Because that's not treason. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." It was wrong and unconstitutional but it was not treason.

If they declined they were beaten, tazed and pepper sprayed. I would consider it battery, intimidation and theft. Basically it was state ran home invasions. Those fuckers should have been shot.

I've often thought that's the dumbest way to convict someone of treason ever. It basically requires those committing treason to rat eachother out, or to confess in court - something that people doing something naughty probably never ever ever will do.

Our founding fathers were not the smartest in some areas....

It removes the governments ability to say dissenters are committing treason. I think it should encompass government officials taking bribes though.

I agree.

"Unconstitutional" is not the same as "treason". Also, Katrina happened in 2005, and the Supreme Court's opinion in Heller (ruling that the 2A protects an individual right) wasn't issued until 2008, so it's tough to go after the cops now for failing to guess what the Supreme Court would say 3 years in the future.

There has been litigation about this: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08-nra-katrina_N.htm

i would just like to throw in my two cents if i may. i personally do not care how bad things got after katrina, my guns are with me to protect me in these exact sernarios. papers werent asked for, guns where taken, most never returned. utter fucking bullshit. laws were pasts to keep this from happening again but, you know. one against 4 swat or national guards men will not end well. heres a fun clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

I doubt any such laws were passed.

I second that. Any official, that has taken the oath to uphold the constitution, from the lowest to the President should and is held accountable to THE PEOPLE. WE NEED TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION IN ACCORD WITH THE CONSTITUTION. If we do not exercise our right then it will be taken away.

People, including it seems the President, thinks we live in a democracy. In a democracy the majority of the people determine law. Well we don't, we live in a republic and the U.S. Constitution is the law and it has provisions for how it is amended. What we are seeing is a backdoor attack on the constitution by exploiting the loop hole... states rights. Obama is a constitutional lecturer, he knows that he would need 2/3 of congress to alter the Constition... so instead you get the states to do it via the pretaxt of "safety."

They alsio saw that when guns were seized after Katrina, no one tried to use the guns to resit the tyranny. Needless to say it is not in our nature to want to fight our fellow citizens... the founding fathers had the same issue. Many Americans sided with the British. We equally have tough decisions ahead.

I always heard that they did confiscate guns, but didn't know what they charged them with in order to take them. Makes sense. One question for OP, if I may? Where did you find out they ordered the confiscation under charges of treason? I'm not a debunker troll. I just usually use a mobile device unless it's the few minutes I get to spend at home. LOL!

I read incorrectly. My bad! :)

I've heard from a guy that was in the guard that went down there that there was some really fucked up shit going on, people being hung from bridges and being butchered, it was complete chaos, he said it was worse than when he served in Afghanistan.

I was in Houston at the time and many friends in NOLA. Was told that old folks homes were deliberately deserted, leaving bed ridden people to fend for themselves, some were not ambulatory. Same with hospitals, the floors filling up with water, people screaming, workers fled. They all drowned. Those who WANTED to help, were turned away by at the end of a gun by heavily armed nat. guard (ask your guy about that!) they were "following orders".

Because most Americans don't think it was a bad thing to TEMPORARILY take away guns from citizens during this natural disaster.

there is- a lead sandwich as prescribed by the 2A..

Because civil authority had deteriorated and something close to Marshall law was declared (State of emergency), which gave the state temporary special authority.

"....which gave the state temporary special authority."

Says who? I mean, did any citizens vote? They have special authority just because "THEY" say so?

I can claim to be the strongest man in the world, but that doesn't make it a fact!!!!

Elected officials, who were elected by voting citizens, made the call. So yes citizens did vote.

Holding a vote during a civil breakdown wouldn't make any sense, I don't even know how it would be possible.

Adolf Hitler was voted into office and began his sweeping political grab of power does that mean everything he and the nazi's did was legal and justified because they were elected in the beginning? the holocaust was LEGAL the soviet purges and the gulags that murdered millions of innocent people were LEGAL Mao's genocide was LEGAL

Legality does not mean jack shit there is only right and wrong and the handful of people who are willing to kill and die for what they believe

[deleted]

QUIT PROMOTING THIS BULLSHIT THAT PEOPLES VOTE CHANGE ANYTHING

You keep referring to a corrupt and broken system that is not serving the people.

Look at the whitehouse petition websites... ARE THEY LISTENING YOU FUCKING IGNORANT COCKSUCKER???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

You stupid fucks make me livid... Keep lying, only stupid people believe your shit.

You think 9/11 wasn't brought down with explosives or thermite?

You fucking stupid clown, DO YOU SEE ANYONE IN POWER LISTENING TO THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE SAYING RE-OPEN 9/11 ...

YOU STUPID FUCK. I hope you and your whole stupid family are first to be sent to these FEMA CAMPS.... (but wait, ITS LEGAL, and it's "for your protection!!!!! OMG OMG ... you better accept!!! ITS LEGAL, JUST TRY TO VOTE YOUR WAY OUT YOU STUPID CUNT.)

LOL

Yeah you don't sound crazy at all...totally sane.

I find it quite amusing that you cannot refute any of what I say, and then your only rebuttal is that I sound crazy.

I sound crazy? I think the paid actors from Sandy Hook sound crazy.

It doesn't matter to me what you think, but the truth cannot simply be changed just because you claim it so.

If you want to refute anything in this whole thread, be my guest.

BTW - Just because you spew bullshit for "the man" doesn't make your bullshit a reality. You aren't going to win the hearts and minds of us, you will only confuse and discredit us to more idiots like yourself.

Sandy Hook was a Psychological Operation.

If you are too stupid or naive to sense/see/feel/watch/taste it, then it makes you the fucking idiot, not us people who KNOW that there is much more to the story.

Again, you defend TPTB because you are getting paid to, because your a weak human, and you live your life to suck their dicks for money.

Some of us refuse a life of sucking others dicks.

I don't have to do anything to refute you. You asserted things without evidence so I dismiss them without evidence.

I just like to engage you because you sound so stupid eveytime you post, and it's good for a laugh.

you sound like fucking maniac

Can I ask you a serious question?

Would you like a civil conversation or debate on a few topics?

I would love to hear your opinions on conspiracy topics such as:

1) 9/11 - Jet fuel didn't bring em down / WTC 7 / Pentagon hit by missle

2) Federal Reserve - isn't a reserve - is a priv. corporation. defrauds us billions a year

3) Fema camps - they exist, they are not friendly, they are the enemy of freedom

4) Sandy hook - Talk about all the contradictory evidence - false media reports - lies to us - why was lanza in Chris Rodia's car - why did he shoot his own mom 4 times in the head (bullshit) , why did they claim that an assault rifle was found in his trunk - why were all the news and ambulance crews at the fire hall and not at the actual school on the day of? Why were the media interviews so sketchy? - look at the medical examiner, look at the victims dad laughing in another shot, then clearly putting on an act on TV ,

If you don't believe any of this, I am wasting my time here.

If you listen to the radio scanner of sandy hook, you can hear clearly "The teacher saw 2 shadows running past the gym " and a moment later you hear a scared/distressed cop " They are coming right at me!"

What about the man in the woods, dressed in black/camo, who was running away from the school, then got arrested.

If you don't think any of this is sketchy or is a conspiracy, I don't know what to tell you....

IT IS PROVEN that the media only tells us what they want us to know, and it's proven repeatedly that the media has an agenda. Why isn't any real reporting being done anymore? BECAUSE stupid sheeple accept whatever bullshit the TV tells them!

Is it really all so far-fetched that billionaire interests control everything, from politics to media, to the next disease, to the next economic collapse? If you think it's all just coincidence you are seriously deluded.

Check your messages.

So according to your flawed logic, just because some corrupt evil asshole who is voted into power signs laws he didn't even write, that makes everything "A-Ok" ?

They are trying to manipulate and control us people, and they are even actively trying to change (to their purposes of course!) the constitution that they are sworn to uphold.

Although in reality it might be 'better' for us scared sheeple to be forcefully dis-armed, I don't think any corrupt corporate controlled politician has any fucking say in my personal business (specifically in this case, being an American and owning a gun, which is a right!!!!)

It's not like you can change a 2-party system when both sides are the same and controlled by the exact same corporations.

So if you have only a say, by voting, which means nothing anyway, then what fucking say do you have? You're an idiot, I can tell.

He is still telling you what the law is. When civil society has broken down and the courts are not running then 'Martial Law' will likely be instigated in the areas (theatres of battle, areas of catastrophe etc ) where there is no access to civil society and the courts etc.

The Court stated what is almost painfully obvious: "Martial law ... destroys every guarantee of the Constitution."

Link

Unjust and unlawful "laws" might be 'legal", but they remain unlawful.

It doesn't matter who writes or signs illegal laws, or laws being contrary to the constitution, it does not mean that we must submit and obey.

Unjust and unlawful "laws" might be 'legal", but they remain unlawful

I just don't even know what to say.

Yes and it is this:

"Legal" looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and "Lawful" to the spirit [substance/content], of the law. "Legal" is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; "Lawful" for accord with ethical principle. "Legal" imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; "Lawful" that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. "Legal" is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive.

Toronto_Boy (sic) is demanding the letter of the law and not the spirit of it which martial law, confined as it is to where people's access to civil society and it's courts etc has been destroyed (and only to those places and durations), is trying to maintain the spirit of the law in order that the letter of the law will be reinstated as soon as possible.

Which, of course, after Katrina it was just as it was after the Civil War.

Summum ius, summa iniuria

Law applied to its extreme is the greatest injustice

Cicero

People who ballsed it out in Katrina might understandably keep crying about how they were treated but they, many of them who Mad Maxed it to the Max anyway even though they did not have to, were putting an intolerable burden on the limited resources that were available to the nation through their taxes to maintain the nation as best it could.

you stupid little troll.

you aren't welcome in r/conspiracy, so why don't you go shill somewhere else.

The big bowl of stupid is gonna be your family's enslavement you stupid fuck.

I welcome him in /r/conspiracy

why don't you get the fuck out?

he made a good argument as to why things are the way they are

you flailed around, insulted him, and outright made things up

shill or not, it's you that's the problem - clearly

Atlanta

Better buy a good pair of safety gloves then. That rifle might get a bit too hot to pick up.

Link

Yeah voting means nothing. We should just listen to whatever you say because you are obviously much smarter than everyone.

[deleted]

Perhaps they didn't have proof of legal ownership? Cause everything was in ruins? Or if they did the risk of it being fake was too big.

I think martial law / state of emergency etc is just equivalent to being in / under custody. Do you allow prisoners in prisons to carry guns?

On August 26, 2005, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was placed under martial law after widespread flooding rendered civil authority ineffective. The state of Louisiana does not have an actual legal construct called "martial law," but instead something quite like it: a state of public health emergency. The state of emergency allowed the governor to suspend laws, order evacuations, and limit the sales of items such as alcohol and firearms. The governor's order limited the state of emergency, to end on September 25, 2005, "unless terminated sooner."

Contrary to many media reports at the time, martial law was not declared in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, because no such term exists in Louisiana state law. However, a State of Emergency was declared, which does give unique powers to the state government similar to those of martial law. On the evening of August 31, 2005, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin nominally declared "martial law" and said that officers didn't have to observe civil rights and Miranda rights in stopping the looters.[28] Federal troops were a common sight in New Orleans after Katrina. At one point, as many as 15,000 federal troops and National Guardsmen patrolled the city. Additionally it has been reported that armed contractors from Blackwater USA assisted in policing the city.[29]

In this case, Lambden Milligan, for whom the case is named, was arrested in Indiana as a Confederate sympathizer. Indiana, like the rest of the United States, was part of a military district set up to help conduct the war. Milligan was tried by military commission and sentenced to die by hanging. After his conviction, Milligan petitioned the Circuit Court for habeas corpus, arguing that his arrest, trial, and conviction were all unconstitutional. What the Supreme Court had to decide, it said, was "Had [the military commission] the legal power and authority to try and punish [Milligan]?"

Resoundingly, the Court said no. The Court stated what is almost painfully obvious: "Martial law ... destroys every guarantee of the Constitution." The Court reminded the reader that such actions were taken by the King of Great Britain, which caused, in part, the Revolution. "Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish."

Did this mean that martial law could never be implemented? No, the Court said. The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it: When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: "If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."

Link

So you wouldn't mind if someone took away everything you own where you can't produce a receipt or other proof of ownership? That seems like a bad way to organize things.

A good way of organizing things would be not having a catastrophe at all. That is kind of the definition of things not being well organized: Catastrophe.

The people who think they weren't well treated during and after Katrina were given warning to get the hell out before hand. They choose, by not doing so, to tax the limited resources of their state and nation to breaking point. Resources it would rather expend on aiding those who were at the very bottom. People who couldn't afford either getting out or having shiny guns. Who were so low they had pawned all their guns if they had ever had any or were crippled (mentally or physically) while thieves who had looted homes and shops ran around with guns and had their fun with them. You remember the accounts of children being raped left right and center? In between this going on the forces available to the nation then have to rush over to the crackpots who think the constitution is just 'Mad Max: The Prelude'. Well if so ... great! They were prepared to take a stand and take their chances. They took them. Now they are crying. That's definitive.

Because most Americans don't think it was a bad thing to TEMPORARILY take away guns from citizens during this natural disaster.

Do you have a cite for that? Or perhaps you're just assuming everyone agrees with you because you find that idea comforting?

If I'm wrong it should be easy for you to rally support for OPs cause. Go for it.

And if you didn't just pull that out of your ass, it should be easy for you to cite your source.

I'm not here to rally support for anyone; I just think you're full of shit, and now you're apparently unhappy about being called on it.

cite a source that laws are passed lawfully?

oh, I'm guessing you'd prefer he prove it wasn't a conspiracy

No, the "most Americans don't think" part.

What about it don't you believe?

Where do you live?

I guess it's easy to discount how many people disagree with you

I would have more information about whether or not there were a lot of people who disagree with me if someone could provide the results of a credible survey. Until then, it's all just internet BS.

really?

where do you live?

I live in a city. there are a lot of people in cities. people in cities tend to favor gun control.

did you know that most people in this country live in a city?

I'm getting the impression it's you that's internet BS

I live in a city. there are a lot of people in cities. people in cities tend to favor gun control. did you know that most people in this country live in a city?

Like I thought, just bullshit from someone who wants to think everyone agrees with them. Thanks for the confirmation.

Like I thought, just bullshit from someone who wants to think everyone agrees with them.

You see, I don't think everyone thinks like I do. I'm talking to you now and I'm not in denial. It's you that can't fathom that others disagree. I'm well aware that there are many people in this country that don't want gun control. However, you don't seem to recognize that many do.

Is the difference between "many" and "most" really so obscure?

English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

You seem to think that it's impossible that most people in this country would want gun control - I'm saying you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to think that was actually a given. You know like - stupid enough to ignore about the largest demographic in the country.

You are the only one speaking in absolutes, yet it's you demanding others do the research.

Get a life fuckface

it's you demanding others do the research.

I'm not asking anyone to do any research, just to be honest about whether the things they state as facts are based upon anything other than their wishes and fantasies about how the world is.

If there's something being discussed here that requires research, then the guy who said he knew that most of the country supported Katrina gun confiscation owes us an apology, because he presented that as something we already know, not as an interesting question that could be answered with more effort.

then the guy who said he knew that most of the country supported Katrina gun confiscation owes us an apology

You are quite a dense turd huh? He didn't even suggest that anyway. He suggested that a majority of americans support a maintenance of order in the face of a crisis - this is demonstrated by the fact that our constitution grants the government such powers, and that we've furthermore voted for politicians that have codified more expressions of the same power.

I'm not asking anyone to do any research, just to be honest about whether the things they state as facts are based upon anything other than their wishes and fantasies about how the world is.

I wish this too, buddy

it wasn't a bad thing.

I read incorrectly. My bad! :)

I've heard from a guy that was in the guard that went down there that there was some really fucked up shit going on, people being hung from bridges and being butchered, it was complete chaos, he said it was worse than when he served in Afghanistan.

So according to your flawed logic, just because some corrupt evil asshole who is voted into power signs laws he didn't even write, that makes everything "A-Ok" ?

They are trying to manipulate and control us people, and they are even actively trying to change (to their purposes of course!) the constitution that they are sworn to uphold.

Although in reality it might be 'better' for us scared sheeple to be forcefully dis-armed, I don't think any corrupt corporate controlled politician has any fucking say in my personal business (specifically in this case, being an American and owning a gun, which is a right!!!!)

It's not like you can change a 2-party system when both sides are the same and controlled by the exact same corporations.

So if you have only a say, by voting, which means nothing anyway, then what fucking say do you have? You're an idiot, I can tell.

Adolf Hitler was voted into office and began his sweeping political grab of power does that mean everything he and the nazi's did was legal and justified because they were elected in the beginning? the holocaust was LEGAL the soviet purges and the gulags that murdered millions of innocent people were LEGAL Mao's genocide was LEGAL

Legality does not mean jack shit there is only right and wrong and the handful of people who are willing to kill and die for what they believe

And if you didn't just pull that out of your ass, it should be easy for you to cite your source.

I'm not here to rally support for anyone; I just think you're full of shit, and now you're apparently unhappy about being called on it.

I live in a city. there are a lot of people in cities. people in cities tend to favor gun control. did you know that most people in this country live in a city?

Like I thought, just bullshit from someone who wants to think everyone agrees with them. Thanks for the confirmation.

So you wouldn't mind if someone took away everything you own where you can't produce a receipt or other proof of ownership? That seems like a bad way to organize things.