After hurricane katrina , local law enforcement seized firearms from citizens due to the fact that they were under-manned and thought that it may lead to more chaos , which in fact all it did was leave people that were looking after there things unprotected , as of last week in is now "quote" "This amendment specifically prohibits the temporary or permanent seizure of lawfully owned firearms just because a state of emergency has been declared" . It passed the senate 86 to 14 and im sure i dont have to tell you that the 14 opposed were ...demoquacks
2006-07-20 10:56:03 · 13 answers · asked by Hippie Hunter 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Appearently not Jim T , try a little research before you open your cake hole
2006-07-20 11:07:51 · update #1
Well the Liberals have been after our guns for a long time. This is a big step to protecting our rights (and some people won't vote). The first step toward totalitarianism is disarming the people. Chalk one up for the good guys!
2006-07-20 11:03:14 · answer #1 · answered by Ethan M 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
First of all, it was passed July 13th, not 14th and second of all, it's not an amendment to the constitution (which is what it sounds like you're saying), but an amendment to a spending bill for homeland security. Plus, only the Senate has passed it.
2006-07-20 11:23:53 · answer #2 · answered by James 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Amendments have to be ratified by the states before any alteration to the Constitution can be made.
As to the opposition, we don't need another badly written law that is unenforcable and later overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
2006-07-20 11:00:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is illegal to seize weapons like that in the first place. Congress probably passed a bill and not an amendment that isn't necessary anyway.
2006-07-20 11:13:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you could cite your "amendment" you might be more believable. Katrina happened last year, and an amendment takes a lot longer than that to pass.
2006-07-20 11:03:12 · answer #5 · answered by Jim T 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well whats the bills number? all bills have a number .....you end your comment bemoaning the democrats for what? opposing a bill that would deny protecting your right to defend your self.......maybe you should proof read your comments better..and 86/14 sounds like a lot of republicans were for it .
2006-07-20 11:06:16 · answer #6 · answered by tough as hell 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
timm, people used firearms to defend themselves from looters and thugs who took advantage of an overstretched police and emergency response force.
Hell, there were even police officers indicted for looting.
Six men come to your house looking to take whatever's valuable - they'll probably think twice when you come out brandishing that shotgun.
2006-07-20 11:02:39 · answer #7 · answered by rsantos19 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
do you usually have to work this hard to feel oppressed? do you usually come here to cry about it when your side wins?
i don't really care that much, because i don't want a gun myself... but you just look like a fruitcake when you complain because you got your way. tell you what... call me when the demoncrats actually get their act together. then i'll see if they're worth worrying about or not.
2006-07-20 11:15:09 · answer #8 · answered by uncle osbert 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yep, I heard about it, and was glad. I'm going to shoot the next hurricane that gets anywhere NEAR my hourse, right in the head.
2006-07-20 10:59:33 · answer #9 · answered by timm1776 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yawn.
2006-07-20 11:00:05 · answer #10 · answered by ratboy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋