But, only the police should have firearms!!

[PavePusher]

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d25-New-Orleans-case-should-send-chilling-message-to-those-who-think-only-cops-should-have-guns

Yeah, I don't think so. I'll keep my guns, thank you very much.

A disarmed populace is at the "mercy" of those in power, and those still armed.

[wtmusic]

1. This person should have fired back at the cop?

I don't get your point.

[X_Digger]

3. The six gunned down by cops?

Rather alive and in jail than dead, no?

[wtmusic]

17. OP is implying that the six should have been armed

how would that have improved the situation?

[cowman]

20. At least

they could have defended themselves when the cops started firing on them. Obviously these were criminals who happened to be cops. At least they would have stood a chance

[wtmusic]

24. "There's no evidence the officers shot out of malice"

"There's no evidence the officers shot out of malice," said Dane Ciolino, a professor at Loyola University New Orleans' College of Law. "It was probably negligence, ratcheted up to a federal offense by the cover-up."

You have no idea WTF happened.

[PavePusher]

30. We know there was a cover-up.

That alone is a really bad indicator.

"If you have nothing to hide, just cooperate...."

[wtmusic]

32. If you say so.

Again, you don't know WTF happened (neither do I).

[NewMoonTherian]

168. Negligent homicide is still a crime. n/t

[X_Digger]

21. Maybe it wouldn't have been like this..

[cowman]

16. How could they fire at

the cops. There guns were illegally confiscated. The person who ordered the confiscation should be prosecuted by the FBI for Civil Rights violations and every person who carried out this illegal order should also be prosecuted for Civil Rights violations
Oh and all the cops who were there that day on the Danzinger Bridge should be tried for murder

[MichaelHarris]

37. It's their

and you don't know the people on the bridge had THEIR guns confiscated. You think you know the "NRA facts" of the gun confiscation. Unfortunately those aren't true. Guns were secured and the rightful owners had them returned. That is the truth.

[PavePusher]

44. Wow.

Hahahahahahaha! :rofl:

"...had them returned."

Whatever....

[MichaelHarris]

47. is this where I was owned?

Every gun was returned to it's rightful owner. Read the full story.

[PavePusher]

56. Where? Link?

Edit: Sorry, missed your post below. Reading now.

[MichaelHarris]

58. Let me ask you a question

since you are so illiterate on this subject. The NRA isn't telling you the truth at all. Here's the question. How many individuals have sued for a specific firearm back? Not the NRA suit or the Second Amendment Foundation suit. I'm talking private individuals. How many have gone to court for these "so-called" grabbed weapons?

I'll give you a hint: The NRA is even having a hard time finding the people who had guns confiscated:

"In preparation for further lawsuits over gun confiscations the NRA and SAF are looking for people who actually had guns confiscated. If you have personally had a gun confiscated in Louisiana since Hurricane Katrina hit, please call [phone]. Be prepared to leave only your name and immediate contact information so we can get back to you. Once again, they are seeking contact information from actual victims of gun confiscation in Louisiana only."

[PavePusher]

68. I must state that I do not know how many individuals have filed suit.

The Courts sadly have neglected to keep me informed.

I can imagine that many people, having had all their personal property destroyed or confiscated, very likely went on their way to make a fresh start and didn't bother to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees to get back property that was shown in newscasts and photos to be essentially detroyed.

I would welcome any evidence you have to the contrary. If you provide it, I give you my word that I will review it.

[MichaelHarris]

69. I do

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. It's not unusual for individuals to allow a group to sue on their behalf.

[MichaelHarris]

73. I'll lower my number

find me five names who were listed in the lawsuit. It's an unfair question since the actual number is lower.

maybe the NRA will help you when they actually find someone who had their gun confiscated:

"In preparation for further lawsuits over gun confiscations the NRA and SAF are looking for people who actually had guns confiscated. If you have personally had a gun confiscated in Louisiana since Hurricane Katrina hit, please call [phone]. Be prepared to leave only your name and immediate contact information so we can get back to you. Once again, they are seeking contact information from actual victims of gun confiscation in Louisiana only."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. They didn't need to sue the NRA did it for them.

[MichaelHarris]

77. Not the question

class action has names on it. Name 5

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. They didn't need to be named.

[MichaelHarris]

82. Ok you're going to

bail on that question. How many guns were taken?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

85. One civil right violation is enough thanks.

[MichaelHarris]

88. more info for the

info challenged. One challenge for a gun return came from a felon. Do you guys actually read anything?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

89. How did the judge rule again?

[PavePusher]

92. I'm really not into guessing games.

I gave them up... well... a long time ago.

Please cite your evidence, I'd be happy to eat my words on this.

[MichaelHarris]

93. you're not really

into the truth either.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

96. I see you didn't want to answer the question about the ruling. Why is that?

[MichaelHarris]

99. the new

debate rules? I have to answer my own questions because you guys don't have the answer? Are you telling me the story, gun confiscation in N.O., is a story you really don't know much about? you mean to tell me you're actually agreeing with the NRA and you really don't know the facts? I have to supply you the facts?

[PavePusher]

106. You made several claims.

You think you know the "NRA facts" of the gun confiscation. Unfortunately those aren't true. Guns were secured and the rightful owners had them returned. That is the truth.

Every gun was returned to it's rightful owner. Read the full story.

I do.

One challenge for a gun return came from a felon.

you're not really into the truth either.




I have asked politely several times for you to share your source and enlighten me. You have thus far ignored those requests. I think we're done here. Good night to you, sir.

[MichaelHarris]

110. actually I asked questions

but spin away

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

112. You have avoided answering questions. Just so everyone is aware.

[MichaelHarris]

114. answering my own questions?

I'm pretty sure I asked, you guys dodged. I would love for you guys to actually read the truth of this "gun grab" story. Did you know the NRA is still having trouble finding owners of the guns?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

115. So how did the judge rule in this case?

[MichaelHarris]

125. hint

the guy was a felon.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

128. So the NRA sued on behalf of a felon? Do you have a link to that?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

129. So this is where you start acting like you were talking about a different case right?

[MichaelHarris]

158. day two

find any names yet? I can do this for months.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

169. I haven't been looking. The court order is good enough for me.

[MichaelHarris]

181. So you can't find

one person supposedly named in that lawsuit, the NRA couldn't find anyone, but 700 weapons were grabbed? Don't you think that if this story had victims the NRA would have them on posters everywhere? What you see is what the simple mind sees, you see what the NRA wants you to see. The intelligent mind sees that guns were secured, the NRA made a case about it and the court ruled in their favor. Find me a victim other than the NRA. You cannot do that, you would rather follow the fear.

Simple truth the ignorant can't see, guns were secured, the NRA found out about it and filed a court case. Smart people called it "secured" the NRA and the idiots called it confiscated. It's a shame that so much ignorance has been shown in the gungion over this. How many regulars are in the gungion? Not one found a name in two days of looking, you and I both know you guys looked. You would love to prove me wrong but you couldn't find one name. What you did was link to old posts attacking my credibility, childish to say the least. You couldn't find a name and you attack an old post of mine, that is so childish I'm not sure I even have words. I can go back and defend my old post all day but the truth of the matter is you can't find ONE VICTIM OF GUN GRABBING IN NEW ORLEANS after Katrina. You have one old woman who confronted police with a weapon. That's not confiscation. If you think it is try waving your gun around in a disaster.

Dave remember this, the Pulaski is for the door, not your head.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

170. I know you can avoid answering direct questions for months. You've established that quite often.

[SteveM]

140. (Mike) Dodge Ball is back. Thought they banned the sport. nt

[MichaelHarris]

157. find any names yet?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

172. So once again how did the judge rule in this case?

[SteveM]

222. I have one already, thanks.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

111. So once again how did the judge rule in this case?

[X_Digger]

117. Give him time Dave..

He has to read the link I provided and then understand it enough to pretend that he had read it before. (The final order in the SAF case.)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

121. Amazingly Mike ran off without answering those questions. It so predictable it's actually funny.

[MichaelHarris]

123. actually no

wrong again. I asked you guys to name the one person who filed a claim and now you want me to answer my own question. You support the NRA's claims so much but you can't name the one case. Odd.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

126. So how did the judge rule in the case?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

154. Yes and you will do it again and again, as you have in thread after thread. Moscow, ID for example.

[MichaelHarris]

186. I'm actually here

waiting for you to answer. You wanted to change the topic but I'll wait for the names.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

210. So you are arguing that over 500 weapons weren't confiscated from individuals?

What group were they confiscated from?

[MichaelHarris]

122. would that be

the court order I posted about 3 hours before you did?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

127. You seem confused, I never posted a court order.

[Callisto32]

138. The numbers don't matter.

ANY confiscation of ANYTHING without due process and a DAMN good reason is wrong.

[PavePusher]

78. Then please inform me.

Although, I surmise by your guessing games that the number may be zero.

Also, again, how many people, trying to put there lives back together after such a disaster, have the time, money and energy to persue an expensive legal battle, perhaps from hundreds or thousands of miles away?

[MichaelHarris]

83. it's not zero

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

86. Then it sounds like the NRA did some good.

[MichaelHarris]

87. Well

"The NRA intends to prove that cops illegally seized some 1,000 guns, but scattered survivors who may have owned the weapons are proving hard to track down. The organization has hired detectives to locate gun owners to testify. "Finding these folks has been a nightmare," said an NRA lawyer."


The seized gun number is lower than 1000 by close to half. Any names yet?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

90. Those sure are a lot of civil right violations.

[beevul]

104. How many does it take before it becomes wrong, mike?

[MichaelHarris]

124. found any of the

names of the individuals who had their guns taken? Tell me, if the NRA had faces to put with the cases don't you think they would be on posters in gun shops across America? I'll wait for your list.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

130. So now you are arguing that nobody had their guns illegally confiscated? Make up your mind.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benEzra]

233. How much does it cost for an individual without any legal training to file a lawsuit?

Less than the worth of a scratched and rusted stolen-under-color-of-law firearm? I doubt it.

[MichaelHarris]

236. why?

did you find one? I'm not sure if it's the density surrounding you but the NRA was paying. They didn't find one either.

[cowman]

57. NRA facts

:rofl: It's not just the NRA, this is a well documented fact by other sources and as far as the owners getting their firearms back, yeah they got them back after months of stonewalling by the police and several court orders and when they did get them back they were in very poor shape. Again You Fail.

[MichaelHarris]

67. Do I?

tell me how many guns were confiscated and name 10 people with pending lawsuits to get their guns back.

I will give you this hint, even the NRA is having trouble finding people who had guns confiscated:

"In preparation for further lawsuits over gun confiscations the NRA and SAF are looking for people who actually had guns confiscated. If you have personally had a gun confiscated in Louisiana since Hurricane Katrina hit, please call [phone]. Be prepared to leave only your name and immediate contact information so we can get back to you. Once again, they are seeking contact information from actual victims of gun confiscation in Louisiana only."

Cowman, you really need to research before you proclaim someone's failure. It only makes your failure so much harder to swallow.

[Callisto32]

139. If they received their weapons back in poor condition, they did not receive them.

That would be like borrowing a car, wrapping it around a pole and then giving the person their keys back.

[MichaelHarris]

187. OK

list the names of the people who received their weapons back from the police in poor condition.

[X_Digger]

60. Those of us who housed evacuees know different

We housed a friend and her kids for two and a half months after they were forced to evacuate, and when they were stopped and searched, no serial numbers were recorded, no names were attached to the handgun that was confiscated. She still doesn't have it back, last I heard. They moved to a 'burb outside Lake Ponchatrain, and she doesn't work in the city proper anymore. She went to the NPD evidence room three different times but they said 'They couldn't find it'.

Why did it take a lawsuit, oh purveyor of fact, to get the NPD to even admit to it?

You do realize that as of 2008, not all of the guns had been returned, and Nagin said that some had been destroyed? The settlement between Nagin and the SAF didn't happen until 2008.

Here, look at some of the court documents yourself

http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=189

Earlier this year, as our attorneys were about to enter a motion for contempt against Riley and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin in federal court, the city finally admitted that it did have hundreds of seized firearms in its possession. That came after months of denial the city had taken guns from anybody.

http://www.saf.org/legal.action/new.orleans.lawsuit/motion.to.compel.for.contempt.pdf

http://www.saf.org/legal.action/new.orleans.lawsuit/consent.order.final.pdf (October 2008)

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, C. Ray Nagin, in his
capacity as the Mayor of the City of New Orleans, Louisiana and Warren Riley, in his
capacity as the duly appointed Superintendent of Police, and officers, agents, servants,
and employees of the City, are hereby enjoined and ordered to cease and desist
confiscating lawfully-possessed firearms from all citizens, including, but not limited to,
members of plaintiffs National Rifle Association of America, Inc. and Second
Amendment Foundation, Inc.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that C. Ray
Nagin, in his capacity as the Mayor of the City of New Orleans, Louisiana and Warren
Riley, in his capacity as the Superintendent of Police of the New Orleans Police
Department, shall attempt to return of any and all firearms which may have been
confiscated during the period August 29, 2005, to December 31, 2005, by Defendants,
their officers, deputies, agents, servants, and employees of all such persons from
members of Plaintiff, National Rifle Association, Inc. or Plaintiff, Second Amendment
Foundation, Inc., who lawfully possessed firearms; and all other persons who lawfully
possessed them, utilizing the following procedures:

http://saf.org/default.asp?p=legalaction#nola-gun-grab

Here, you can even see it on the New Orleans Police Department website:

http://www.cityofno.com/pg-50-138-hurricane-katrina-firearms.aspx

"There is no guarantee that we have your firearm!"

THAT is the truth, indeed.

[cowman]

71. You are just

wasting your time. You will never get people like him to admit that maybe he was wrong. I'm sure he's a decent guy just highly opinionated just like the rest of us are although we usually back up our opinions with fact

[MichaelHarris]

76. did you find

any names yet? I asked for 10 but I'll make it easier since the actual number is smaller. Find the names of 5 people who had their gun confiscated. maybe the NRA will help when they actually find someone"

"In preparation for further lawsuits over gun confiscations the NRA and SAF are looking for people who actually had guns confiscated. If you have personally had a gun confiscated in Louisiana since Hurricane Katrina hit, please call [phone]. Be prepared to leave only your name and immediate contact information so we can get back to you. Once again, they are seeking contact information from actual victims of gun confiscation in Louisiana only."

Do you even know how many were taken? I do.

[X_Digger]

95. It's in the statement of fact, as well as press releases from NOPD- 552

Here's the USA Today article-

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08-nra-katrina_N.htm

"Police department spokesman Bob Young said it has stored 552 guns that were confiscated after Katrina, through Dec. 31, 2005."

[MichaelHarris]

113. Now we're getting somewhere

someone actually did some work. From the article: "NRA lawyer Stephen Halbrook, who estimated that the department should have 1,200 guns"

also this

"Police department spokesman Bob Young said it has stored 552 guns that were confiscated after Katrina, through Dec. 31, 2005. Police have said they only took guns that were stolen or found in abandoned homes."

doing a little math it seems the NRA over estimated by 648 guns. Choose a number, the 1,200 from the NRA, the 552 the police say they have, or the overage, the 648. I really don't care which number you choose. Name 5 people who had their gun confiscated.

Now remember, even the NRA is having trouble finding gun owners:

"In preparation for further lawsuits over gun confiscations the NRA and SAF are looking for people who actually had guns confiscated. If you have personally had a gun confiscated in Louisiana since Hurricane Katrina hit, please call [phone]. Be prepared to leave only your name and immediate contact information so we can get back to you. Once again, they are seeking contact information from actual victims of gun confiscation in Louisiana only."

From the NRA:

"The NRA intends to prove that cops illegally seized some 1,000 guns, but scattered survivors who may have owned the weapons are proving hard to track down. The organization has hired detectives to locate gun owners to testify. "Finding these folks has been a nightmare," said an NRA lawyer."

Now this is the organization who sued on behalf of people they can't even find. Dues paid up? Name three. You find it odd that the NRA can "estimate 1,200 guns" and yet they have trouble actually finding anyone who had a gun confiscated? By all means, get those dues in on time.

[X_Digger]

116. I can name one, because she lived with me for a couple of months..

But you continue to believe the NPD (who denied they had even seized any guns until it was caught by a news crew) if you wish. You know, the same police force who gunned down people trying to cross a bridge into higher ground, then covered it up..

As far as I know, my friend never contacted the NRA, so she obviously wouldn't be involved in any litigation. At the time, she was pissed, but worrying about getting her kids clothed was a more pressing priority. Then it was trying to get school records from NOLA's school district and finding a job.

But hey, what do I know, I was just here talking to one of the people you're dismissing out of hand.

[MichaelHarris]

120. name her

did she get her gun back?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

132. She's one of several hundred according to you, why should he name her?

[MichaelHarris]

137. Let's see

4, 5 hours into this and not one of you have found the name of a person who had a gun confiscated in New Orleans. With the entire internet at your fingertips not one name. That's so very odd.

[beevul]

149. Patricia Konie. She had a gun confiscated.

[MichaelHarris]

156. that would be the lady

who refused to lower her weapon and/or turn it over to law enforcement when they were trying to secure a scene right? Tell you what sport, go downtown, wave a gun around, when the police tell you to lower your weapon and you refuse tell me what happens.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

166. Was she arrested?

[beevul]

171. Disingenuous, mikey.

"the lady who refused to lower her weapon and/or turn it over to law enforcement when they were trying to secure a scene right?"


1st, mike, she did not refuse to lower her weapon, since she never raised it in the first place.

2nd, refused to turn it overt to law enforcement in HER OWN HOME. I suppose thats just fine and dandy, to someone who approves of such things.


"Tell you what sport, go downtown, wave a gun around, when the police tell you to lower your weapon and you refuse tell me what happens."


Uh, waving a gun around downtown, is the same thing as holding a handgun in the palm of ones hand nonthreateningly in ones own home? Ok, then, I'll make sure to remember that THAT is your position.


Furthermore, when someone IS waving a weapon around, the police shoot the person waving it. They do not tackle the person doing it, as they did in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Qx0cTze0M


But fear not mikey, your in good company - o'lielly supported their actions too. Swell company your keeping there. Me, personally, I wouldn't want to be licking his boots, but each to his/her own...


And whats this - "in this wealthy neighborhood where homeowners had armed themselves to protect their mansions. Residents were handcuffed on the ground, in the end police took thier weapons but lket them stay in their homes". (starts at 1:15 of the video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFPNTUQyeec&feature=related

I guess they were interested in CONFISCATING guns, not in "trying to secure a scene"... There it is on video, but I guess it didn't happen, right?

Perhaps they don't count because they're wealthy?

Everyone knows the wealthy have less rights than the rest of us, right mikey? :sarcasm:


Do you ever get tired of getting pwned in the face?

[MichaelHarris]

211. Do you have the name of a person

whose gun was confiscated? All you have is a lady who refused disarm herself when the police asked. if you house is on fire and the police show up and ask you to disarm yourself will you? What would be the responsible thing to do? Do police officer often question armed people during a crisis?

You ONE example is stupid, police confront armed people and want to control the situation to protect themselves and those around them. If you fail to see that your an idiot.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

214. So now you are saying Ms. Konie's house was on fire? What charges was she arrested on?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

215. So you've been given a name and now that's not enough. Shocker.

[MichaelHarris]

217. Give up Dave

none of you can name one person. Everyone can see that. Almost 3 days in and all you have is a woman who failed to disarm herself when police were trying to secure an area. Police anywhere in America would do the same thing, it's probably policy. It's called securing a scene. they didn't know that woman or what she was capable of. You guys know that. you be actually be surprised if law enforcement didn't disarm people at a traumatic scene. Using this woman is just silly. I'll only ask one more time, name ONE person who had a gun removed from their house, one confiscated gun owner, name them. That's the last time I ask. You fail, you won't be able to. None of you have been able to. You know that, you would have to be one of the most ignorant human beings on the face of the earth not to see that no one here can name ONE person.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

219. On 10/8/08 there were 552 confiscated weapons still in NOPD custody, that's according to the NOPD.

Those guns were confiscated from individuals.

[AtheistCrusader]

225. They disarmed her so they could force her to abandon her own home.

Which was not on fire, or any such issue.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

152. But you already admitted that over 500 guns were illegally confiscated.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

153. We establish very early on that guns were illegally confiscated, the names don't matter.

[X_Digger]

147. No she hasn't..

Let me ask her if it's okay to mention her name. She moved back to Louisiana last summer, but we still keep in touch via facebook.

As I mentioned in another subthread, last I'd heard she'd been to the evidence room three times, they say they can't find her gun. (Her dad gave it to her- he was a parish constable in Lagrange.)

[Tejas]

238. Quit wasting your time with a troll.

Names matter not to resident trolls that don't have an argument (imagine that) and simply keep asking why the sky is blue. Suffice it to say that if you could link to a certified video of her and the chief that proved all, then the troll would switch to denying there was even a hurricane to begin with.

"Proving" something to a troll, nah, better things to do.

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abq_Sarah]

237. I do know this

First the city lied and claimed they didn't seize any firearms. Unfortunately for them, ABC news and other networks had footage of the police chief declaring that no private citizens would be allowed to have firearms. They also had footage of the police and national guard seizing firearms. It took THREE years and a prolonged court battle after Nagin refused an earlier court order to return all firearms to their rightful owners. And guess what? That still hasn't happened. The police didn't tag all the firearms with the owners names and the addresses from which they were taken. Many of those firearms disappeared into thin air. That is the truth.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

2. But why do I need a loaded weapon in a national park?

Something going on there that I should be afraid of?

[X_Digger]

4. 11 murders, 35 rapes, 16 kidnappings, 261 aggravated assaults (2006)

But hey, we don't have a Department of Need to justify which rights we actually get to use.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

5. What parks? Is that for one year ? (2006) or to date?

[PavePusher]

6. Why should it matter?

Can you tell me when the next murder or assault will happen, so that everyone can avoid it?

Or are you going to volunteer to provide security for visitors?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

7. If someone gives me facts it should matter.

Do you really walk around being afraid all the time? Do you really expect me to answer your question?

[PavePusher]

9. I can't find the N.P. web page for it, but here's a source to start with.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/28/GR2008022800363.html

No, I am not afraid, I am reasonably prepared in case of a very bad situation occuring out of raech of timely help. It matters.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

10. Look, I'm not anti guns, I just don't trust my fellow untrained citizens

to be very level headed.

[Katya Mullethov]

12. You dont think they will do something crazy do ya ?

Choose wisely grasshopper .

[PavePusher]

13. Then I guess we better cancel the rest of their rights as well.

Look, the trust issue has been discussed here many times. You trust complete strangers, and non-strangers, with the power of life and death over you every day. From other drivers on the road (most of whom are woefully untrained) to those so-called "trained" and "trustworthy" agents of government, to doctors, food service personnel, etc. The list is endless. Citizens who legally own firearms are a pretty trustworthy bunch, at least with those guns. The vast majority of gun-crime is commited by repeat-offender criminals, not your First-Time Charlies. There are an estimated 250-300 million firearms owned by approx. 80 million private Citizens in the U.S., and 12-13,000 firearm homicides every year (some actually legal deaths due to self-defense or police actions). Do the math.

Trust is the cornorstone of a Democracy or Republic (we have the latter). If you are going to mistrust the vast majority who are doing nothing wrong, I suggest you need to rethink your position.


P.S. My apologies for sounding testy, but we seem to rehash the same stuff over and over here. It sometimes gets a bit... tedious. Thanks for bearing with me.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. Fortunately they are trained in most states.

[SteveM]

142. Aren't you using "don't trust" as a cleaned-up substitute for "fear?"

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

11. Thanks for the info, looks like we should ban matches also.

[SteveM]

141. Concerning your fears...

Many times, gun-controllers in these threads use the term "fear" as a pejorative. Yet they seem little acquainted with what fear means. When you buy house insurance, are you in fear? When you buy car insurance, are you in fear? Perhaps, but if you are in fear, there is no cause for concern: people who do constructive things in response to fear are those who know how to cope with fear. Further, the outward indicators of fear (lack of sleep, loss of appetite, isolation, etc.) do not inflict most gun-owners I know; certainly not myself, and I own a number of firearms.

When a term like "fear" is used in the pejorative, it usually goes more directly to the person wielding the "terminology weapon." So, Crabs, what do you fear?

[X_Digger]

8. That was in national parks, in 2006 alone. (source: National Park Service) n/t

[wtmusic]

18. Link?

thanks.

[spin]

22. You asked for it you got it, Toyota!

SOURCE: National Park Service | By Tobey - The Washington Post - February 28, 2008

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/28/GR2008022800363.html

[wtmusic]

25. Thanks. nt

[MichaelHarris]

39. Holy crap!

272 million visitors and 11 homicides, I didn't know it was so bad.

[SteveM]

143. So, you just slough off rape? Kidnapping? Robbery? Nice priorities. nt

[X_Digger]

26. Here's one thread with many links

http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/concealed-carry-issues-discussions/39871-safety-national-parks-conceal-carry.html

One of the members there made an FOIA request for the stats, he links them in the post. If you don't want to register there, let me know and I can copy the files to a website for you to check out.

(Many links there, but not many .gov ones. The NPS / DOI sites are rather byzantine, my original bookmark for the stats is out of date.)

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

40. You have been previously pwned.

Did you even read the posts?

And you called someone a liar after they had already given an honest answer.

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

[MichaelHarris]

45. did you

find the list of blackpowder crimes yet? You guys wanted to compare assault rifle crimes to blackpowder for the last 20 years, hows your list coming?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. Did you find a new place to buy your pyrodex yet?

[MichaelHarris]

53. got

6 pounds, don't need any.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. Do you really need that much pyrodex?

[MichaelHarris]

64. nope

bought that much because the hazmat fees were the same for 1 pound. Do you really know much about guns, ammo, and shipping? I always thought you were smarter.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. It was a joke, You know the old need canard. Any good pictures lately?

[beevul]

105. Did you give up your guns yet mike - y'know, to set an example for us all?

[MichaelHarris]

159. find any names yet?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

176. So once again how did the judge rule in this case?

[MichaelHarris]

178. got me

any names?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

179. Got me.....the judges ruling?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

180. Despite your beliefs you will never convince me it's okay to violate someone's civil rights.

[SteveM]

144. That waterpump was aluminum! Now, a dust storm as Wichita...

Falls, so falls Wichita Falls.....

[friendly_iconoclast]

131. Two words for you, Michael: Moscow, Idaho

Tell us about honesty, again....

[MichaelHarris]

136. huh?

Call um. BTW, I bet I know more about what goes on in Moscow, Id than you. Here's what happens when a nut with an AK-47 shoots up the sheriff's department:





Here's what an officer looks like after he pulls his dead buddy off the grass:



Here's what a police chief looks like when he announces one of his officers has been killed:



I took every one of these, I can definitely say I know more than you about what happens in Moscow, Id.

[friendly_iconoclast]

151. Seems the only person to have seen Epic AK Waving Man there is *you*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x270147#297663

Perhaps he went to stay with white extremists in New Jersey:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x285630


You know, Glass-Blair syndrome can be overcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shattered_Glass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair

But first the sufferer has to admit they have a problem

[MichaelHarris]

155. did you call them yet

are you just going to make false accusations?

[X_Digger]

164. Other posters did..

Feel free to jump in here..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x270147#280006

or here..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x270147#297693

[MichaelHarris]

177. If you have

posters who said they called then they are liars, plain and simple. Everyone in Moscow knows about the nut who patrols his neighborhood with his AK and a scanner. If you see the poster tell them they are flat out liars. tell me who they talked to, I'll go see that person tomorrow.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

182. So the police just leave if off of the log since it's routine for him to fire shots. LOL.

That fish just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

[MichaelHarris]

184. who did they talk to Dave?

and do you have any names yet?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

188. They posted the police log amazingly no mention of shots fired. How you coming on that ruling?

[MichaelHarris]

192. right after

you answer the first question, the one I asked first that you diverted.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

196. No matter how much you believe it, you won't convince me it's okay to violate anyone's civil rights.

[DrCory]

226. The Log In Question...

Date: 11/21/09

09-M11129 Attempted Suicide
Incident Address : 700 blk Lewis St
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 00:29
Cad Comments:
Moscow Police, Fire & EMS responded. Clear.

09-M11130 Chest Pain/Poss Heart Attack
Incident Address : 700 blk Empire Ln
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 01:14
Cad Comments:
Moscow Ambulance, Fire & Law responded. Clear. Patient transported to Gritman.

09-M11131 Noise Complaint
Incident Address : 200 blk Southview Ave
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 02:29
Cad Comments:
Rp hears lots of hollering, people talking, pounding on the wall. Sounds like
people running into the wall. Music. Base is going on and off.

09-M11132 DUI Alcohol or Drugs
Incident Address : North Main St & East E St
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 02:32
Cad Comments:
Arrested female For DUI. Report Taken.

09-M11133 DUI Alcohol or Drugs
Incident Address : North Asbury St & West A St
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 02:33
Cad Comments:
Arrested male for DUI. Report Taken.

09-M11134 Noise Complaint
Incident Address : South Main St
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 03:17
Cad Comments:
Rp advising group of subjects being loud and partying. Officers were on the way,
rp called back and advised that they left. Clear. No report.

09-M11135 Burglary/Intrusion Alarm
Incident Address : West A St; Moscow Water Dept
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 08:02
Cad Comments:
Audible Intrusion Alarm-- Motion Detector in the SW Filter Room. Officer advised
of authorized cancelation. No Report.

09-M11137 Burglary/Intrusion Alarm
Incident Address : South Blaine St; Wells Fargo
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 09:23
Cad Comments:
Silent alarm from the lobby. No one answering inside; multiple motion alarms.

09-M11138 Gun Check
Incident Address : MPD Substation
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 10:26
Cad Comments:
Requesting to check a gun out. Officer responded. No report.

09-M11139 Escort
Incident Address : West Pullman Rd; University Inn
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : NR
Time Reported: 10:48
Cad Comments:
Football escort. Completed without incident. Computer report.

09-M11140 Stray Animals
Incident Address : 700 blk East F St
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 11:15
Cad Comments:
Reporting a grey 40 lb dog running loose in the area. Officer responded and was
unable to locate the dog. No report.

09-M11141 Noise Complaint
Incident Address : 1100 blk King Rd
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 11:36
Cad Comments:
Contacted & Warned male for loud music. No Report.

09-M11142 Stray Animals
Incident Address : 300 blk South Main St
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 13:10
Cad Comments:
RP is reporting a dog that is stray animal. Officer responded. Owner was
contacted and dog was reunited to the owner. No report.

09-M11143 Breathing Problems
Incident Address : 1200 blk Creekside Ln
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 14:20
Cad Comments:
Fire, Medical & Law responded. Patient transported to Gritman. No report.

09-M11144 Communications Problem
Incident Address : South Blaine St; East side market
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 14:18
Cad Comments:
Hang up from the coin operated phone in the market place.Officer responded
and did not find a problem. No report.

09-M11145 Non-Injury Traffic Accident
Incident Address : South Washington St & East Third St
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 15:28
Cad Comments:
RP is reporting a 2 vehicle accident. Blocking Traffic. Pulling into the Market
Time Drug Parking Lot. Officer responded. State Accident Report Taken.

09-M11146 Traffic Accident, w/ Injuries
Incident Address : East B St & North Hayes
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 17:00
Cad Comments:
RP reporting a two vehicle accident with one injury. Patient transported to
Gritman, state accident report taken.

09-M11147 Driving W/Lic Suspend/Revoke
Incident Address : Stadium Dr & West Sixth St
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : CLO
Time Reported: 18:14
Cad Comments:
Officer out with a driver who is DWLS, report taken.

09-M11148 Theft Other
Incident Address : 1100 blk North Polk St Ext
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 18:53
Cad Comments:
Reporting the theft of medication from her purse. Officer responded. Report
Taken.

09-M11149 Alarm
Incident Address : UI Sub Station
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 19:39
Cad Comments:
Facilities employee may have set off the alarm. It has been going off for about
twenty minutes. Alarm reset. No report.

09-M11150 Traffic Violation
Incident Address : Hamilton Rec Center
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 21:15
Cad Comments:
Rp reporting a small compact car that is driving around in the Rec Center & Pool
parking lot. Officer responded. Contacted and warned driver. No Report.

09-M11152 Intoxicated Person
Incident Address : North Main St; Zip Trip
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 23:03
Cad Comments:
Rp reporting two intoxicated subjects in the bathroom. Officer responded and
citated two male for minors in consumption.

09-M11153 Noise Complaint
Incident Address : 600 blk Britton Ln
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 23:21
Cad Comments:
Rp reporting loud music from this location. Officers responded. No Report.

09-M11154 Warrant Arrest
Incident Address : 600 South Main St
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : CAA
Time Reported: 23:29
Cad Comments:
Arrested male on Warrant. Subject transported to the LCSO Jail. Report Taken.

09-M11155 Noise Complaint
Incident Address : 200 blk Baker St
MOSCOW ID 83843
Disposition : ACT
Time Reported: 23:35
Cad Comments:
RP states there is a loud party and yelling. Officers contacted and Warned male.
No Report.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

190. You never did answer my question. Any good pictures lately?

So of those from last year were really good.

[rrneck]

183. Do you have evidence that it actually happened? nt

[MichaelHarris]

185. only that

I heard it reported on my scanner. BTW, got me any names of people who had their gun confiscated in New Orleans yet?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

189. So now you are saying the police in Moscow, ID are inept and unable to keep a simple log book.

I hope the police in New Orleans are better than that, otherwise nobody will ever get there guns back. That explains them being unable to provide a list of names.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray:

[MichaelHarris]

195. Did I say that Dave?

all the icons prove you have nothing. You've spun this into something about an old post. Truth is you have no idea whose gun was taken in New Orleans. instead you attacked me. Do you think every single discussion between officers is logged?

I'm not going to even address this childish stunt, you and the others of the gungion cannot provide one name, THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL QUESTION. Having failed at that you chose to attack me. I would say you guys failed epically. Without attacking me fine me one god damned name!!! You can't, neither could the NRA.

Very, very childish Dave, and to think, some consider you a professional.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

198. So you heard "shots fired" over a scanner and you expect us to believe it wasn't logged.

That fish is getting huge.

[MichaelHarris]

204. I actually don't care what you believe

this post is about naming a person who had a gun confiscated, can you do that?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

207. So now you are saying that no firearms were illegally confiscated! Seriously make up your mind.

[MichaelHarris]

209. seriously Dave

can you name anyone? We both know you can't. All you can do is attack me. You actually fail.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

212. So you are arguing that the over 500 weapons illegally confiscated weren't owned by individuals?

The judges ruling proves that to be false.

[MichaelHarris]

213. I've already answered that

dumb-ass. what is the difference between secured and confiscated? Name one person or shut the fuck up.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

216. The city of New Orleans said they confiscated them.

NRA to settle suit over Katrina gun seizures
City officials to return hundreds of weapons confiscated during hurricane

Police department spokesman Bob Young said it has stored 552 guns that were confiscated after Katrina, through Dec. 31, 2005. Police have said they only took guns that were stolen or found in abandoned homes.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27087738/

[MichaelHarris]

218. Last time, seriously

this is like arguing with an eight year old. Name one person. I started with 10 names, lowered it to 5, now I'm at one. seriously you guys fail. You can't name one person.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

220. So you honestly believe that those firearms were not confiscated from individuals?

It's better for you to quit before you get in more trouble. Seriously it wouldn't be anywhere near as much fun without you around. Get some rest and go take some pictures tomorrow, then come share them with us.

[oneshooter]

221. Do you know the difference?

If a weapon is "secured" then a receipt is issued to the owner. The information on it includes the name, rank, and badge# of the officer. Also the time, place, and name and ID # of the person the receipt is given to and the description and serial # of the item being "secured". There is also a reference # on the receipt and this is repeated on the tag affixed to the item being "secured".
When it is "confiscated" there is no receipt given. The item is just taken away, in reality it is official theft.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rrneck]

191. You know about newspapers, right?

So why haven't you dug up a news report of some sort? Is it normal for some guy to walk around with a rifle menacing people enough to involve the police and there is no record of it?

Were people's firearms illegally confiscated in New Orleans or not?

[MichaelHarris]

193. find me the name

of the person they talked to in Moscow, until then you're a liar.

[rrneck]

194. All you have to do

is support your claim. Why don't you post the name of the person to call so a follow up can be made.

Were the guns illegally confiscated in New Orleans or not?

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

199. You're from the area. You took photographs there.

Why don't you provide evidence of what you claim to have happened?

Were the firearms confiscated illegally or not?

[MichaelHarris]

203. Yes and I know

David Duke, he would have never answered a question like that in a call from a stranger. the poster who posted that lied. I am not however from New Orleans where guns were secured, not confiscated. If you believe they were confiscated name one person who had a gun taken. That's all you have to do is name one person.

[rrneck]

206. Are you asserting that they were

NOT illegally confiscated?

How could somebody walking around in public with a rifle not generate some sort of documentation?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

208. Beevul did that hours ago post 171. Link here. I notice that you failed to respond.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=297390&mesg_id=297839

[wtmusic]

28. Out of 272M visits. You have a 1 in 24,000,000 chance of being murdered.

:scared: :scared: :scared: My gun! I need my gun!!! :scared: :scared: :scared:

[X_Digger]

31. Sucks if you're one of the 11. n/t

[wtmusic]

33. Sux if you're mathematically illiterate too. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. It seems his figure was actually backed up with a link.

[wtmusic]

62. Same link.

[X_Digger]

98. One can play the odds, and still be stupid..

Chances are, I won't be in an automobile accident this year. However low the risk, I still buckle up every time I get in a car. I could play the odds and not bother. Chances are, I'd be fine. But why risk it?

[SteveM]

145. You don't count rape? Robbery? Kidnapping? That ain't so bad, huh? nt

[PavePusher]

34. Yes, a lower rate than the nation as a whole.

But definitely non-zero, and you have a MUCH lower probability of getting help in time than if you are in the middle of say, Tucson. And even then getting police there to stop a crime in progress is problematical at best.

Police are, unfortunately, reactionary, not preventive. Your self-defense is your own responsibility, whether you like it or not. Only you can determine if you will be responsible, and you may not interfere with my choice to be so.

[wtmusic]

36. An absolutist, are you?

"I may not interfere with your choice to be so."

You still can't bring a loaded firearm into federal buildings in National Parks. They're interfering with your choice to be responsible.

Whatcha gonna do about it, tough guy? Hmm?

[PavePusher]

41. I said 'you'.

And that law may actually be UnConstitutional. If the Federal government may not infringe, well, the language seems quite clear. There is no over-riding reason why I am a safe and legal Citizen on one side of a glass door, and a dangerous criminal 12 inches on the other side. Unless you have something...?

I'm not a tough guy. I just try to bring evidence and reason to the table. Care to join me?

[wtmusic]

65. It's all interpretation.

Nobody, unless they're really stupid, thinks that A2 give all citizens the right to bear ANY arm, at ANY time, WHEREVER they want.

Once that is accepted, there is all kinds of room for interpretation, including prohibiting them in national parks.

I apologize for my tone which was indeed out of order.

[PavePusher]

74. "...A2 give all citizens the right to bear ANY arm, at ANY time, WHEREVER they want."

Ummm, wherever did you get that from? I have made no such claims, nor has anyone else here that I know of.

And I would say that the "interpretation" has to be narrow, focused and purposeful, such as to keep weapons (i.e. 'arms', of all sorts) out of the hands of dangerous criminals. In other words, 'strict scrutiny'.

Firearms carried by non-criminals are by definition, not a danger.


Edit: No problem about the tone, we can all get a little testy around here. I've got a pretty tough hide. Cheers!

[wtmusic]

80. No, it doesn't need to be narrow, focused, and purposeful.

It can be whatever the Supremes say it is. Sometimes it is broad, as in flag burning being an expression of "speech". Other times, it is very specific.

So we're left with an imperfect judgement which serves the public as best SCOTUS thinks it will.

And firearms carried by non-criminals are very much a danger (it takes less than a second to become a criminal). How many of those murders in parks were committed by people with legally registered guns, who got into a drunken fight, perhaps? Do you know?

[PavePusher]

91. "it takes less than a second to become a criminal"

And until I become one, or demonstrate that I will become one, I refuse to be treated as one. (Innocent until proven guilty, anyone?)

My properly holstered or slung sidearm is no more a threat or a danger to you than my choice in underwear. A firearm is not a prerequisite to becoming a criminal.

You are correct about the whim of SCOTUS, I was refering to the ideal. Of course we have ample evidence to the contrary... Kelo, or the recent over-ruling of corporate political speech come to mind.

[wtmusic]

94. I'm afraid the law doesn't work that way.

You are treated like every other citizen, and if that means taking away your gun because SCOTUS says so, that means kiss it goodbye. Doesn't matter whether you go to church every week or help little old ladies across the street. You can refuse if you like, and spend your days being very right in prison.

Believe it or not, most criminals never demonstrate they're going to become criminals. It spoils the element of surprise. :D

[PavePusher]

100. "because SCOTUS says so"

Do you seriously support such law-by-whim? And do you really think that is the way the system works?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

118. Actually the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Nice try though.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

119. So you are fine with the current interpretations on the 2nd Amendment?

[X_Digger]

102. Well, since we don't have incorporation yet, much less a level of scrutiny..

.. that's technically true ("No, it doesn't need to be narrow, focused, and purposeful.")

However if McDonald achieves incorporation, and either in McDonald or in future cases down the road (Parker, e.g.) we get a level of scrutiny other than rational basis, yes it will have to be fairly narrow. With any level of scrutiny it has to be purposeful.

eta: Here's another link to digest- http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

Talks about how some 90% of murderers had a previous criminal record, so the percentage of folks who 'just snap' and kill someone is rather small.

[PavePusher]

107. O.K., I concede the "narrow, etc..." point. Until McDonald.... n/t

[SteveM]

146. It's the new Gun-Control bumper sticker!! But wait! Order now and for 19.95...

You get the old sticker for free! Obsolete, but still fun for those who:

(1) Display bad math publicly!
(2) Indulge self-righteousness on-the-cheap!
(3) Troll for dates near the Brady Center!

"More Guns = More Crime" Yours FREE! if you order "Guns for Everyone Now" within the next 10 years!

[TPaine7]

103. I disagree with your reasoning, though it's common to use such reasoning to support gun control.

I'm glad you stated it so clearly:

Nobody, unless they're really stupid, thinks that A2 give all citizens the right to bear ANY arm, at ANY time, WHEREVER they want.

Once that is accepted, there is all kinds of room for interpretation, including prohibiting them in national parks.

To put your logic in even clearer terms, "If a right has legitimate time, place or other limitations, any desired restriction can be imposed." Try that with another Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and see how it goes. How about the First?:

Nobody, unless they're really stupid, thinks that A1 gives all citizens the right to say ANY thing, at ANY time, WHEREVER they want.

Once that is accepted, there is all kinds of room for interpretation, including prohibiting political speech in national parks.

I don't think that argument would fare well in court.

[cowman]

59. Wow I

guess that makes you feel better calling someone a tough guy. Is that the best ya got? Hey we don't interfere with your right to not own or carry a gun don't mess with ours to own or carry a gun.

[Euromutt]

223. Since when are crime rates calculated on the basis of visitors?

Just to illustrate, as of 01/01/2007, the population of Los Angeles County, CA, was estimated at 10.3 million. But according to LA Inc., there were 25.4 million "overnight visitors" to LA County in 2006 (http://www.laincresearch.com/all/TravelStatsFinal.doc); moreover, that number is arrived at by counting individual hotel stays, and therefore does not take into account "overnight visitors" who stayed with friends or family, and more importantly, it does not take into account residents of neighboring counties (Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino, Ventura) who visited Los Angeles County to work, shop, visit a museum, go to dinner or what have you, and then go home at the end of the day or evening. And to make an adequate comparison with "Park visitors," you almost certainly have to count that sort of visitor to LA County as well. In fact, in the case of "day trippers" from neighboring counties, you may have to count them multiple times, i.e. for every time that they set foot in LA County. Commuters in particular would really ratchet up the number of "visitors," as they would typically "visit" up to 250 times a year!

Note that estimate of 272.6 million isn't counting visitors to National Parks, it's counting visits. If one particular individuals visits ten different National Parks (or a single one ten times), he will be counted ten times. You don't really think that 90% of the U.S. population visits a National Park every year, do you?

A more accurate approximation (though still an approximation) is to divide the number of visits by the number of days in the year to arrive at a proxy average "permanent" population. 272.6m / 365 = ~764,849 people in a National Park on an "average" day. With 11 cases of homicide in the National Parks in 2006, we have (11 / 764,849) x 100,000 which gives us a homicide rate of 1.4/100,000 head of population. Lower than the U.S. homicide rate that year (5.7), but higher than the rates for the UK (1.37), Italy (1.06) and Germany (0.88).

Applying the same formula to other serious violent crimes (the DoJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics counts homicide, robbery, rape and aggravated assault as "serious violent crimes") we can generate rates that we can compare to the DoJ's National Criminal Victim Survey. Due to methodological inconsistencies in the 2006 survey, data for that year isn't available, but we can compare estimated rates from 2005 and 2007.
Rape rate: Nat'l Parks ~4.6; U.S. 2005 0.5; U.S. 2007 0.6
Robbery rate: Nat'l Parks ~8.0; U.S. 2005 2.6; U.S. 2007 2.4
Agg. assault: Nat'l Parks ~34.1; U.S. 2005 4.3; U.S. 2007 3.4

Again, my rates for the National Parks are a very rough approximation, but the impression I get is that while you may be at a comparatively low risk of being murdered in a National Park, you appear to be at a highly elevated risk of being assaulted, robbed or raped.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. I don't know why do you need one?

[slackmaster]

150. It's up to you to decide whether or not you need one

Your question is absurd.

[shraby]

14. That works so well in Iran, doesn't it?

[PavePusher]

15. Right....

Because a relatively peaceful nation of Citizens equates to a war zone invaded and controlled by an outside force.

Or something....

[spin]

19. When only the police have firearms you live in a police state. (n/t)

[safeinOhio]

23. Were the gun confiscations

that took place of people that had registered their weapons or just a search of everyone? I never heard if it was.

[PavePusher]

27. It was a general house-by-house search.

IIRC, Louisiana does not have firearm registration.

Side note, why do so many people assume firearms are always "registered"? Registration is the exception, not the norm, here in the U.S.

[cowman]

61. Here in Nye County

we don't register our weapons. The County Govt. and Sheriff's Dept. trusts it's citizens

[X_Digger]

29. It was door to door in _some_ neighborhoods. No "registration" in LA. n/t

[safeinOhio]

35. So a violation of

4th and 5th Amendments?

[MichaelHarris]

42. they are not

actually telling you the truth. It wasn't a house by house search for firearms. It was a search for survivors and when unsecured firearms were found they were secured. Every rightful owner got their weapon back. the few that were unreturned were owned by felons. The gungion/NRA story is vastly different from the truth.

If law enforcement found your house unsecured and your weapons laying all over the floor would you want them left alone or secured until your return? Now, someone will no doubt post the one video of an older women refusing to give up her weapon. Do a test for me. Walk around your neighborhood tonight, when the police show up and ask you to lower your weapon tell me what happens? There's rational behavior, and irrational behavior, which do you want to portray?

[PavePusher]

46. 5 untruths in one paragraph.

Do you have supporting evidence?

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. So the city promptly returned the weapons? Exactly how long did it take?

[MichaelHarris]

55. returned

17 in the first few days after Katrina. You should really read more. Here's one for you, how many were taken? Read a little in your free time Dave,

"More than seven months have passed since New Orleans residents were forcibly and illegally disarmed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, and starting Monday, April 17, the City of New Orleans will be returning seized firearms to their rightful owners, thanks to legal action by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and National Rifle Association (NRA).

"We've learned from the police that starting Monday at 8 a.m., New Orleans gun owners can get their firearms back," noted SAF founder Alan Gottlieb."

One more for you, how many have sued for the return of a specific firearm? Not the NRA SA foundation but an individual? I know, do you?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. So you agree that citizens were forcibly and illegally disarmed! Thanks.

[MichaelHarris]

81. see those little

" " things Dave? Those are quotation marks, they mean I quoted something. What grade did you finish?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. So now you are saying the NRA lost the case?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

135. So despite the court order you believe that no weapons were illegally confiscated?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

97. Returned 17 and kept how many?

[X_Digger]

108. If the firearms were returned 7 months later, why did the lawsuit not reach settlement until 2008?

Gottleib jumped the gun (pun intended).. the NPD dragged it's feet (see the SAF filings of contempt in 2006 & 2007).

[beevul]

101. The dishonesty oozes from your post.

"Do a test for me. Walk around your neighborhood tonight, when the police show up and ask you to lower your weapon tell me what happens?"


Thats YOUR characterization, of a woman who was walking around in HER OWN HOUSE, and NEVER RAISED HER WEAPON, in the first place?


Do a test for me, make 100 posts, and see how many over the number of 3 do not contain any dishonesty.

"It was a search for survivors and when unsecured firearms were found they were secured."

Apparently, your definition of "unsecured" includes when one is holding a pistol in the palm of ones hands non-threateningly.

"Every rightful owner got their weapon back."

What about the ones that were rightfully owned and were destroyed after they were confiscated?

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MichaelHarris]

161. find me any names for

confiscated guns in New Orleans yet? Also violating DU rules is bad, i.e. linking locked threads. bye bye your post.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

173. So once again how did the judge rule in this case?

[MichaelHarris]

160. find any names yet?

or just false accusations that you refuse to research?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

174. So once again how did the judge rule in this case?

They pretty much cold busted you on the Moscow, ID thing. Nice try though. Obscure enough place, you almost got away with it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

134. "Believe me, not your lying eyes". Got it.

n/t

[MichaelHarris]

162. so no names

and you refuse to call the Moscow PD? you instead choose to call me a liar. How so very small of you, I understand why you need a gun now. Small man, small mind.

[X_Digger]

165. Someone called.. buuuuusted!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x270147#297693

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

167. That's not fair bringing up past fabrications.

[Katya Mullethov]

175. That didnt prove anything

Other than I tried .

[MichaelHarris]

200. Question still stands

name one person from New Orleans who had a gun confiscated. Play the childish dig up old post thing all you want but answer the question.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

201. So despite the judges ruling and the NOPD's admission you are saying that no guns were confiscated?

[X_Digger]

224. Here's a reply from my friend..

Read from the bottom up. I've obscured Nicki's email address as well as my own and some names.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nicki Wolfe {mailto:nick72@xxxxxx}
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 10:13 PM
To: xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Hey Nicki, long time no chat!

Hell no, they never did give it back! First time I went to get it, they said I
had to have proof that it was mine, like a sales receipt or something. Like I
got that for a pistol give to me 15 years ago? I got daddy to find me a picture
with grandpap in uniform (he used the gun when he was working as a constable.)
Daddy also gave me all the numbers on it that he could remember.

Second time back, I had to fill out a bunch of paperwork, and they said that I
had to describe it, and I told them what daddy had told me. They said they
couldn't find it, and I should come back again! I give up after that, it ain't
worth the bother.

Nik

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: xxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 9:08 PM
To: Nicki Wolfe
Subject: RE: Hey Nicki, long time no chat!

Oh hey, one last thing.. did you ever get your revolver back?

Thanks,
xxxxxxxxxxx

P.S. I don't think we'll need a place to stay, but I appreciate the offer!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nicki Wolfe {mailto:nick72@xxxxxx}
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 8:41 PM
To: xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Hey Nicki, long time no chat!

xxxxx!!

Sorry, I dont get on facebook much anymore. I don't care about your chicken, or
your vampire, or your damned mafia thing!! HEHE

Been pretty quiet around here. We didn't do nothing special for the holidays.
xxxxx wanted to visit his daddy's family, and they sent a ticket. So I got to put
my feet up and relax!! It felt SO strange putting him on a plane by himself.

Tjose recipes were a hoot! I haven't made up any of them yet, but they look
yummy! Thank xxxxx for me.

About the pistol, sure I don't mind. It was actually my grandpap's. He gave
it to me when I went to Tulane and was living in a shitty apartment with three
other gals. Anyway, the day after we called you to let you know we were headed
your way, we were gathering up clothes and picture albums and shit and we hear
a BANG BANG BANG. I go to the door and a cop in a helment asked me what I was
doing still here. We told him we was leaving, and he told me they don't let
nobody have any guns, and did I have any guns. I told him we had a pistol and
it was going with us when we left, but he pushed in the house anyway. He said
he has to see it. I dug it out of my suitcase, and he snatched the case right
out of my hand! Handed it to the one behind him and asked if I had any more.
When I told him no, he told me we had to be out by the next day and left.

I am SO happy we got the hell out. Did I tell you that Jeannie (my neighbor that
you met, with the little yappy dog?) her brother in the quarter was stabbed when
he was mucking mud out of his house. Crazy shit.

Let me know when your going to be in town. Be happy to put you guys up if you
need a place to stay.

Give xxxxx a kiss for me!

XOXOXO
Nicki


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: xxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 11:18 AM
To: Nicki Wolfe
Subject: Hey Nicki, long time no chat!


Hey girl, how you doing? I pinged you on fb, but I didn't hear back from you so
I thought I'd drop you an email. Did you get the recipes that Lisa sent? Her
mother sent her all those old recipe books, I thought you'd get a kick out of
the one for a "poboy" by an italian cook. LOL!

Got a question for you. I remember you telling me about the cops searching your
house when you were packing up your stuff and confiscating your dad's revolver.
Could you refresh my memory, and is it okay if I relay your story and name to
someone I'm talking to that thinks nobody had their guns confiscated?

We're thinking of visiting Ritchie this fall (xxxx's friend who used to run the
ARVLFC club in the quarter), and we'd love to go out to dinner. Looking like the
third week of September right now.

Don't be such a stranger!
Thanks,
xxxxxxxxx

[beevul]

227. Well, there we have it.

Someone whos gun was confiscated, who did not get it back, with a name.

Where is mike now...



I think theres something to be learned from this thread...


And thats that mike has been going to the mrbenchley (google it) school of debate.

[friendly_iconoclast]

228. True. And let's not forget the "White Extremist" thread while we're at it.

Another faith-promoting rumor.

[MichaelHarris]

229. yeah hahahaha

one made up email exchange with no real documentation and it took almost 5 days to find it? That has to be the biggest fail I've ever seen. One fake email exchange and 700 claimed confiscations, you guys seriously fail!

[X_Digger]

230. Would you like her email address in PM?

It took a day, since I hit her up on facebook, didn't hear back, and then hit her up via email. You'll notice that I posted this on Monday, after an email exchange on Sunday.

What '5 days' are you referring to?

[MichaelHarris]

231. Sure

while we're at it do you want Bobby Kennedy's email? Hahahahahahaha you're a funny guy.

[X_Digger]

232. pm sent

Feel free to contact her with any questions you have.

[MichaelHarris]

234. your best bet

would be to have her contact the NRA, they are having a real hard time finding anyone who had a gun taken. Me, I don't believe one word of your story. Did you want Abe Lincoln's email address btw?

[X_Digger]

235. Continue to stick your fingers in your ears, then. n/t

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

43. Big time. n/t

[X_Digger]

109. Yup, but quasi-legal at the time.

Most of the 'no guns in "emergencies"' laws came about as a result of race riots in the late 60's. Jim Crow leftovers are still on the books in some states.

(There was a recent thread re the snow in North Carolina halting gun sales, iirc.)