Code Red: Martial Law

[wundermaus]

Run time: 09:54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfzE0FnVWCg   Posted on YouTube: August 24, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: August 26, 2007 By DU Member: wundermaus Views on DU: 2470

 
(The video above refers to the seizure of guns during Katrina and is not connected to current events below except regarding "Posse Comitatus")

Local Troops Deploy To Nation's Capital

POSTED: 12:20 pm EDT August 22, 2007
UPDATED: 11:54 am EDT August 24, 2007

DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- Members of the 1st Battalion 265 Air Defense Artillery have mobilized and are on a plane headed first to Ft. Bliss, then for federal active duty in the capital region.

The troops will be deployed for a year.

"It's going to be all right It's OK if he helps people and everything, and it's his job. He’s got to do it. He just got to do it," Jessica Ward said, whose father is being deployed.

Jessica speaks for many when she talks about her father's deployment.

Michael Ward and company are leaving for a year, and that weighs heavy on families.

The 265th is part of Operation Noble Eagle.

<< more >>
http://www.wesh.com/news/13949580/detail.html

[purduejake]

1. A bunch of white men finally realize what it's like to be violated by police.

How many times do people have to be told that if you allow the rights of minorities to be chipped away, the government will eventually come after YOU? This is truly unfortunate, but we should have seen it coming.

[GliderGuider]

2. This is ominous

And I hate guns. I think that a gun is ONLY ever appropriate for hunting food and pest control.

Come north to Canada... while you still can. (just leave your guns at home :hide: )

[Howzit]

15. I hate alcohol. Alcohol is only ever appropriate for cleaning guns.

You are welcome to your opinion, but based on this video you have more to fear from government thugs with guns than your next door neighbor.

If you don't believe in the fundamental right to defend your life from an unlawful attack then you will have no use for guns. You can’t depend on government agents to defend you from human predators – cops investigate homicide, they don’t prevent it.

[SteveM]

16. Hear, hear. (nt)

[Howzit]

19. 911 Call Centers Overtaxed

http://www.ktvu.com/news/13977839/detail.html


LOS ANGELES -- California's emergency agencies are struggling to adapt to a surge in calls from cell phones that have overwhelmed the state's 911 system, leading to lost calls and long waits, according to a published report. Cell phone emergency calls take longer to handle and dispatchers can easily become swamped, such as when multiple callers report from the same accident scene.

The state says 90 percent of 911 calls should be answered in less than 10 seconds. But at the California Highway Patrol's two largest call centers -- in Los Angeles and San Francisco -- waits averaged more than five times that amount, according to data covering January through July of this year. It's extra time that could be the difference between life and death when a child is choking or an assault is occurring.

Elementary school counselor Brad Edwards waited eight minutes for a dispatcher to pick up an emergency call he made from his cell phone when a student collapsed and began foaming at the mouth. "The fire station is just a few blocks away," he said. "I could have run there faster than it took them to help me."

The longest waits through July -- an average of the longest delays each month -- were 27 minutes in the Los Angeles area, 47 minutes in the Ventura area and more than 16 minutes in the Bay Area.

[sasquatch]

3. What did these douchebags think they were voting for all these years

Whenever you see reactionary thugs you just go ahead and think "fascist", got it.

[lovuian]

4. they don't have the manpower its pretty obvious

such a joke

[Perry Logan]

5. Quick reminder: there is no right to bear arms.

"There is no constitutional protected right to bear arms, of the kind so often cited in the press and by National Rifle Association (NRA) supporters. This is the reason the NRA almost never claims in court of law that state and federal regulations controlling guns are illegal. The NRA instead wisely prefers to deal with legislators, especially with those that need campaign contributions."
http://www.speakout.com/activism/opinions/5237-1.html

[L1A1Rocker]

6. I disagree

The 2A argument has never been addressed in a final way. In the miller case you can take selected parts and be able to argue both points. It would have been nice had miller lived and his legal team present during the case being herd by SCOTUS.

It looks like the D.C. case is heading to SCOTUS and that should settle a lot of arguments.

I do find it intellectually dishonest however, to say that the bill of rights is to protect the rithts of the people with the exception of that pesky 2nd one. It only applays to the state militias. That is simple BS on it's face.

[krispos42]

7. Yeah, there is

It's there under either the 2nd or 9th Amendments until and unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Note that DC's handgun ban was recently found to be unconstitutional.

[SteveM]

10. WRONG. Try reading these left-of-center Constitutional scholars:

William Van Alstyne (Duke, former ACLU national board); Akhil Amar (Yale); Sanford Levinson (U. of Texas); Alan Dershowitz (former ACLU national board); and of course Laurence Tribe, the great poo-bah of the "communitarian right" (states regulate only in order to maintain a militia). They all conceded NOW that individuals have an INDIVIDUAL Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Note also that the NRA does not speak for me.

BTW, you have read the Parker decision, haven't you? The plaintiff, Parker, was represented by an attorney, Levy, from the Cato Institute; the NRA didn't speak for her, either.

[SteveM]

17. More on the overwhelming scholarship which is "pro-individual rights..."

Don Kates, a civil liberties lawyer, points to a survey of Second Amendment scholarship from 1980 to about 1995 and found that only a few of the articles supported the "communitarian interpretation" of the Amendment. In fact, the preponderance of "individual rights" articles has given rise to the term: "standard model," so christened by Glenn H. Reynolds, "A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment," 62 Tennessee Law Review, 461 (1995). Tellingly, even the vituperative anti-2A Garry Wills and anti-2A Andrew Herz have accepted the term "standard model" -- even while arguing against it! In addition, my reading of the 14th Amendment (1868) debate is replete with argument that the measure is necessary to protect newly-freed slaves by assuring their right to keep and bear arms; we don't have to ask why. And we also know that the 14th Amendment was/is the workhorse of modern civil rights legislation and court rulings.

You should read Kates and Kleck's The Great American Gun Debate; a real eye-opener into the deceptive and unethical approaches scholars and main-media have taken to promulgate their anti-2A views.

[benEzra]

20. The "people" in the 2ndA are the same "people" as in the 1stA and 4thA.

The right recognized by the 2ndA is recognized as belonging to the people, NOT merely males of military age.

The view of the 2ndA as protecting the right of the government to keep and bear arms dates to the 20th century, not the 18th, and constitutional scholarship has since swung back toward the individual-right view. This was apparent as far back as the mid-'90s.

Barnett and Kates, "Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment" 45 Emory L.J. 1139-1259 (1996) (Link)

BTW, the "no right to bear arms" quotation was from a prominent advocate for draconian gun bans, Amitai Etzioni, who is no more an impartial source than Charleton Heston. If you look at his writings, and those of other communitarians, he is also not particularly enamored of the 1st and 4th amendments, either.

The DLC is largely a communitarian organization ("Third Way" is a communitarian meme), though it is arguably less so now than in the '90s.

BTW, Mr. Etzioni's twisting of U.S. v. Cruikshank is laughable. He says,

The Supreme Court first addressed the issue to the right to bear arms in the United States v. Cruikshank. In that case, Ku Klux Klan members were charged with infringing the constitutional rights of black citizens to bear arms. The Supreme Court ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution."

Cruikshank said that NONE of the rights in the BoR are granted by the constitution, because those rights (including the right to keep and bear arms) predate the Constitution and could not therefore be granted by it; the Constitution merely recognizes and protects those rights. Look it up.

[DS1]

8. I've always said that when the Gov't decides to take your weapons

they'll damn well do it rather easily



and on another note: When will youtube finally program in some GODDAMN VOLUME STABILIZATION! :D

[SteveM]

11. Think they got most of them? Any right can be usurped easily -- if you let it happen.

[coco77]

9. Ok,republiCONS...

What do you have to say about this republiCON adminstration taking your guns. THis is one of the main reasons some of you claim that you vote for that party. I would love to see them go take Ted Nugents gun can we hear ted saying "out of my cold dead hands". I will bet you this people will continue to crawl under the republiCONS balls next election. SUPRISE!SURPRISE! welcome to the real world, they don't believe this is their country. They got what they bargained for...With all of the information that has been given about this admin they continue to believe that they really give a damn about them.

[SteveM]

12. Uh, who are you talking to? Post this on a right-wing site.

[coco77]

13. This is for the trolls...

who are on this site, trying to stir up confusions between the Dems.

[bamacrat]

14. I am so fucking mad right now.

That is wrong and I fear it will begin happening everywhere. But, that happened after a disaster, if they tried to come into certain areas of the country that haven't been decimated, particularly the south and very urban areas, there will be a fight. I know off hand at least 10 "survivalists" that have been preparing for this their entire lives, they have unbelievable arsenals in their houses. Fighting back would be our only chance to stop this.

[SteveM]

18. The more I read this, the more disturbed I become...

I have written the WESH reporter asking her if this deployment was to supplement an existing scheme of capital defense, or a new measure. In either case, what kind of threat does the Bush Administration see which requires what appears to be an anti-aircraft unit to station at the capital? I was under the impression our defense forces were stretched.

[SeattleGirl]

21. Holy crap! I'm no fan of guns, but this is so wrong.

The only good thing is that for the people who think the 2nd Amendment is the only Amendment, maybe they will wake up to what's going on in this country, and be willing to join the rest of us in fighting back.