New Orleans mayor orders evaculation

[irishcowboy]

did anyone have receipts for the guns they had that were taken?

who did those guns honestly belong to?

and when a police officer stops you and is trying to assist you and all of a sudden you have a gun, not a good thing.

the area was under marshal law, emergency conditions applied, and if you were a cop, not knowing who belongs to what house, and you see people exiting with guns, what would you do?

we do know that there was a lot of looting going on. conspiracy? I think not.

the main objective of the authorities was to get the people out safely, and there were people that were resisting the evacuation order and they are the ones that complained the loudest about not getting help soon enough, THEY HAD HELP IF THEY HAD JUST HELPED THEMSELVES. had they evacuated during the first part of the notice, they would have had time to get stuff that they needed.

it was their choice to depart in a timely manner or to resist the evac order. they had warnings, but it was the governments fault that so many people lost their lives.... WHO MADE THEM STAY?????? they stayed of their own free will and accord, they were told to get out......

as today, i noticed people around a house down the street, the people i did not know, so I checked it out to ensure that they belonged, then i saw the owner of the property, not a problem..... had there been no one there that belonged with the property, they would have had a visit from the authorities with out me letting them know they were being checked out....... and if they had been checked out by the authorities, and they proved to be OK, then nothing more is to be done, but, if they had loot that showed up as being stolen (in their possession who knows, it might have even been something you had stolen...... as it was, it was the tenants moving out and the Owner/landlord was there while some of the tenants friends were loading up the horse trailer with the stuff in the house......

anyways, what are the cops suppose to do? allow every tom dick and harry to be carrying out firearms that they have no proof of that are theirs? during an evac period, during a marshal law period?????

oh yeah, dont every one know that if you do not do what the police tell you to do, that you will be doing what they said to do, either freely or by force.... when a cop says move, you move, when they say stop you stop, if they say up against the wall, you get up against the wall, if they say lay down, it is best that you lay down......FAST.....

if you are then mistreated, then you take it before the judge and go after the cop that way, where you have a fair stand. if you decide to take the law in to your own hands, (thinking you have rights about treatment) then you will loose, do your rebuking in court, with an attorney...... not on the rag TV.....

if the authorities want your weapons, relinquish them and get written receipts for them with serial numbers, they are obligated to do at least that much, and then at the end of the ordeal, you can have a way to get them back, or at least have a way to be reimbursed for them.....fighting the cops, mouthing off at the cops is not the answer..... not in the slightest.....

The Bible even tells us that.....

mike

Mike on first reading your post, I thought "he can't be serious, there has got to be a note of sarcasm here somewhere. No one could be this obsequious, have the attitude that police are some sort of 'god-like' creatures that you daren't cross because they are so much better than you". I find it incredible that anyone would advocate this "we are just all naughty little, mentally impaired children, and we have to be tightly controlled all the time" attitude.

But no, no hint that you really don't believe that garbage you are spouting, and when I came to the end and it said "the Bible even tells us that", I just about screamed. The only word I can honestly apply to that weird idea is "OBSCENE"! I really don't know how you could have been convinced that the Bible said "you must always do what the police demand of you, never think anything bad of them, and freely give up your property if they want it".

Did you actually go to the links and watch the videos? I rather doubt that because if you had you would have realised that THE POLICE DID NOT GIVE RECEIPTS. There is a part at the end of the first video that has a guy on a boat looking for a safe landing place to bring in his boatload of supplies to the city when he was intercepted by five policemen on another boat who demanded that he give them all the weapons on board, he asked for a receipt, but the answer was A FLAT REFUSAL!

Other news items have talked about cases whereby LOCKED houses on dry land were broken into by police, occupied or otherwise, and the firearms looted by police. You are obviously in support of this, so what do you think gives police the right to break into houses and take weapons out of gun cabinets and steal or destroy them?

In this particular video did you see the part where guns were taken by force from people in a motor vehicle - trying to flee the area with their family and possessions - and then deliberately wrecked by being "smashed on the kerb"?

How can you doubt that any of this took place? It even made our local news at the time, when our local news sources normally go out of their way not to air anything "a bit controversial".

Tell me, what would you do if police burst into your home and demanded your firearms (and you knew that if you didn't give them up the police would tear your home apart until they found them)? Would you meekly ask for a receipt and expect to get one?

Sure the area WAS under martial law, but that does not give police the right to steal from the population.

I just "loved" the bit in the second video where the policewoman going round Walmart with a trolley, looting, accused the interviewer of being there to loot.

These police might have been "under orders" to evaculate everybody and take all firearms. But as we learned during the 1946 Nuremberg trials, "I was just following orders" IS NO EXCUSE FOR DOING EVIL!

Martial law still means that people are supposed to use "COMMON SENSE". They have to if they are to survive. It seems these stupid police were ordering people to leave properties that were undamaged and were not in any immediate danger. A waste of time considering that they could have been helping people who were in genuine need.

However, the paragraph: "it was their choice to depart in a timely manner or to resist the evac order. they had warnings, but it was the governments fault that so many people lost their lives.... WHO MADE THEM STAY?????? they stayed of their own free will and accord, they were told to get out......" Is the most incredible of all, talk about victim blaming. You really should be writing that as a letter to the editor of any NO newspaper.

Have you not heard about the lawsuits that the NRA had to have against the police to have the stolen arms returned to their rightful owners? And the fact that a great many of the firearms were broken or destroyed completely, had their storage cases smashed or where an expensive firearm was replaced by one of inferior quality?

Just go to "google" and you will have the information in about 4 seconds.

The Bible tells us WE ARE TO SUBMIT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT, UNLESS IT GOES AGAINST THE WORD OF GOD.

Did the people have receipts for the weapons they were carrying?

when you are told to do something by police, and all of a sudden a GUN shows up, the first thing that should happen is their guns be drawn... not a good idea when you have a gun to NOT LET THEM KNOW....protocall, during emergency and non-emergency situations..... DO NOT FLASH A GUN AT POLICE.....(accidental or other)

as with Katrina, there are people with Gustov that DID NOT DEPART.... there were people that decided to stay during Gustov just as there were during Katrina....WHY????? no different then the man that decided to stay in his house when Mt St. Helens blew..... nope, he aint with us no more either..... People ignore the warnings for all types of dangerous situations, even the warning signs posted on glaciers and scenic overlooks, and in zoo's, crossing the bars to get closer to the tigers and polar bears. The People that did not leave are taking their lives in their own hands.... no different then around here when we have flash flooding, the authorities post 'ROAD CLOSED' signs and yet, every time we have flooding, there are emergency service people going out having to rescue some one that decided to go past the signs and place themselves in danger, they end up placing others in danger (they should be charged with careless endangerment of others)

I have seen the videos before, I watched them again, I still say the same.

your name kind of tells it like I thought it did the first time I saw it...... Bucking The System is bucking authority, rebelling against authority.

If the firearms were left behind, they would be of little use with out extensive work, some states have different laws about firearms. I personally do not have a thing against them, I have owned several different types of guns. I also maintained receipts for all of them relatively close at hand...

what a lot of the videos that are shown on TV do not show is the entire story..... WHAT CAUSED THE POLICE TO COME TO A PARTICULAR VEHICLE AND DO A SEARCH?????? there were to many vehicles to stop and search them, something else happened to cause the authorities to take them.

as like the Rodney King thing, Rodney had been pursuing illegal activities prior to the video being shot, and he had a list as long as your arm he done that day prior to the video and then he would not abide by the police instructions, all that is seen is what the media or other people want you to see....

again, during Marshal law, things change, the laws change for that time frame.....

if an officer of the law is violating the law, then that officer needs to be the one that is held responsible, not the entire police force..... just like any organization, there are good and evil in all... even in our own house holds, is everyone treated the same when one person errors? should 500 people suffer the penalties of one mans actions?

NRA is to an extreme on one side and GUN control is the extreme to the other.... both sides using what ever they can to try and further their own cause......

mike

[buckthesystem]

The Bible tells us WE ARE TO SUBMIT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT, UNLESS IT GOES AGAINST THE WORD OF GOD.

Did the people have receipts for the weapons they were carrying?

when you are told to do something by police, and all of a sudden a GUN shows up, the first thing that should happen is their guns be drawn... not a good idea when you have a gun to NOT LET THEM KNOW....protocall, during emergency and non-emergency situations..... DO NOT FLASH A GUN AT POLICE.....(accidental or other)

as with Katrina, there are people with Gustov that DID NOT DEPART.... there were people that decided to stay during Gustov just as there were during Katrina....WHY????? no different then the man that decided to stay in his house when Mt St. Helens blew..... nope, he aint with us no more either..... People ignore the warnings for all types of dangerous situations, even the warning signs posted on glaciers and scenic overlooks, and in zoo's, crossing the bars to get closer to the tigers and polar bears. The People that did not leave are taking their lives in their own hands.... no different then around here when we have flash flooding, the authorities post 'ROAD CLOSED' signs and yet, every time we have flooding, there are emergency service people going out having to rescue some one that decided to go past the signs and place themselves in danger, they end up placing others in danger (they should be charged with careless endangerment of others)

I have seen the videos before, I watched them again, I still say the same.

your name kind of tells it like I thought it did the first time I saw it...... Bucking The System is bucking authority, rebelling against authority.

If the firearms were left behind, they would be of little use with out extensive work, some states have different laws about firearms. I personally do not have a thing against them, I have owned several different types of guns. I also maintained receipts for all of them relatively close at hand...

what a lot of the videos that are shown on TV do not show is the entire story..... WHAT CAUSED THE POLICE TO COME TO A PARTICULAR VEHICLE AND DO A SEARCH?????? there were to many vehicles to stop and search them, something else happened to cause the authorities to take them.

as like the Rodney King thing, Rodney had been pursuing illegal activities prior to the video being shot, and he had a list as long as your arm he done that day prior to the video and then he would not abide by the police instructions, all that is seen is what the media or other people want you to see....

again, during Marshal law, things change, the laws change for that time frame.....

if an officer of the law is violating the law, then that officer needs to be the one that is held responsible, not the entire police force..... just like any organization, there are good and evil in all... even in our own house holds, is everyone treated the same when one person errors? should 500 people suffer the penalties of one mans actions?

NRA is to an extreme on one side and GUN control is the extreme to the other.... both sides using what ever they can to try and further their own cause......

mike

"The Bible tells us WE ARE TO SUBMIT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT, UNLESS IT GOES AGAINST THE WORD OF GOD". That statement is not only incorrect, it is - in my view - dangerous, evil and blasphemous.

I can only assume that you are referring to Romans 13. Well NOWHERE here does it talk about "government" and it is obviously not referring to government. God is not stupid, he knows the heart and nature of man, and knows that man is incapable of agreeing on what is evil and "goes against the word of God" and what does not "go against the word of God", so there is no way that he would have left something so important to be decided by man.

You must realise that just about every totalitarian regime throughout history has tried to twist Romans 13 to convince its people that they "should obey government unless it goes against the word of God" (and of course the people are told that what their government is doing DOES NOT go against the word of God. We cannot even agree on these fora as to what goes against the word of God and what doesn't: Some will claim that the Bible just preaches against "murder" and their definition of "murder" is confused, they see it that God's word is that the State may kill whom ever it considers to be a criminal, on "God's behalf".

Some have even advocated torture in God's name.

Let's see what Chuck Baldwin has to say about this:

"Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection.

Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?"

However, the US government system wasn't around during biblical times, so I reckon the following is relevant to this, Chuck Baldwin again:

"We in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.

This means that in America the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution.

Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any governing document ever devised by man.

The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore, and blatantly disobey, the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution."

Anywayy, to get back to what else you wrote: "Did the people have receipts for the weapons they were carrying?" Do you have the receipt for every single thing you've ever owned, including something that may have been handed down from your grandmother? I suppose some of them did, not that that would have made any difference to the police. I got the impression that they were not taking firearms off people because they suspected them of being stolen, but because they wanted to deprive the people of them.

And:

"when you are told to do something by police, and all of a sudden a GUN shows up, the first thing that should happen is their guns be drawn... not a good idea when you have a gun to NOT LET THEM KNOW....protocall, during emergency and non-emergency situations..... DO NOT FLASH A GUN AT POLICE.....(accidental or other)"

Hindsight is a great thing, I'm sure these people realise NOW that they should have hidden their firearms from police, but at the time maybe they thought they could trust police, guess they found out the hard way that the police were NOT there to help them!

Then: "as with Katrina, there are people with Gustov that DID NOT DEPART.... there were people that decided to stay during Gustov just as there were during Katrina....WHY????? no different then the man that decided to stay in his house when Mt St. Helens blew..... nope, he aint with us no more either..... People ignore the warnings for all types of dangerous situations, even the warning signs posted on glaciers and scenic overlooks, and in zoo's, crossing the bars to get closer to the tigers and polar bears. The People that did not leave are taking their lives in their own hands.... no different then around here when we have flash flooding, the authorities post 'ROAD CLOSED' signs and yet, every time we have flooding, there are emergency service people going out having to rescue some one that decided to go past the signs and place themselves in danger, they end up placing others in danger (they should be charged with careless endangerment of others)" In a great many of these cases the people that elected to stay put did so because their homes were not in imminent danger, often they were on dry land and had enough provisions, and needed the firearms to defend their property - as is their God given right!!!

In a lot of other instances homes that were absolutely secure and locked were broken into by police who ransacked the home and stole the firearms. I read of more than one case where a person was inside, or the neighbours reported, that police kicked in the door or broke windows to gain entry. It seems that the storm missed these properties, but the police got them instead. Surely if people decide to stay put during a storm, not evacuate, and stay with their property to defend it, that is their right!!! And the police have no right to arrogantly go round dragging people from their homes and tell them that it is "for their own protection" and then blame them for it. As for your bit about people "deliberately placing themselves in danger and others having to go out and rescue them, and the person being charged with reckless endangerment" - well a lot of these people did not ask to be "rescued", did not have to be "rescued" and were exercising their basic human right to be "left alone".

You can only be charged with "reckless endangerment" if you actually put someone in danger, not if they put themselves in danger and blame it on you. Its rather like someone going up to a bear in the zoo and getting hurt and blaming the bear for "causing reckless endangerment" because "I had to get close to him to poke a stick at him".

"as like the Rodney King thing, Rodney had been pursuing illegal activities prior to the video being shot, and he had a list as long as your arm he done that day prior to the video and then he would not abide by the police instructions, all that is seen is what the media or other people want you to see...." So are you saying that because Rodney King had done what you said he'd done, he deserved to be beaten up by police? That's a good test for your idea of Romans 13 "...unless what they do goes against God's word".

"again, during Marshal law, things change, the laws change for that time frame....." Martial law does not in any way legalise theft by police!!! Police are not exempt from the laws against theft and assault because of martial law!

"if an officer of the law is violating the law, then that officer needs to be the one that is held responsible, not the entire police force..... just like any organization, there are good and evil in all... even in our own house holds, is everyone treated the same when one person errors? should 500 people suffer the penalties of one mans actions?" Likewise if someone uses their firearm to violate the law, why should 500 people have their own firearms stolen from them, the first person needs to be held responsible - not everybody in the district.

[nebula]

Bucks -

I hope some day you become a community leader some day.

I'd love to see how you handle lawlessness and maintain the peace.

[irishcowboy]

as I said before,

if you have a grievance with an officer, do not take it up with the officer, take it to the courts. abide by the officers instructions and take it to the courts.

No, I was not referring to Romans. try the books of Peter.

How did the police know that certain people had guns on them? do you know the other side of all the stories you have been referring to? or just one side?

the best thing to do anytime a situation arises with a police officer (of any rating) is to abide by their instructions. if you do not agree with them, save it for the court, do not even say anything that might be thought to be provoking what so ever.

Internal Affairs is another route to go, every time there is a call against an officer, they take it for investigation..... if there is much to an allegation, then for some reason, the media sticks to it like glue..... if not, they let go.......

I have been on both sides of the law, and believe me, even if on the wrong side of the law, it is still best to be very polite to the officer(s), even if they are in the wrong....

have you personally interviewed the police? or have you personally interviewed or cross examined the people you are calling victims?

remember, this country was founded by a group of men that set up certain rules..... one is the right to face ones accuser(s).

police officers are being accused of crimes, and have yet to be charged or had their day in court to face those that are accusing them. this would also be YOU!!!!

innocent until PROVEN GUILTY......

mike

[speckles]

You never post anything but claims of government/law enforcement corruption and conspiracies. Living on a steady diet of this stuff can make one all sideways.......

Actually, she posts funny stuff too, like monkeys getting married ...

[buckthesystem]

as I said before,

if you have a grievance with an officer, do not take it up with the officer, take it to the courts. abide by the officers instructions and take it to the courts.

No, I was not referring to Romans. try the books of Peter.

How did the police know that certain people had guns on them? do you know the other side of all the stories you have been referring to? or just one side?

the best thing to do anytime a situation arises with a police officer (of any rating) is to abide by their instructions. if you do not agree with them, save it for the court, do not even say anything that might be thought to be provoking what so ever.

Internal Affairs is another route to go, every time there is a call against an officer, they take it for investigation..... if there is much to an allegation, then for some reason, the media sticks to it like glue..... if not, they let go.......

I have been on both sides of the law, and believe me, even if on the wrong side of the law, it is still best to be very polite to the officer(s), even if they are in the wrong....

have you personally interviewed the police? or have you personally interviewed or cross examined the people you are calling victims?

remember, this country was founded by a group of men that set up certain rules..... one is the right to face ones accuser(s).

police officers are being accused of crimes, and have yet to be charged or had their day in court to face those that are accusing them. this would also be YOU!!!!

innocent until PROVEN GUILTY......

mike

I guess I owe you an apology for assuming that it was Romans 13 you were referrring to. I have had Romans 13 quoted to me on these boards and misinterpreted so many times that when I see it, I just "see red" and read no further. A little while ago I felt I had landed in pre-WWII Germany and I up against so many "brick walls" that I was just about despairing. Sorry, again.

However, you reckon that the books of Peter say that we are to we are to submit to the authority of government, unless it goes against the word of God. That sounds like a bit of creative interpretation. Could you be more specific? And tell me the verse/s?

Anyway, I will try to answer your points one by one, first: "if you have a grievance with an officer, do not take it up with the officer, take it to the courts. abide by the officers instructions and take it to the courts." That sounds like "give in now, sort it out later", that never works well. These days the courts seem to be coming down more and more on the side of the police whether or not they are right to do what they might have done. Also that seems rather dishonest. An analogy might be, say, if I had a grievance with you, I am sure you would rather that I take it up with you and not go running to someone else.

Next point: How did the police know that certain people had guns on the "m? do you know the other side of all the stories you have been referring to? or just one side?" I believe that the police just had orders to take all firearms from everyone in the area, so they went looking for firearms where ever they could find them. And I suppose if there had been "other sides to the stories", these would have been publicised also, or they would have come out in court when the NRA sued for the return of the firearms.

Again: "the best thing to do anytime a situation arises with a police officer (of any rating) is to abide by their instructions. if you do not agree with them, save it for the court, do not even say anything that might be thought to be provoking what so ever". Again, this would not work. It seems that you're either putting the police on a pedestal (we can't disagree with these God-like creatures and when they shout "jump" we must shout back "how high sir" on the way up) or you're putting them in the category of an unthinking automaton that cannot be reasoned with and with the mentality of a wild animal that we must go out of our way not to "provoke".

And: "Internal affairs" Again this would be waiting until the "damage is done" and then going to an agency that may or may not do anything about it.

"................. very polite to the officer(s), even if they are in the wrong...." Well maybe you have a lot more patience that I do, but I am just not that good. I don't think I could be polite to someone who was taking my property or trying to make me do something I didn't want to do if I thought they were in the wrong!

"have you personally interviewed the police? or have you personally interviewed or cross examined the people you are calling victims?" First off, I never used the word "victims"!

Surely if I see a piece of news coming from many, many different sources I can trust it without having to interview those involved myself. Do you go and verify everything you read before you will believe it?

"the right to face their accusers" and "innocent until proven guilty" I absolutely agree with all that, but I am not their accuser. Their accusers are: 1. The policeman on one of the videos who said "we have to take all firearms that we find" (or words to that effect) 2. The newsmedia, journalists, videographers and one heck of a lot of people. 3. The NRA (it was the NRA who took them to court).

I just read and heard about it and pointed it out to you.

[MorningGlory]

The Bible tells us WE ARE TO SUBMIT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT, UNLESS IT GOES AGAINST THE WORD OF GOD.

Did the people have receipts for the weapons they were carrying?

when you are told to do something by police, and all of a sudden a GUN shows up, the first thing that should happen is their guns be drawn... not a good idea when you have a gun to NOT LET THEM KNOW....protocall, during emergency and non-emergency situations..... DO NOT FLASH A GUN AT POLICE.....(accidental or other)

as with Katrina, there are people with Gustov that DID NOT DEPART.... there were people that decided to stay during Gustov just as there were during Katrina....WHY????? no different then the man that decided to stay in his house when Mt St. Helens blew..... nope, he aint with us no more either..... People ignore the warnings for all types of dangerous situations, even the warning signs posted on glaciers and scenic overlooks, and in zoo's, crossing the bars to get closer to the tigers and polar bears. The People that did not leave are taking their lives in their own hands.... no different then around here when we have flash flooding, the authorities post 'ROAD CLOSED' signs and yet, every time we have flooding, there are emergency service people going out having to rescue some one that decided to go past the signs and place themselves in danger, they end up placing others in danger (they should be charged with careless endangerment of others)

I have seen the videos before, I watched them again, I still say the same.

your name kind of tells it like I thought it did the first time I saw it...... Bucking The System is bucking authority, rebelling against authority.

If the firearms were left behind, they would be of little use with out extensive work, some states have different laws about firearms. I personally do not have a thing against them, I have owned several different types of guns. I also maintained receipts for all of them relatively close at hand...

what a lot of the videos that are shown on TV do not show is the entire story..... WHAT CAUSED THE POLICE TO COME TO A PARTICULAR VEHICLE AND DO A SEARCH?????? there were to many vehicles to stop and search them, something else happened to cause the authorities to take them.

as like the Rodney King thing, Rodney had been pursuing illegal activities prior to the video being shot, and he had a list as long as your arm he done that day prior to the video and then he would not abide by the police instructions, all that is seen is what the media or other people want you to see....

again, during Marshal law, things change, the laws change for that time frame.....

if an officer of the law is violating the law, then that officer needs to be the one that is held responsible, not the entire police force..... just like any organization, there are good and evil in all... even in our own house holds, is everyone treated the same when one person errors? should 500 people suffer the penalties of one mans actions?

NRA is to an extreme on one side and GUN control is the extreme to the other.... both sides using what ever they can to try and further their own cause......

mike

"The Bible tells us WE ARE TO SUBMIT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT, UNLESS IT GOES AGAINST THE WORD OF GOD". That statement is not only incorrect, it is - in my view - dangerous, evil and blasphemous.

I can only assume that you are referring to Romans 13. Well NOWHERE here does it talk about "government" and it is obviously not referring to government. God is not stupid, he knows the heart and nature of man, and knows that man is incapable of agreeing on what is evil and "goes against the word of God" and what does not "go against the word of God", so there is no way that he would have left something so important to be decided by man.

You must realise that just about every totalitarian regime throughout history has tried to twist Romans 13 to convince its people that they "should obey government unless it goes against the word of God" (and of course the people are told that what their government is doing DOES NOT go against the word of God. We cannot even agree on these fora as to what goes against the word of God and what doesn't: Some will claim that the Bible just preaches against "murder" and their definition of "murder" is confused, they see it that God's word is that the State may kill whom ever it considers to be a criminal, on "God's behalf".

Some have even advocated torture in God's name.

Let's see what Chuck Baldwin has to say about this:

"Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection.

Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?"

However, the US government system wasn't around during biblical times, so I reckon the following is relevant to this, Chuck Baldwin again:

"We in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.

This means that in America the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution.

Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any governing document ever devised by man.

The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore, and blatantly disobey, the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution."

Anywayy, to get back to what else you wrote: "Did the people have receipts for the weapons they were carrying?" Do you have the receipt for every single thing you've ever owned, including something that may have been handed down from your grandmother? I suppose some of them did, not that that would have made any difference to the police. I got the impression that they were not taking firearms off people because they suspected them of being stolen, but because they wanted to deprive the people of them.

And:

"when you are told to do something by police, and all of a sudden a GUN shows up, the first thing that should happen is their guns be drawn... not a good idea when you have a gun to NOT LET THEM KNOW....protocall, during emergency and non-emergency situations..... DO NOT FLASH A GUN AT POLICE.....(accidental or other)"

Hindsight is a great thing, I'm sure these people realise NOW that they should have hidden their firearms from police, but at the time maybe they thought they could trust police, guess they found out the hard way that the police were NOT there to help them!

Then: "as with Katrina, there are people with Gustov that DID NOT DEPART.... there were people that decided to stay during Gustov just as there were during Katrina....WHY????? no different then the man that decided to stay in his house when Mt St. Helens blew..... nope, he aint with us no more either..... People ignore the warnings for all types of dangerous situations, even the warning signs posted on glaciers and scenic overlooks, and in zoo's, crossing the bars to get closer to the tigers and polar bears. The People that did not leave are taking their lives in their own hands.... no different then around here when we have flash flooding, the authorities post 'ROAD CLOSED' signs and yet, every time we have flooding, there are emergency service people going out having to rescue some one that decided to go past the signs and place themselves in danger, they end up placing others in danger (they should be charged with careless endangerment of others)" In a great many of these cases the people that elected to stay put did so because their homes were not in imminent danger, often they were on dry land and had enough provisions, and needed the firearms to defend their property - as is their God given right!!!

In a lot of other instances homes that were absolutely secure and locked were broken into by police who ransacked the home and stole the firearms. I read of more than one case where a person was inside, or the neighbours reported, that police kicked in the door or broke windows to gain entry. It seems that the storm missed these properties, but the police got them instead. Surely if people decide to stay put during a storm, not evacuate, and stay with their property to defend it, that is their right!!! And the police have no right to arrogantly go round dragging people from their homes and tell them that it is "for their own protection" and then blame them for it. As for your bit about people "deliberately placing themselves in danger and others having to go out and rescue them, and the person being charged with reckless endangerment" - well a lot of these people did not ask to be "rescued", did not have to be "rescued" and were exercising their basic human right to be "left alone".

You can only be charged with "reckless endangerment" if you actually put someone in danger, not if they put themselves in danger and blame it on you. Its rather like someone going up to a bear in the zoo and getting hurt and blaming the bear for "causing reckless endangerment" because "I had to get close to him to poke a stick at him".

"as like the Rodney King thing, Rodney had been pursuing illegal activities prior to the video being shot, and he had a list as long as your arm he done that day prior to the video and then he would not abide by the police instructions, all that is seen is what the media or other people want you to see...." So are you saying that because Rodney King had done what you said he'd done, he deserved to be beaten up by police? That's a good test for your idea of Romans 13 "...unless what they do goes against God's word".

"again, during Marshal law, things change, the laws change for that time frame....." Martial law does not in any way legalise theft by police!!! Police are not exempt from the laws against theft and assault because of martial law!

"if an officer of the law is violating the law, then that officer needs to be the one that is held responsible, not the entire police force..... just like any organization, there are good and evil in all... even in our own house holds, is everyone treated the same when one person errors? should 500 people suffer the penalties of one mans actions?" Likewise if someone uses their firearm to violate the law, why should 500 people have their own firearms stolen from them, the first person needs to be held responsible - not everybody in the district.

Bts, you don't know American federal, city and state laws at all. How are you qualified to speak on these things? There was no martial law declared in New Orleans so that point is moot. Police are never exempt from the law here, that's true, but I've not heard of all these police thefts. What is the source?

[buckthesystem]

Bts, you don't know American federal, city and state laws at all. How are you qualified to speak on these things? There was no martial law declared in New Orleans so that point is moot. Police are never exempt from the law here, that's true, but I've not heard of all these police thefts. What is the source?

I don't need to know American federal city and state laws to know what is evil and what is not! I do not specifically know what exact laws relate to American city and state, but I know that they do not legitimise gun confiscation or theft by police. Therefore I can speak on these things.

OK, I was pretty sure that there was no martial law declared in New Orleans at the time, but I was not 100% certain, that is why I didn't comment on it.

I can't believe that you didn't hear any publicity about these gun thefts and looting by police. It was all over the news - even in NZ (which is incredible, as here the any foreign news usually consists of a cursory few lines saying nothing at all of any significance). There most definitely was more than one source, here are some examples, just some:

***All links removed. Too many to review for appropriate content***

Edited September 19, 2008 by WayneB

[nebula]

Did those reports include the mention of civilians engaged in shooting at the National Guard on top of the mass looting?

How would you handle civilians firing on the people there to help rescue everyone and keep order?

[Guest man]

Buck,

Don't you have anything better to do?