the bulk of the time you spend in your vehicle. I live in a city with over 6 million people, 150 square miles in the county, and everyone owns a car. Fucking nightmare of imbeciles on the road DAILY, plenty of whom should not be allowed to carry a loaded, 2-3 ton killing machine.

What was it Al Pacino said in "Heat??"....You get killed walking your doggy!"

Real simple for me: Hire police and create soldiers out of unhinged fucks who have control and power issues and give THEM guns?? Until my saliva can be used to melt steel or some unifying event turns the world into an idyllic wonderland of brotherly love, Guns. Explosives. Pointy fucking sticks. To protect ourselves from defective assholes and should the need ever arise, we'll make our decision then.

The world becomes increasingly more chaotic and non-linear by the hour...embrace it. We live in one of the most incredible times in human history and the planet my children inherit will be unrecognizable very soon and all change is quite a good thing.

This is what I get for trying to have a rational conversation with someone off their meds.

Dementia takes many forms~My concerns, quite rational.

In total, 1000 guns were taken away over 12 days until the order was rescinded. The NRA wants to use this to demonstrate a huge violation of rights which is part of why I say they are nuts.
There were about 455k people in New Orleans at that time so based on estimates of 1 gun per every American (and average distribution of guns across the U.S. which is quite an assumption) that means 454 thousand guns were still there. That's 99.78% still there. But the NRA will promote the pro gun agenda as much as they can and have it reported on FOX all day. Personally, I'm sick of the gun culture in this country. It's disgusting and so many people want it to continue or are OK with it.

This argument really is unnecessary. Guns exist, they will always and forever exist now that the knowledge of them exist. Unless some apocalypse happens and everyone who knows anything about guns die, then gun will be around til the end of man. If guns are completely unavailable to citizens, then there will be people who decide to make their own. They are not going to go away.