Could Gun Registration Have Prevented Katrina Gun-Grab?

[Nakatomi]

They defiantly learned a lesson. They learned that they can invade our homes and take our firearms and no body is going to try to stop them or do **** about it...

This is true. On a patriotic level, we all feel "they can pry them from our cold dead fingers". But the reality is, if they come through the door when your wife is in the kitchen and your children are playing at your feet, you are not in a very good position to make a last stand. You will likely be disarmed, as risking your life in that situation has no upside...better to live another day and try to rearm. The only way to counter this would be to have planned ahead in some way, cached your weapons in advance, etc. If they catch you flatfooted as many in Katrina did, you don't have many options.

 

[Nakatomi]

ABC News video on September 8 showed National Guard troops going house-to-house, smashing down doors, searching for residents, and confiscating guns. Every victim of disarmament was clearly not a thug or looter, but a decent resident wanting to defend his or her home.
Many of the troops were clearly conflicted by their orders. "It is surreal," said one member of the Oklahoma National Guard who was going door-to-door in New Orleans. "You never expect to do this in your own country."

That's an amazing video, I had not seen that one. Funny thing, most of the troops interviewed felt very strongly that it was a bad idea.

Not one of them said, "I'm not going to do it." But than again, how can they refuse? Court martial and prison would follow. So our expecting our troops to back us up in something like this is not gonna happen, even though their hearts are in the right place.

Same thing happened in Nazi germany. I'm guessing many if not most of the german soldiers didn't agree with what was happening, but when the boulder starts rolling, you either roll along, or get crushed. The time to change things is before the boulder starts rolling.

 

[flagtag]

ABC News video on September 8 showed National Guard troops going house-to-house, smashing down doors, searching for residents, and confiscating guns. Every victim of disarmament was clearly not a thug or looter, but a decent resident wanting to defend his or her home.
Many of the troops were clearly conflicted by their orders. "It is surreal," said one member of the Oklahoma National Guard who was going door-to-door in New Orleans. "You never expect to do this in your own country."

That's an amazing video, I had not seen that one. Funny thing, most of the troops interviewed felt very strongly that it was a bad idea.

Not one of them said, "I'm not going to do it." But than again, how can they refuse? Court martial and prison would follow. So our expecting our troops to back us up in something like this is not gonna happen, even though their hearts are in the right place.

Same thing happened in Nazi germany. I'm guessing many if not most of the german soldiers didn't agree with what was happening, but when the boulder starts rolling, you either roll along, or get crushed. The time to change things is before the boulder starts rolling.

Possibly court martial, but not necessarily prison. Unless it would be for the person(s) who issued the orders. Especially if the information became public. (hint)

 

[ATF Consumer]

This is true. On a patriotic level, we all feel "they can pry them from our cold dead fingers". But the reality is, if they come through the door when your wife is in the kitchen and your children are playing at your feet, you are not in a very good position to make a last stand. You will likely be disarmed, as risking your life in that situation has no upside...better to live another day and try to rearm. The only way to counter this would be to have planned ahead in some way, cached your weapons in advance, etc. If they catch you flatfooted as many in Katrina did, you don't have many options.

You may let them take your guns, but not me...
To allow them to take your guns, you might as well be dead, as you are of no use to the cause. If you don't stand up for freedom, what do you or would you stand up for?

 

[INRanger]

How does being gunned down in the kitchen in front of your wife and kids help the "cause"? There is a time to fight and kill but that time is not when my family is in the kill zone. I am no ones martyr. A cause can only be obtained through organized resistance. Individuals dieing as individuals serves no cause.

 

[Nakatomi]

You may let them take your guns, but not me...
To allow them to take your guns, you might as well be dead, as you are of no use to the cause. If you don't stand up for freedom, what do you or would you stand up for?

"He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight." - Sun Tsu

" The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable." - Sun Tsu

 

[ATF Consumer]

How does being gunned down in the kitchen in front of your wife and kids help the "cause"? There is a time to fight and kill but that time is not when my family is in the kill zone. I am no ones martyr. A cause can only be obtained through organized resistance. Individuals dieing as individuals serves no cause.

I simply won't let the red coats come into my home and disregard my rights...you may, but not me.

This won't just be individuals dying, as if each home actually defended their property, it's not likely that they would continue to come to each home and attempt to slaughter it's members, to get the guns.
I'm not looking to be a martyr, simply a citizen defending my rights...if you don't defend them, then you simply won't have them...
Once they get your guns, what will you do when they come to take away your next freedom? When would you stand up and say "hell no"?
Once your guns are gone, you really don't have much room to speak, or the liberty to do so...

 

[INRanger]

I completely agree with the necessity of defending our rights. If it ever came to it I would fight and kill for my rights. I fight to win. The other guy is much bigger than me. I have to make him fight my fight at a time of my choosing or I simply cannot win. the example given earlier in the post is not winnable, better to survive and fight my fight later. A tyrannical government will not simply kill a certain amount of dissenters and then stop of there own accord. Only an organized opposition can stand against one. You may not be looking to be a martyr but as the lone gunman that is exactly what you will become.

 

[Nakatomi]

I completely agree with the necessity of defending our rights. If it ever came to it I would fight and kill for my rights. I fight to win. The other guy is much bigger than me. I have to make him fight my fight at a time of my choosing or I simply cannot win. the example given earlier in the post is not winnable, better to survive and fight my fight later. A tyrannical government will not simply kill a certain amount of dissenters and then stop of there own accord. Only an organized opposition can stand against one. You may not be looking to be a martyr but as the lone gunman that is exactly what you will become.

The challenge for us is to forge that common will to fight and organize PRIOR to the point where the troops start kicking in doors.

Unfortunately it is human nature to not do those sorts of things until already faced with adversity. Look at things with gas prices now; since prices have dropped, suddenly people aren't in such a panic to buy that Prius Hybrid like they were a few months ago. It's not the the core threat is gone (of coming high energy prices), it's just that the threat is not imminent.

 

[ATF Consumer]

I completely agree with the necessity of defending our rights. If it ever came to it I would fight and kill for my rights. I fight to win. The other guy is much bigger than me. I have to make him fight my fight at a time of my choosing or I simply cannot win. the example given earlier in the post is not winnable, better to survive and fight my fight later. A tyrannical government will not simply kill a certain amount of dissenters and then stop of there own accord. Only an organized opposition can stand against one. You may not be looking to be a martyr but as the lone gunman that is exactly what you will become.

If each home confiscation was met with resistance from the citizens, they just wouldn't keep fighting house to house...if they did, then I would hope each home continue to defend their property, and you would see neighborhoods standing up for their freedom.

So you let would them come and take your guns...you do nothing.

Then you later, organize with other people who also got their guns taken away, and you go fight the tyrannical government with broomsticks?

 

[INRanger]

If each home confiscation was met with resistance from the citizens, they just wouldn't keep fighting house to house...if they did, then I would hope each home continue to defend their property, and you would see neighborhoods standing up for their freedom.

So you let would them come and take your guns...you do nothing.

Then you later, organize with other people who also got their guns taken away, and you go fight the tyrannical government with broomsticks?

If something like what was discussed in this thread were to happen it would not happen over night. If all of your eggs are in one basket then thats on you. The only thing that resistance or isolated resistance in particular is going to accomplish will be to change the tactics they use and the ROE that they abide by. Any Private in the Army should be able to tell you that smaller, poorly equipped(comparatively) force WILL be destroyed if in a fixed position. FMI 3-24.2 the army field manual on counter insurgency available on the internat I'm sure. The first chapter I believe goes into the characteristics of a successful insurgency, everything you have said so far that you think should be done is on the "unsuccessful" list. A realativly small group with "broomsticks", the will to win and the support of the people can change history. Just ask England.

 

[ATF Consumer]

If something like what was discussed in this thread were to happen it would not happen over night. If all of your eggs are in one basket then thats on you. The only thing that resistance or isolated resistance in particular is going to accomplish will be to change the tactics they use and the ROE that they abide by. Any Private in the Army should be able to tell you that smaller, poorly equipped(comparatively) force WILL be destroyed if in a fixed position. FMI 3-24.2 the army field manual on counter insurgency available on the internat I'm sure. The first chapter I believe goes into the characteristics of a successful insurgency, everything you have said so far that you think should be done is on the "unsuccessful" list. A realativly small group with "broomsticks", the will to win and the support of the people can change history. Just ask England.

Yeah, I see how well they kept their arms...

 

[INRanger]

You may have missed the point. I'll try again - Just ask King George the third.

 

[rambone]

A realativly small group with "broomsticks", the will to win and the support of the people can change history.

For all of our sakes I suggest you hide your "broomsticks" somewhere besides the broom closet. Decide where sooner rather than later. Refuse all requests and attempts by Big Brother to dis-broom you.

 

[SavageEagle]

For all of our sakes I suggest you hide your "broomsticks" somewhere besides the broom closet. Decide where sooner rather than later. Refuse all requests and attempts by Big Brother to dis-broom you.

I'll just fly away on my broomstick. Send an F-16 or F-22 after me. I'll zap you out the sky with my wand!

Seriously though...

I understand both ATF's side and Ranger's side on this. Both make good points, but tactics are everything. "They" have the upperhand there. BUT, if every gun owner resisted, it would end SOMEWHERE. They would change their tactics. But by then the word would be out and the proverbial SHTF wouldn't be so proverbial anymore. Think of the movie RD. While it IS just a movie, consider how it started. The ruskies had to start somewhere so they started at the most effecient place. Middle America. Where resistance would be the strongest. Not NY or LA or Washington. Then they went straight for the 4473. Who needs gun registration? It's already there! Kinda.

Look, they might come for me, they might come for my guns. But they won't step foot in my house while I"m breathing. Gas will be effective, but I'm not going without a fight. I don't want to put my kids in that kind of situation and I won't if I have any say in it. But I won't sit by while they violate every orfice of my being either. What good does it do if they confiscate every gun you own and leave you with spitballs and nerf guns? Those not trained like McGuyver won't stand a snowballs chance in hell in ANY kind of resistance. I don't want to be a martyr either, but there will be some in the beginning no matter how it goes down.

That, my friends, is why we must organize NOW to prevent that. Go to the google machine and search for Indy Defenders of Liberty and help formulate a plan, a way forward. We are certainly lacking any serious leadership.

 

[dburkhead]

I understand both ATF's side and Ranger's side on this. Both make good points, but tactics are everything.

I'm going to disagree with you a bit here, not with the adage about "amateurs study tactics while professionals study logistics" (true, but not germane here) but with the equally true adage that tactics are always subordinate to strategy.

Strategy must dictate tactics, not the other way around. You need to take the longer, overall view, and figure out how the particular battle--and how it's fought--fits into the overall plan. Do it the other way around and chase after tactics while forgetting strategy and you have the recipe for winning battles while losing the war. We've seen that happen before both militarily and politically (which is no surprise. As Clauswitz said, "war is politics by other means").

I really recommend a study of military history to anyone who is interested in being politically active--not just studying battles but what various military thinkers and philosophers had to say on the matter. People recommend Sun Tsu and Musashi's Book of Five Rings as guides to business. Well, Clauswitz' "On War," the letters of von Moltke the Elder, as well as more modern writers such as Dupuy's "Understanding Defeat" or Kagan's "The Mask of Command" can be highly useful for someone wanting to affect the political arena.

 

[SavageEagle]

I'm going to disagree with you a bit here, not with the adage about "amateurs study tactics while professionals study logistics" (true, but not germane here) but with the equally true adage that tactics are always subordinate to strategy.

Strategy must dictate tactics, not the other way around. You need to take the longer, overall view, and figure out how the particular battle--and how it's fought--fits into the overall plan. Do it the other way around and chase after tactics while forgetting strategy and you have the recipe for winning battles while losing the war. We've seen that happen before both militarily and politically (which is no surprise. As Clauswitz said, "war is politics by other means").

I really recommend a study of military history to anyone who is interested in being politically active--not just studying battles but what various military thinkers and philosophers had to say on the matter. People recommend Sun Tsu and Musashi's Book of Five Rings as guides to business. Well, Clauswitz' "On War," the letters of von Moltke the Elder, as well as more modern writers such as Dupuy's "Understanding Defeat" or Kagan's "The Mask of Command" can be highly useful for someone wanting to affect the political arena.

Oh no, you're right. We're talking about the same things I just wasnt being clear. Sorry for that. Plus I think I may have gone overboard and confused tactics and strategy, but meant it all the same. I must have been too busy playing it all out in my head. I guess I should get some more before responding next time. But you are right. Strategy, the overall plan, and tactics, how to accomplish those goals are not the same and please forgive me for not specifying and being clear.

As for politicians and knowledge of those that you describe... that's why I'd vote for an ex-military person over a college educated douche anyday. Not that non-service members don't make good politicians, I just haven't seen many lately that were.

 

[finity]

Tell that to the media. To them, accusations means guilt. Our society has been dealing with an insane, almost discriminatory, rise in the fear of citizen gun ownership thanks to the media.

Not really. In fact almost the opposite. No matter how the anti-gun media tries to whip up the masses against gun ownership it seems that it's having the direct opposite effect as witnessed by the huge sales in guns & ammo & the recently posted poll on MSNBC on the AWB.

3. "But under marshal law, do they really have to follow it?" The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is the basis for all other law within this country. WE, THE PEOPLE, have empowered the government with this document. We are the master of the government, not the other way around. If the government wants to try to suspend the document that gives it it's power to begin with, then the government just became a tyranical dictatorship, not unlike Stalinist Russia or Kim Jung Il's North Korea. I fear that if the government were to do this on a nation-wide scale, it would be the beginning of the 2nd American Revolution. I truly believe the only reason that New Orleans was not the match that set off the powder keg of the 2nd American Revolution was that the gun confiscation in New Orleans affected such a small area and relatively small group of people.

I can speak for no other, but if the government decides to "suspend" the Constitution or Bill of Rights, it is time to fight, by whatever means necessary. Thomas Jefferson spoke of it as a duty in the Declaration of Independence.

+1+

search no more... My unit was.

Thats a hard one to answer... if you look a few posts below yours you will see a video... lets just say that that video does not even come CLOSE in the least to the way things went down in the AO's i opperated in in N.O. it was the 38th that i was with, but there were higher powers at work and EVERYONE was in charge of us.... lets just say that I am affraid of what the military can do during martial law, because i have participated in it and i will leave it there not for suspence but because i feel obligated not to let my experiences hit a public forum. and to set the record straight, i do not believe martial law was ever declared... had it been, God Help Us. as for that round, i may take you up on that.

Before your other posts I was going to ask for details but you've already refused those & others have posted evidence so your side is not relevent any longer. Unless there is exculpatory evidence to try to justify those unconstitutional actions.

IndyGunworks - As a soldier it is your responsibility to understand as well a defend the constitution. I don't know what orders you followed or decisions you made and believe me brother I wouldn't any against you. No one who wasn't to your left or right has any place to judge. I do hope that you and the members of your unit learned a valuable lesson, so if our country is ever faced with similar misfortune history does not repeat. The statement " EVERYONE was in charge of us" is a very sorry statement it tells me your chain of command failed you in a very fundamental way. Ours is not to reason why...******** why is only an uncomfortable question to those that didn't have the personal courage(oh I did!) to ask it themselves.

These actions taken by our military are exactly why the logic of hiding these images from the American public are so flawed. In another thread it was argued that "soldiers have to do things" in times of war that wouldn't normally be allowed. Do those who argued that now not see how allowing them to violate the laws of the UCMJ & Geneva Conventions might give them the false sense that "anything" is OK as long as they thought they "had to" & besides "I was just following orders"? These things were not done to enemy combatants on some far away foreign battlefield but to innocent US civilians right in our own backyard.

We even had a member of those NG units who in this very thread admitted that he was "afraid" of what our military would do to US if real martial law is declared. That speaks huge volumes by itself.

"lets just say that I am affraid of what the military can do during martial law, because i have participated in it and i will leave it there not for suspence but because i feel obligated not to let my experiences hit a public forum. and to set the record straight, i do not believe martial law was ever declared... had it been, God Help Us."

This is true. On a patriotic level, we all feel "they can pry them from our cold dead fingers". But the reality is, if they come through the door when your wife is in the kitchen and your children are playing at your feet, you are not in a very good position to make a last stand. You will likely be disarmed, as risking your life in that situation has no upside...better to live another day and try to rearm. The only way to counter this would be to have planned ahead in some way, cached your weapons in advance, etc. If they catch you flatfooted as many in Katrina did, you don't have many options.

Absolutely. The innocent people involved had no idea that they had anything to fear from LE & the NG. They were caught completely off-guard. The LE/NG were successful because they had the element of surprise on their side. "That can't happen in the USA". I hate to say it but "it" did.

Unfortunately, the events of Katrina & its aftermath will affect how people involved in future disasters interact with LE/military. I don't think it will be in a good way.

ABC News video on September 8 showed National Guard troops going house-to-house, smashing down doors, searching for residents, and confiscating guns. Every victim of disarmament was clearly not a thug or looter, but a decent resident wanting to defend his or her home.
Many of the troops were clearly conflicted by their orders. "It is surreal," said one member of the Oklahoma National Guard who was going door-to-door in New Orleans. "You never expect to do this in your own country."

That's an amazing video, I had not seen that one. Funny thing, most of the troops interviewed felt very strongly that it was a bad idea.

Not one of them said, "I'm not going to do it." But than again, how can they refuse? Court martial and prison would follow. So our expecting our troops to back us up in something like this is not gonna happen, even though their hearts are in the right place.

Same thing happened in Nazi germany. I'm guessing many if not most of the german soldiers didn't agree with what was happening, but when the boulder starts rolling, you either roll along, or get crushed. The time to change things is before the boulder starts rolling.

"I was just following orders" was not found to be a good excuse in the war crimes trials against the Nazi's. I hope its not a good excuse if it gets to that point now either.

If something like what was discussed in this thread were to happen it would not happen over night. If all of your eggs are in one basket then thats on you. The only thing that resistance or isolated resistance in particular is going to accomplish will be to change the tactics they use and the ROE that they abide by. Any Private in the Army should be able to tell you that smaller, poorly equipped(comparatively) force WILL be destroyed if in a fixed position. FMI 3-24.2 the army field manual on counter insurgency available on the internat I'm sure. The first chapter I believe goes into the characteristics of a successful insurgency, everything you have said so far that you think should be done is on the "unsuccessful" list. A realativly small group with "broomsticks", the will to win and the support of the people can change history. Just ask England.

On one hand I have to point out that the reason why we went to war against our fellow countrymen (the English) was because they were trying to disarm us. We, then, refused to allow that to happen. We were successful for exactly that reason. We had arms that were essentially equivalent to what the British military had. Maybe not in the same numbers but technologically equivalent & we refused to be disarmed of them.

OTOH, we have also seen how a group of unorganized poorly equipped villagers can overcome & defeat a much larger force through sheer force of will & tenacity. (See Afghanistan v. the Soviets & the Iraqisv. the US.) It's amazing what people can do when they are defending their homes & families.

 

[DustinG]

It doesn't matter whether it would have or not, gun registration is unconstititutional. I believe they would have went to the registered houses first because they would have known who had the guns...