SBLive handles Blank-O with kidgloves

[rhertz]

Originally Posted by Al Swearengen

Yes, T-R-E-A-S-O-N-O-U-S! Thats what I call it when someone takes a dump on the Second Amendment and wipes their butt with the Constitution. What do you call it?

I think Al is referencing the taking of firearms from citizens during Katrina. Did Blanco actually authorize that?

Al...I'm really there with ya.. I think the unarming of law abiding citizens during a disaster is a disgrace against our constitution!! yes I do! (plz note the exclamation marks) But I seriously doubt that was Blanco's doing..... There is plenty of blame to go around regarding the Katrina disaster.... Plenty.. surely you agree?

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by rhertz

I think Al is referencing the taking of firearms from citizens during Katrina. Did Blanco actually authorize that?

I believe she did. And even if she didnt, the buck's gotta stop somewhere, and since she was the chief executive officer of the state and sworn to defend our Constitutional rights, the ultimatel responsibility for that travesty is her's. Furthermore, I think she, as well as Nagin and Compass and every peace officer involved, should be brought up on charges of high treason and forced to answer for their actions in court. It would be absurd for any of those criminals to claim ignorance of the illegality of this most serious of crimes against the people, as the very offices they hold mandate that they uphold the law of the land.

[LateNight]

Originally Posted by rhertz

I think Al is referencing the taking of firearms from citizens during Katrina. Did Blanco actually authorize that?

Al...I'm really there with ya.. I think the unarming of law abiding citizens during a disaster is a disgrace against our constitution!! yes I do! (plz note the exclamation marks) But I seriously doubt that was Blanco's doing..... There is plenty of blame to go around regarding the Katrina disaster.... Plenty.. surely you agree?

I'm with ya on this one.. yes it was entirely wrong to do such a thing.. I too would like to know exactly who authorized such a thing... and it seems everything I've read so far.. place blame for this solely on the Chief of Police and Mayor Nagin....

Here's a video of some folks who had their rights violated.

[Al Swearengen]

If any of you have NOT viewed the above video, I urge you to do so! I had seen it once, but I viewed it again, and it brings my blood to a boil every time. Those people who had their guns confiscated, illegally confiscated, would've been within their rights to offer armed resistence, and no jury in the country could in good conscience do anything but call their actions justified. If you folks in the membership have any appreciation for the gravity of this crime, I hope you'll join me in formally demandin and insistin that every single law enforcement officer involved as well as their superiors be brought up on charges of high treason against the republic and executed, which is the penalty for that most serious crime. If you consider yourselves Americans and freedom lovers, it is your patriotic duty to ensure that this heinous crime and the criminals who perpetrated it are brought to justice.

[joepole]

>that every single law enforcement officer involved as well as their superiors be brought up on charges of high treason against the republic and executed

Exaggerate much?

[joepole]

>Yes, T-R-E-A-S-O-N-O-U-S! Thats what I call it when someone takes a dump on the Second Amendment and wipes their butt with the Constitution. What do you call it?

I would call it Unconstitutional.

Why is, in your opinion, ignoring one part of the Constitution (the 2nd Amendment) an executable offense, but ignoring another (the definition of treason) not?

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by joepole

>Yes, T-R-E-A-S-O-N-O-U-S! Thats what I call it when someone takes a dump on the Second Amendment and wipes their butt with the Constitution. What do you call it?

I would call it Unconstitutional.

Why is, in your opinion, ignoring one part of the Constitution (the 2nd Amendment) an executable offense, but ignoring another (the definition of treason) not?

trea·son (trzn)
n.
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence

Any violation of the Bill Of Rights is treason, but most especially a violation of the Second Amendment, since it is this very right that safeguards all of our other inalienable rights against a tyranical government. Ergo, their actions constitute treason. End of story.

[joepole]

trea·son (trzn)
n.
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence

Any violation of the Bill Of Rights is treason, but most especially a violation of the Second Amendment, since it is this very right that safeguards all of our other inalienable rights against a tyranical government. Ergo, their actions constitute treason. End of story.

1. That is from (I assume) some dictionary, since the Constitution clearly defines treason in article III:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

So "any violation of the Bill Of Rights is treason" is ludicrous. If that were true every single President of the United States (including the current one) would have been executed because every single Presidential administration since at least Lincoln has had at least one Executive action ruled Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

I ask again, why do you consider it acceptable to personally selectively ignore portions of the Constitution (such as the very specific definition of treason) but when someone else does it (such as the not-court-verified right for an individual to bear arms) you consider it an offense worthy of execution?

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by joepole

>that every single law enforcement officer involved as well as their superiors be brought up on charges of high treason against the republic and executed

Exaggerate much?

Ya think? If so, ya got another think comin. Ya cant see my face, so ya cant see the fury and righteous indignation in my eyes, but you're willfully obtuse if ya took the tone of my words for exaggeration. We cant just sit back and let em get away with a slap on the wrist, or let em get away with it altogether. This is the single most serious crime against the republic in years, perpetrated by the very people we entrusted and empowered to defend it, and the guilty must be made an example of so as to ensure it never happens again.

[rhertz]

New Orleans could have been hit by a hurricane at any time in the last 100+ years. It could have happened under Edwards or Treen or Roemer, but it didn't. Blanco won that lottery by chance, and suffers these days because she is white and also because of liberalism.

I seriously doubt any politician could be prepared for such a disaster, not because the scientists didn't predict the event wouldn't eventually happen, but because of a rise in socialism. What we witnessed was the lack of government being able to save the day. Only liberals think the government should be reponsible for your life and welfare. And if that his true, it is nice not to be responsible for your own well being, just let the government take care of it. The result is having your guns taken away. The result is being stuck in a hell hole. Many people don't get it, because they want to rely on the government instead of themselves. People who put faith in their government over themselves don't deserve to survive in a world where survivial of the fittest still rings true.

Some people are not able to take care of themselves, elderly, children, etc. But I would rather rely on my family, my church, my friends, and my paid help anyday of the week over government, and I don't even give them 30% plus of my paycheck.

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by rhertz

New Orleans could have been hit by a hurricane at any time in the last 100+ years. It could have happened under Edwards or Treen or Roemer, but it didn't. Blanco won that lottery by chance, and suffers these days because she is white and also because of liberalism.

I seriously doubt any politician could be prepared for such a disaster, not because the scientists didn't predict the event wouldn't eventually happen, but because of a rise in socialism. What we witnessed was the lack of government being able to save the day. Only liberals think the government should be reponsible for your life and welfare. And if that his true, it is nice not to be responsible for your own well being, just let the government take care of it. The result is having your guns taken away. The result is being stuck in a hell hole. Many people don't get it, because they want to rely on the government instead of themselves. People who put faith in their government over themselves don't deserve to survive in a world where survivial of the fittest still rings true.

Some people are not able to take care of themselves, elderly, children, etc. But I would rather rely on my family, my church, my friends, and my paid help anyday of the week over government, and I don't even give them 30% plus of my paycheck.

I agree with everythin you've said, Rhertz. I dont blame Blank-O for bein unlucky enough to have Katrina happen on her watch. But I believe she was complicit in and thus culpable for that unconscionable crime against the law-abidin people of that area, and she should be punished for it.

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by rhertz

I seriously doubt any politician could be prepared for such a disaster

I think Haley Barbour did a credible job.