Forced Evacuations?
Well is has finally come to that, as I'm sure my good readers know. And yes, police Capt. Marlon Defillo is right when he says,
That would be a P.R. nightmare for us
It's wrong, plain and simple. However, to the left, and those who oppose freedom, it only makes sense. It will make perfect sense to those who like big government, and those who are demanding that government (ME) feed and water them because they deserve it. But it's completely wrong. It's my property. That is the absolute foundation of freedom in this country, and indeed in the world. If you do not have freedom to own property, you have no freedom. Most of the left, including today's Democrats, socialists, and big-government Republicans, do not want you to own property because they lose control over you. In this case, if you can be forcibly removed from your property, especially when you are doing no wrong and presenting zero harm to anyone else, you have absolutely zero freedom. Why should a person who has a generator; food and water; and who is completely safe and self-contained, be removed? Only to control them. Why else? There is no danger to anyone else, and in fact, not even any danger to some individuals! If I were Dennis Rizzuto, who is safe, has plenty of water, food, and a generator, who said, "They're going to have to drag me," I'd take it one step further -- they'd have to shoot me.
Comments
1
Amen! No one will force me to ever leave my property. It makes me sick how the dems are taking advantage of this for political gain. I think it will backfire however.
Posted by: Jay at September 07, 2005 11:56 AM (2FcUc)
2
This is a ridiculous post. You rightwingers are the ones who want a military state. You don't even know your opponents' arguments, which pretty much invalidates your own argument. Your precious military is down their wanting martial law.
Regardless, this is a public health nightmare in the making. The idiots who want to stay are going to get sick and affect hundreds of other people, and who is going to have to clean up their mess? The rest of us.
You people are always trying to find some moral justification for your selfishness. You will never find it, for selfishness is not a moral concept.
Regardless, this is a public health nightmare in the making. The idiots who want to stay are going to get sick and affect hundreds of other people, and who is going to have to clean up their mess? The rest of us.
You people are always trying to find some moral justification for your selfishness. You will never find it, for selfishness is not a moral concept.
Posted by: Daedalus at September 07, 2005 12:56 PM (tjcyO)
3
I hope the first person they try and forcibly remove has a video camera, wireless internet, and a local TV crew on speed dial.
Posted by: Ogre at September 07, 2005 12:56 PM (/k+l4)
4
Daedalus, that's incorrect.
It is the mayor of New Orleans, a Democrat, who wants martial law, not "our" military.
It is not a public health situation when a person is self-contained within their own home -- they're not infected with anything, nor are they likely to be infected, nor can they spread anything if they're not infected.
And wanting to own property is not selfish.
It is the mayor of New Orleans, a Democrat, who wants martial law, not "our" military.
It is not a public health situation when a person is self-contained within their own home -- they're not infected with anything, nor are they likely to be infected, nor can they spread anything if they're not infected.
And wanting to own property is not selfish.
Posted by: Ogre at September 07, 2005 12:58 PM (/k+l4)
5
I have some real issues with these forced evacuations.
Posted by: Bou at September 07, 2005 07:32 PM (5JHEt)
6
If there were genuine health hazards, outbreaks of very contagious diseases, for example, there MIGHT be something there. That is very obviously NOT the case, nor is there anything close any health hazard happening other than in the press who is just speculating about what might happen, not even basing those speculations on any facts.
Posted by: Ogre at September 07, 2005 07:39 PM (L0IGK)
7
This is a really hard post for me to comment on. On one hand, I can honestly say that I believe there should have been forced mandatory evacuation BEFORE Katrina hit, and a lot of lives would have been saved, because people who value property over life put their lives at risk in some strange desire to protect their homes. Realistically, no one can stop a hurricane or floodwaters, and these people did no good. Many of them are now stuck, homeless penniless, and on the receiving end of our tax dollars, which you've been vocal about being wrong...
On the other hand, I can to a point agree that NOW, in certain areas, there is no reason for people to be forced to leave. Some people in some areas are surviving just fine on their own now.
What I have to say though is that as far as removing guns from these undamaged self-sufficient homes - they want to stay in their homes to protect them from looters and such, or so that's what I've read as their major rationale in staying, which, again, I can understand. BUT then they say they don't think it's right that they should have the guns taken... so, what if looters break into the home, and steal the guns? Can anyone quote the statistics on a homeowner losing his life to his own gun in the hands of a burgler? These people are nuts, and dangerous, and if they want that gun thy're most likely going to get it.
So basically, keeping the guns means that the crazies have possible access to weapons - and to take that risk because of one's desire to "own property" IS selfish.
On the other hand, I can to a point agree that NOW, in certain areas, there is no reason for people to be forced to leave. Some people in some areas are surviving just fine on their own now.
What I have to say though is that as far as removing guns from these undamaged self-sufficient homes - they want to stay in their homes to protect them from looters and such, or so that's what I've read as their major rationale in staying, which, again, I can understand. BUT then they say they don't think it's right that they should have the guns taken... so, what if looters break into the home, and steal the guns? Can anyone quote the statistics on a homeowner losing his life to his own gun in the hands of a burgler? These people are nuts, and dangerous, and if they want that gun thy're most likely going to get it.
So basically, keeping the guns means that the crazies have possible access to weapons - and to take that risk because of one's desire to "own property" IS selfish.
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 11, 2005 11:26 PM (vtVgw)
8
I can understand your point, Erin, but that's where freedom comes in -- if you are truly free, you are free to be selfish at your own expense. If you want to stay with your property and die, you should have that option. Remember "the captain always goes down with the ship?" That's because the captain didn't have a life without his ship.
The number of homeowners getting killed by their own guns by invaders is actually very tiny when compared to the number of home defenses with a gun -- like 2 million to 1. Most criminals back down when faced with a gun, even if they have one themselves.
I don't understand the idea that I cannot have a gun because someone else misbehaves. I am much safer with a gun than without because the police simply cannot protect me, nor are they obligated to.
The number of homeowners getting killed by their own guns by invaders is actually very tiny when compared to the number of home defenses with a gun -- like 2 million to 1. Most criminals back down when faced with a gun, even if they have one themselves.
I don't understand the idea that I cannot have a gun because someone else misbehaves. I am much safer with a gun than without because the police simply cannot protect me, nor are they obligated to.
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 05:29 AM (L0IGK)
9
But it isn't just yourself at risk Ogre. Crazy Man breaks into your house, steals your gun and kills you - he doesn't then leave it by the door on his way out, he's now armed and shooting whoever he wants to!
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 12, 2005 09:02 AM (vtVgw)
10
But with that reasoning, Erin, absolutely no one in the entire country should be armed. Seriously. I mean, what's the difference between LA and here? To say that someone (a criminal) MIGHT do something is not a reason to prevent someone else (me) from having basic rights.
Life is not supposed to be safe.
Life is not supposed to be safe.
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 10:00 AM (/k+l4)
11
lol I can see we will come to no agreement on this one 
So you have the right to have a gun - I can't argue that one - but in cases where there are higher risks of violence than normal is it RESPONSIBLE to do so? I feel the same about the forced evacuation - they should have the right to stay, but is it really responsible to do so?
(like when your neighbors have already shown a propensity for violence and thievery by breaking into Wal-Mart and stealing guns and ammo and shooting at people)
So you have the right to have a gun - I can't argue that one - but in cases where there are higher risks of violence than normal is it RESPONSIBLE to do so? I feel the same about the forced evacuation - they should have the right to stay, but is it really responsible to do so?
(like when your neighbors have already shown a propensity for violence and thievery by breaking into Wal-Mart and stealing guns and ammo and shooting at people)
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 12, 2005 12:41 PM (vtVgw)
12
Responsible and legal are two completely different issues! You should be allowed to be irresponsible and not illegal. In this example, those who have guns should have them loaded and ready -- if they're not willing to use them, they likely won't have them. For those who evacuated, if they were responsible, they took the guns with them, or hid them.
Those who are currently there with weapons should not have them taken away -- it can be assumed they are willing to use them against criminals. How does disarming them help anyone? If they're willing to use them, the criminals will not likely get them from you.
As for your last example, that doesn't apply because those people already broke the law (theft) and should be punished. And if they did steal guns and shot at people, they would be debarred the owning of guns anyway, so they'd be criminals, punished, and not able to own guns anyhow.
In most cases, I don't even see a direct correlation -- if someone wants to rob you, they don't need MY gun to do it. So why take my gun?
Those who are currently there with weapons should not have them taken away -- it can be assumed they are willing to use them against criminals. How does disarming them help anyone? If they're willing to use them, the criminals will not likely get them from you.
As for your last example, that doesn't apply because those people already broke the law (theft) and should be punished. And if they did steal guns and shot at people, they would be debarred the owning of guns anyway, so they'd be criminals, punished, and not able to own guns anyhow.
In most cases, I don't even see a direct correlation -- if someone wants to rob you, they don't need MY gun to do it. So why take my gun?
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 12:59 PM (/k+l4)
13
yes, responsible and legal ARE 2 different things, because you simply can't mandate a society's mentality or morals. But LEGAL doesn't equate to RIGHT either, does it?
I'm of the idea that one shouldn't just be allowed to do whatever they want (even if legal) if it possibly endangers other innocent people.
As in: If there were escaped convicts loose in my neighborhood, I don't want to know the feeble old man next door has a loaded weapon sitting on his bedside table that MIGHT JUST end up in the hands of said escapees and be used to kill me.
Now it would be illegal for the escapee to have that weapon, and he might just be punished for having it after they catch him, but that'd be a bit too late for my sorry dead self would't it?
I'm of the idea that one shouldn't just be allowed to do whatever they want (even if legal) if it possibly endangers other innocent people.
As in: If there were escaped convicts loose in my neighborhood, I don't want to know the feeble old man next door has a loaded weapon sitting on his bedside table that MIGHT JUST end up in the hands of said escapees and be used to kill me.
Now it would be illegal for the escapee to have that weapon, and he might just be punished for having it after they catch him, but that'd be a bit too late for my sorry dead self would't it?
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 12, 2005 08:44 PM (vtVgw)
14
The most important issue regarding legality and rights is that laws can absolutely never trump rights -- no matter what. If I have a right to defend myself (and I do), no law will ever apply that removes that right. There's no such thing as a "public good" that can override that right.
If there are escaped convicts in your town, the feeble old man shouldn't have a loaded weapon. But then again, he shouldn't have such a weapon if he can't use it anyway -- but there should be no laws that prevent me fromt having such a weapon, no matter what the feeble old man does.
In addition, you're not at risk because he has that weapon -- you're at risk because there's escapees in the neighborhood. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the limited police forces use their time and money to stop the bad guys instead of taking guns away from the good guys?
If there are escaped convicts in your town, the feeble old man shouldn't have a loaded weapon. But then again, he shouldn't have such a weapon if he can't use it anyway -- but there should be no laws that prevent me fromt having such a weapon, no matter what the feeble old man does.
In addition, you're not at risk because he has that weapon -- you're at risk because there's escapees in the neighborhood. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the limited police forces use their time and money to stop the bad guys instead of taking guns away from the good guys?
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 09:05 PM (iJFc9)
15
Oh christ- ok I give up. You go have your rights, everyone else be damned.
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 13, 2005 01:40 AM (vtVgw)
16
Close...not everyone else be damned, but everyone else work together to retain their own rights.
Posted by: Ogre at September 13, 2005 05:50 AM (iJFc9)
17
But (if you're still reading) how about a different comparison -- use different rights.
If one newspaper in a town prints someone slanderous that destroys a person's life, should all newspapers be banned and destroyed because another might print something similar?
If one person hides a crack-manufacturing plant in their basement, should all houses be searched because someone else might have one, too?
If one newspaper in a town prints someone slanderous that destroys a person's life, should all newspapers be banned and destroyed because another might print something similar?
If one person hides a crack-manufacturing plant in their basement, should all houses be searched because someone else might have one, too?
Posted by: Ogre at September 13, 2005 06:53 AM (/k+l4)
18
Sorry, I am slow to get here. Interestingly, I don't recall any mention in the Constitution, the document that guarantees the right to bear arms, that any of us has any legal right to property in the first place. I don't believe that property is mentioned in the Constitution except to refer to slaves as 3/5 human for calculating electoral college votes.
Am I wrong about that?
If not, sorry.
Interesting debate, folks...
Am I wrong about that?
If not, sorry.
Interesting debate, folks...
Posted by: Ron Hudson at September 13, 2005 07:07 PM (v6XuI)
19
First, keep in mind, Ron, that the Constitution does not GRANT rights -- it only lists those that are specifically protected. Primarily, property rights is one of those rights as defined in the 10th amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Since the Constitution does not give the government power over any property, property rights are secured in the people.
Also in the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
My house cannot be seized, according to the Constitution.
And thanks for stopping by and adding to the discussion!
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Since the Constitution does not give the government power over any property, property rights are secured in the people.
Also in the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
My house cannot be seized, according to the Constitution.
And thanks for stopping by and adding to the discussion!
Posted by: Ogre at September 13, 2005 08:06 PM (iJFc9)
20
So, ya figure you should have the right to go to a prison and carry a gun? I mean, they're government facilities - and they have the right to remove your firearm. Why is that? Because there is a danger that your weapon would be used against you or someone else - safety supercedes your rights - as well it should.
Now a large part of the people left in NO are indigent or have previously proven themselves as violent and dangerous. The lack of razor wire around the city shouldn't change the gov't's need to protect the citizens or the law enforcement that's in place there.
It isn't like these are normal circumstances - the law isn't going to come knock on YOUR door and take YOUR gun, (and if they were, we wouldn't be having this debate, because I'd agree with you that you have the right to bear arms) but then the people in Charlotte aren't starving, homeless, angry, and desperate like the citizens of NO.
The Gov't should have the right to take unusual precautions in this unusual situation in order to restore and maintain peace and safety so that they can finally start the months/years/decades of fixing the massive screw-ups that happened there.
Now a large part of the people left in NO are indigent or have previously proven themselves as violent and dangerous. The lack of razor wire around the city shouldn't change the gov't's need to protect the citizens or the law enforcement that's in place there.
It isn't like these are normal circumstances - the law isn't going to come knock on YOUR door and take YOUR gun, (and if they were, we wouldn't be having this debate, because I'd agree with you that you have the right to bear arms) but then the people in Charlotte aren't starving, homeless, angry, and desperate like the citizens of NO.
The Gov't should have the right to take unusual precautions in this unusual situation in order to restore and maintain peace and safety so that they can finally start the months/years/decades of fixing the massive screw-ups that happened there.
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 14, 2005 12:46 AM (vtVgw)
21
The reason the government has the right to take away firearms for prison-goers is because those people have lost that right. When you violate the law to the point of harming others (which causes prison sentences), you lose certain rights.
I understand your point, sort of -- if the people in New Orleans were running around using their firearms, then those people who are using them should have them taken away. You might even convince me that abandoned homes could have firearms confiscated.
But keep in mind -- the people who are having firearms taken away, at least according to news reports -- are people who are not in the flood zone. It's people who are at home where they are no flood waters. It's people who haven't done anything wrong and present no danger to others. It's the people who most need firearms to protect themselves from others.
If it were possible to get all firearms so that no one had any within 200 miles of New Orleans, it might make the place a slight bit safer. But that's not the case -- they're taking firearms from people who aren't doing anything wrong, and that's what bothers me the most.
I understand your point, sort of -- if the people in New Orleans were running around using their firearms, then those people who are using them should have them taken away. You might even convince me that abandoned homes could have firearms confiscated.
But keep in mind -- the people who are having firearms taken away, at least according to news reports -- are people who are not in the flood zone. It's people who are at home where they are no flood waters. It's people who haven't done anything wrong and present no danger to others. It's the people who most need firearms to protect themselves from others.
If it were possible to get all firearms so that no one had any within 200 miles of New Orleans, it might make the place a slight bit safer. But that's not the case -- they're taking firearms from people who aren't doing anything wrong, and that's what bothers me the most.
Posted by: Ogre at September 14, 2005 05:58 AM (iJFc9)
22
Ogre, I had a hard time with this one, but basically, this leftist liberal Democrat agrees with you. I'd stay in my home under the circumstances you describe, with my cats, with a gun. Of course, it's black powder!
And as far as the Dems taking political advantage, Jay, when is it appropriate for us to complain if not now? Is it ever? Just how bad does it have to be? Or is that privilege just reserved for Democratic administrations? Have you noticed that it's not JUST US complaining?
And as far as the Dems taking political advantage, Jay, when is it appropriate for us to complain if not now? Is it ever? Just how bad does it have to be? Or is that privilege just reserved for Democratic administrations? Have you noticed that it's not JUST US complaining?
Posted by: Laurie at September 14, 2005 03:05 PM (oDwDw)
Posted by: Ogre at September 14, 2005 03:33 PM (/k+l4)
24
lol I meant if you were to VISIT a prison, I have a bad habit of not being clear enough lately.
Hell yeah convicts lose their guns and I'm all for that one.
Hell yeah convicts lose their guns and I'm all for that one.
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 14, 2005 04:51 PM (vtVgw)
25
I wondered where you were headed with that one, Erin.
Actually, the reason that the government has that right is because it's voluntary -- they cannot force you to enter the prison and you agree to adhere to their rules if you want to enter.
That's consistent with all property rights -- if you want to enter my property, you have to follow my rules (but I don't have many, so come on over!)
Actually, the reason that the government has that right is because it's voluntary -- they cannot force you to enter the prison and you agree to adhere to their rules if you want to enter.
That's consistent with all property rights -- if you want to enter my property, you have to follow my rules (but I don't have many, so come on over!)
Posted by: Ogre at September 14, 2005 05:12 PM (iJFc9)
26
lol, OK, so These people are choosing to stay in NO so they have to follow the rules!
Yeah, lame, I know. I ran out of steam on this one.
(not that I agree with you anymore than I did before)
And since you invited me, I'm on my way to your place as we speak, have the coffee ready! (and that cute little car all shined up!)
Yeah, lame, I know. I ran out of steam on this one.
(not that I agree with you anymore than I did before)
And since you invited me, I'm on my way to your place as we speak, have the coffee ready! (and that cute little car all shined up!)
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 15, 2005 10:26 AM (vtVgw)
27
Yeah, that last one didn't get to far...
Coffee? Ewe. Yuck. Can't stand the stuff, sorry.
The car's ready to go, though (except for the darn bugs I keep getting on the windshield -- I think the windshield is just at a poor angle for deflecting them).
Coffee? Ewe. Yuck. Can't stand the stuff, sorry.
The car's ready to go, though (except for the darn bugs I keep getting on the windshield -- I think the windshield is just at a poor angle for deflecting them).
Posted by: Ogre at September 15, 2005 10:57 AM (/k+l4)
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 15, 2005 04:56 PM (vtVgw)
29
Come on, you've always known that I've been a little bit odd...
Posted by: Ogre at September 15, 2005 05:07 PM (/k+l4)
30
a little?!
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 17, 2005 01:38 AM (vtVgw)
31
Yeah...I think so...
Posted by: Ogre at September 17, 2005 08:44 AM (iJFc9)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0221 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0167 seconds, 39 records returned.
Page size 25 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.