| Police Officers in New Orleans Confiscating Most Firearms |
|
|
|
| Written by Jeff Garvas | |
| Friday, 09 September 2005 | |
|
The New York Times is reporting that law enforcement is confiscating most firearms from almost anyone remaining in New Orleans. This is a double edged sword in a sense. While government sponsored disarming of Americans is unacceptable, some would argue that New Orleans is sometimes just as dangerous as some insurgent infested areas of Iraq. Does that justify taking firearms since you're evacuating the people to a safer area, or does it embolden the arguement that citizens need those firearms to defend themselves against the lawless? New Orleans, for the time being, is a city that should not be lived in. For the past week people have looted stores, ransacked pawn shops, and shot at rescue workers and technicians fixing cellular towers and other utilities. Anarchy and chaos have ruled for some time, but the New York Times article implies that calm has taken over. Where is the perceived threat justifying confiscation? Disarming evacuees might be understandable in such limited and extreme cases if certain "return" guarantees were met, but the fact remains that these confiscations are not being applied uniformly at all, and that reveals the true discrimination in New Orleans. From The New York Times Story: (Emphasis added)
But that order apparently does not apply to hundreds of security guards hired by businesses and some wealthy individuals to protect property. The guards, employees of private security companies like Blackwater, openly carry M-16's and other assault rifles. Mr. Compass said that he was aware of the private guards, but that the police had no plans to make them give up their weapons. Ironically Ohioans For Concealed Carry just recently highlighted the fact that in times of disaster such as riots, looting, and now Hurricane Katrina, those left behind seek out the bare neccesities in life: Food, Water, and the tools to defend yourself. |