Will Bush take responsibility for the tyranny in New Orleans?

P

progunner1957

Moderator
From the website of Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership www.jpfo.org comes this thought provoking open letter to President Bush.

Gun owners delivered to Bush the votes he needed to be re-elected in 2004; is the gun confiscation that took place in New Orleans how he repays us??
Why did he not get on the phone to the N.O. mayor, police chief, governor of LA, and the FEMA heads on site in N.O. and give the order that "There will be NO gun confiscation from lawful citizens - the Bill of Rights is STILL in effect." Why did he not get on TV and say the same?

Is this how a "pro-gun" President allows We The Pepole to be treated by the twin petty tyrants of the N.O. mayor and police chief??

As someone who voted for Bush based on his progun stance and the vehemently gun hating stance of his Democratic opponent, I view the gun confiscations of New Orleans as a stab in the back to gun owners everywhere.

Gun owners need to demand answers from "our" government!!


September 15, 2005

WILL YOU TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TYRANNY?

President Bush is expected to deliver a speech tonight to "take responsibility" for some of the government blunders in dealing with Hurricane Katrina and the devastation of New Orleans. What we want to know is, will he even acknowledge the gross violations of the Second Amendment perpetrated in the storm's aftermath?

Will Mr. Bush - whose slim majority in the 2004 election is often attributed to the votes of gun owners - take responsibility for supporting the New Orleans police chief's decree that civilians would not be allowed to possess any weapons?

Will he take responsibility for having federal agents like the US Marshals confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens, such as bar-owner JoAnn Guidos and her friends? http://tinyurl.com/c2awe

Will he take responsibility for the treatment of Patricia Konie, one elderly woman who was wrestled to the ground live on CNN by jackbooted California Highway Patrol officers because she dared to tell them that she had a gun and could take care of herself?

Will he take take responsibility for the helplessness of everyone who couldn't afford to hire professional mercenaries to protect their property? Those mercenaries were allowed to keep their weapons - are we to believe that this administration has taken a play from the liberals' book, and only the wealthy have the right to self-defense?

Will he take responsibility for the forcible disarming - to TSA standards no less - of the thousands of people who were imprisoned in the Superdome? How many of the people brutally assaulted there could have protected themselves had the National Guard not taken away their every potential self-defense tool?

Will he take responsibility for ensuring that the firearms confiscated by the soldiers and police officers are returned to their rightful owners? Or will the guns disappear into the private collections of these enforcers, as frequently happens?

But most importantly, will he take responsibility for the attempts at all levels of his administration to use this tragedy as an experiment in stripping away the civil rights that are the definition of freedom?

Will you take responsibility for that, Mr. Bush? Millions of gun owners will be listening for your answer tonight.
 
I feel quite sure that Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin will "step up to the plate" and relieve the Prez of the responsibilities in question.
 
"Or will the guns disappear into the private collections of these enforcers, as frequently happens?"

Any numbers on how many guns dissappear? How frequent is frequent?

I see that somebody opened the handy jumbo size can of hyperbole :rolleyes:
 
None of them will take responsibility. They were trying a experiment will adverage Americans resist gun confiscation. Seems they won't. Its ok for citizens of Bagdad to have AK's in their homes but a old woman can't have a pistol in America. I notice it was Ca.JBT CHIP that assualted that woman. so I say their start their as those citizens are already restricted beon what a citizen should stand for. I do not trust Bush or our so call Govt. Neither are your friend. Both will take what the want by force of law or with their SS
 
The police 'takedown' of that poor old woman is one of the most degrading scenes I think I have ever seen. Truely sickening....

But they are testing us.....just like with gas prices...just to see if we'll "take it".....and if we will, the REAL tyranny starts soon after....
 
Yep, because every little detail of an operation is controlled by the guy at the top. Which is why so many CEO's get fired everytime a secretary files a sexual harassment suit (that was in no way related to them).
 
But they are testing us.....just like with gas prices...just to see if we'll "take it".....and if we will, the REAL tyranny starts soon after....
Click to expand...

I saw a bumper sticker on another website that says it quite nicely:

Legislation... Registration... Confiscation... REVOLUTION
 
Interesting in NSW a number of years before they pretty much banned semi autos (they are available under limited circumstances) they introduced registration only of semi autos.

It always seems to predate registration.

I wonder when other Aust guns will fall under threat.

People need to take the threat to their liberty very seriously or they will loose rights.
 
Does anyone know the legal status of the confiscations in Lousianna? what reasons are given, has martial law been declared?, does the Louisianna constitution guarantee the right to bear arms as does the federal one.

I think there are going to be some interesting civil damage suits when this is over.
 
"Those cans have been on blowout sale since the hurricane"

Ain't it the truth. The tinfoil has been flying off the shelves as well.

John
 
A nation of sheep

Does anyone know the legal status of the confiscations in Lousianna? what reasons are given, has martial law been declared?
Click to expand...

Martial law has not been declared, as far as I have heard, but the N.O. police are acting like it has been.

Martial law would scare the American Sheeple, but large scale gun confiscations and police acting like SS troops are okay with them. Also, martial law might get the Sheeple thinking and asking questions (I doubt it) which "The Government" doesn't want.

Like the man said: "A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves."
 
"Taking responsibility" means more than just saying: "I understand what was done, it was done while I was president, and done by people appointed by me....." etc.

REAL "taking responsibility" means that Bush should state categorically that HE is the one responsible, HE is the one to blame, HE is the one who will resign or leave office, HE and not any other person is responsible for what happened BECAUSE he was in charge. Good luck hearing that out of his mouth.

Instead, what will happen is that Bush will "say" that he takes all the responsibility but not of the flack, fallout, or blame and will continue to do business as usual. A few people will get transferred to other meaningless cushy jobs, more people will get hired to replace those who failed to do their job and nothing will ever change.
 
Bs

I NEVER in my life thought I would see forced disarming of American citizens who have a legal right to have one. My immediate response was to buy a few more. I should not really be surprised as the gov seems to enjoy taking away our rights. amaverick
 
Quote: "Why did he (Bush) not get on the phone to the N.O. mayor, police chief, governor of LA, and the FEMA heads on site in N.O. and give the order ..."

Did someone flunk Civics/Government 101? When I studied Civics, the President had/has no authority to give orders to a state Governor or city Mayor. They do NOT report to him. They report to their constituents (voters). The President can only "order" certain Federal officials and there are many legal limits on that. Mayors, Governors, and the President are NOT directly linked in the chain of command like intermediate managers in a company are eventually linked directly to the CEO. Apparently many people in N.O. and elsewhere seem to have forgotten this simple fact after Katrina!

Good shooting and be safe.
LB
 
Well, there is definitely a wide spectrum of belief about how things were handled - some think the gubment was way too lenient, and should have been shooting "evil-doers" on sight, while at the other end, some think they were too brutal, and acted like jackbooted thugs.

I think they were too late and too disorganized... no real opinion on use of force.
 
LHB1 Thats what I was thinking. I don't understand why people think it's Bush that caused all the problems. The state messed up and the Government is helping out. I see Bush as hero for all the money being spent to get N.O. back on it's feet.

Now Blanco and Nagin need answer some questions!
 
"REAL "taking responsibility" means that Bush should state categorically that HE is the one responsible, HE is the one to blame, HE is the one who will resign or leave office, HE and not any other person is responsible for what happened BECAUSE he was in charge. Good luck hearing that out of his mouth."

Are you serious? He didn't do it, he wasn't even there. Thinking that he should somehow magically be in control of every detail of everything that happens in this country is pure fantasy. That's an independent city in an independent state and they both have their own freely elected (well, free for LA I suppose) officials and their own court systems.

IOW, I disagree with just about everything you said.

John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Endowment Member
 
Considering only Katrina itself, and not the structural problems that went ignored:

  • The Mayor of New Orleans was at fault for not having his city resources better organized to provide for an evacuation that everyone knew would be needed for the poor/sick/elderly; and for not having his city police better prepared to deal with the lawlessness that does spring up in many such situations.
  • The governor of Louisiana is at fault for feuding with the Feds over control of the National Guard troops and wasting precious time; and for not not wielding the Guard effectively
  • FEMA is at fault for being disorganized and not moving in quickly enough to really do something, and having poor situational awareness and communications within their organization
  • The President is I think actually least at fault here, except for perhaps choosing such a lame person to head FEMA, possibly a case of cronyism

*All* parties were at fault for having lousy coordination, communication, and cooperation between them hopefully they can do better before the next big problem - both in getting compatible and reliable communication technology, and in actually using it to coordinate their planning and activities to prepare with and deal with problems. Not the first time different organizations had trouble working together, but that doesn't excuse it either. The people should scream about this stuff, because that's the only way things *might* improve for the next time.
 
He'll get to it, as soon as he's done fishin'......

bushvaca0sk.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top