Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Sunday, September 17, 2006

The Gun Guys' views on gun confiscations

Their position here is a little tough to follow, so bear with me, and I'll try to see if we can make sense of the senseless, so to speak.

The Gun Guys are very opposed to HR 5013, the “Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act”, because...well, that's where things start getting a little confusing, because they say that such forcible confiscation of legally owned property from people accused of no wrongdoing has never happened, and indeed will never happen. Forget for a moment the numerous accounts (some documented on video tape) of just such police state actions taking place in the aftermath of Katrina, the (belated) admission on the part of the New Orleans police that they had hundreds of confiscated guns, and the fact that Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley publicly stated that

No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons.
Setting all that aside, if we're to believe it never happens, and never will happen, what harm is there in a law against it? Sounds like the perfect law, if you ask me--the one law that will never be broken.

Well, the reason such a law is so objectionable to them (if I'm following their "reasoning" correctly) is that, apparently, police should be able to forcibly confiscate lawfully owned property from law abiding citizens, contrary to any standard of civil liberties that makes any sense--at least that's what it sounds like they're saying here:
Leaving aside the fact that multiple sources have said that just isn’t true (and an academic symposium on Katrina ruled that guns were the problem the aftermath went so badly), who cares? Our courts have already determined that the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee anyone at all the right to own guns. If we were fleeing from a hurricane, the last thing we’d want to worry about is bringing our bulletproof vest along.
Got that? A law against forcible confiscations is bad because they never happen, and never will happen, but they should happen, because "We don't care about no steenking rights!" Or something like that. Make sense?